Posted on 10/06/2007 2:38:18 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Ladies and Gentlemen and All Interested Parties...This is in regards to the previously advertised debate announced here previously.
The audio transcripts of the debate are now available here
The debate featured Professor Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society and Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.
Dawkins, voted by Europe's Prospect Magazine as one of the world's most important intellectuals, is regarded by many as the spokesman for the "New Atheism." BBC has labeled him "Darwin's Rottweiler." He has written numerous best-sellers, most notable among them, his recent book, The God Delusion. TGD has been on The New York Times List of Best-Sellers for over thirty weeks. It is a no-holds-barred assault on religious faith generally, and Christianity specifically. According to Dawkins, one can deduce atheism from scientific study; indeed, he argues that it is the only viable choice.
Lennox, a popular Christian apologist and scientist, travels widely speaking on the interface between science and religion. Like Dawkins, he has dedicated his career to science, but he has arrived at very different conclusions. "It is the very nature of science that leads me to belief in God," he says. Lennox possesses doctorates from Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Wales. He has written a response to the notion that Science has exposed the Bible as obscurantist in a book titled God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?. The book will be published this fall.
Like when I said this
But that isn't the whole story. I think there is a real, objective human nature, behavioral traits shared by all, some few abnormal people excepted. Hierarchical social structures is an example. Morality builds upon, or tends to respect, these shared values.Or when I said this
[You know one morality is better than another] Based on their different outcomes of course. It's an empirical question.No, IMO, it is not "merely a meme."
except that in your own sentence, you are acting whether 'survival' is the only criterion by which to judge any moral system.
You have me confused with another poster, maybe #69. I don't see how you can infer that from what I said. But I do agree that better moralities will tend to be more influential. Not always of course but generally.
In that case, why exert effort on behalf of *any* system?
I think it's human nature. And from a group point of view, it is eminently rational.
"Why should I accept *your* belief system?
For the same reason you should accept western medicine in preference to voodoo, it works better.
There are an infinite number of others which (as far as I know) are more likely to be true."
Exactly so. And you have no way of knowing. Therefore you should try for increasing reliability instead. History shows that's an attainable goal.
An obligation? No, and yet it has and does. I'm not sure what your point is though.
is it just a matter of psychological conditioning
Well, I thought I made clear that I think it's more than that. However, people obeying the moral rules of their particular culture is, in part, due to social conditioning.
then is morality something than can be changed at will, with the right scientific means?
Two points. First, even without changes in human nature, morality is pretty darn flexible. Just a couple of centuries ago slavery was widely accepted as moral. Today it's a moral abomination.
Second, I would say yes, if human nature were to fundamentally change, by whatever means, I think morality would change fundamentally also.
I don't see how a blind, impersonal Darwinian process produces a fixed human nature.
Why not? It produces dogs which have a definite doggy innate nature and whales that have a definite whale nature and ducks theirs, why not humans and their nature?
But fixed in what sense? I doubt that human nature has been unchanged over the last million years. I am sure, for example, that abstract thought had to have improved before people could speak.
Abnormal compared to what?
Um, compared to normal? Autistic people are not normal. Psychopaths are not normal. If you see a guy who's 8 feet tall, wouldn't you say he's abnormally tall? A woman who weighs 800 pounds is abnormally fat. There is also behavioral normality. Loving and protecting your children is normal, hating and killing them is not.
How In such a universe is there is any objective basis for assigning a value of "better off" to anything?
Do you think you're better off dead or alive? I assume you will prefer to be alive, I'd even call that a normal behavior. Don't you agree it's an objective fact that by far most people think in ordinary circumstances they're better off alive than dead?
Do you think people consider themselves better off well fed and housed or hungry and homeless? How about ignorant vs. educated? Loved vs. hated?
But probably you won't consider people's nearly unanimous answers to these question objective. Oh well.
Hahaha, right. You "undressed" me by refuting claims I never made. You're a moron, but have a nice day anyway.
Going to church regularly does not make a person ‘christian’ any more than buying food at Krogers makes you a grocer.
Jesus told the parable about the wheat and the tares, indicating it was not ANYONE’s ‘job’ to toss out who they considered to be un-Believers.
I used to be a Tare. I hung around church long enough to hear the message and believe on the One that GOD sent.
I now consider myself to be Wheat. Not through a single thing I’ve ‘done’ or will do in the future, but by believing on the One who claimed to be able to ‘save’ me and keep me.
I think we each have been misunderstanding each other's points a wee bit here.
When I said you were treating morality as a *meme*, I was referring specifically to the line I had just quoted,
"But riddle me this, have the Sawi people amounted to anything? Have their moral system spread? Have they dominated a continent as Christianity did Europe?"
The rest of my post 80 was concerned with refuting the idea that morality was merely a meme.
In other words, the line "Why should I accept your morality" was mimicing what a holder of one moral system would say to another, if he accepted the idea that morality were a meme. Obviously, the stronger meme will win out in the end, so why fight or persuade?
And implicit -- but not necessarily valid -- is the idea that the meme "whose star is in the ascendant", the one whose adherents are most forcefully pushing it, or most successful at the moment, must be "the *right* one" since it is winning out by natural selection.
I did read #69, and it did inform my opinion., But not quite as you just said; I realized what Joebuck said in #69 was sarcasm towards you, but since you didn't take pains to refute his charge, I thought you were tacitly confessing to holding a Darwinian view towards ethics themselves; hence my mention of "memes."
One other question -- you replied to the question "why should I accept *your* belief system" in earnest, so I'd like to follow up...
What do you mean "it works better": for whom? Nazism worked pretty good for the Nazis, if only Hitler hadn't been dumb-ass enough to invade Russiah whilst equipping his troops with only light summer gear, and insisting repeatedly on ignoring his generals' advice (see also Stalingrad and Kursk). And on the other foot, Communism did a pretty good job of holding sway in Russia. By what rule do you differentiate between ideologies which work well by stepping on others, and those that preach mercy and cooperation? It seems you can get different answers to "which one works better?" by varying the scope of the test, from an individual playgound to a country to a geopolitical bloc to the entire race. Lots of people in Africa are getting *screwed* by the rest of the world -- if only by neglect and unintended consequences: where do you weigh in with the victims of an ideaology, even (or especially) those who are not active practitioners?
"There are an infinite number of others which (as far as I know) are more likely to be true." Exactly so.
This makes little sense to me, as my remark was not in earnest -- unless by "differing morality" you are thinking of taking specific moral strictures ("do not kill EVER" vs. "do not MURDER" vs. "only if you catch the SOB in bed with your wife" vs. "kill all non-Aryans" vs. "Durka durka! Mohammed jihad!") for violence, ("celibacy forever" vs. "sex only for children, with your wife, and only in the missionary position" vs. pagan revelry vs. San Francisco vs. controlled breeding from any number of science fiction stories) for sex, etc. etc. through all the categories: and applying combinatorial methods to arrive at the best overall configuration.
Please explain...?
Cheers!
Ever heard of NAMBLA there UR?
Oh yes they would.
Game, set and Match....
Hi Diamond! We have seen what “morality” looks like when it is determined by “society.” To speak of “society” in this context, we have to be aware that, practically speaking, “society” is basically whatever its ruling elites decide to define it as. Hitler wanted an Aryan society purged of all Jews, plus other "unfit" individuals, such as homosexuals, the disabled, gypsies, etc. Thus would Aryan racial purity flourish – which was promoted as a social “good.” He sold this bill of goods to the German people as “moral”; and a nominally Christian society bought it hook, line, and sinker….
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were well aware that the moral law cannot be a social construction, for it is based in God’s revelation to man. As such, they well understood that the Constitution itself is subservient to it.
To my way of thinking, the moral law can only be universal and divine, God’s great gift to mankind. For its purpose is to secure the maximum liberty and dignity of every human individual and, from there, a good and just society.
Human behavior, unlike that of the lower animals, is very little determined by instinct. God created man with reason and free will; that means that it was necessary not to overly-determine man by making him a creature largely governed by instinct. Instead, the divine moral law would be the guide to human behavior. One is free to accept or reject it. But it should be noted that societies that reject the divine law tend to be pretty inhuman places: Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc., etc. In each of these cases, the moral law was determined by the leadership; and everywhere in those societies, human beings suffered horribly.
Morality is not something that can be decided by human beings, either by way of authoritarian fiat or by a public opinion poll. Again, it is God's Law; and to choose to follow it enables us to achieve our fullest development as the human individuals that God intended us to be.
Well, my two cents worth, FWIW. Thanks so much for the ping, Diamond!
First, even without changes in human nature, morality is pretty darn flexible. Just a couple of centuries ago slavery was widely accepted as moral. Today it's a moral abomination.
Nehru jackets were once fashionable, too. If morality is just convention then if acting morally conflicts with self-interest why should we act morally? How is a nonconformist who chooses to flout the herd morality doing anything other than acting un-stylishly? What rational justification can be made in such a case that flouting current convention is doing something "good" or "evil"?
Cordially,
"...the Constitution itself is subservient to it." [the moral law]
I wonder if atheists believe that the Constitution is subservient to the moral law, and if so on what basis, since they deny the transcendent foundation of the moral law.
Cordially,
True, but the brute fact of Ancient Rome is mute as to why the practice is immoral. And on your own terms you have no principle with which to condemn it. You stated:
I have no problem with different cultures believing different things. If it works for them, good. If we accept the evolution of memes as the foundation for morality, differences would not only be expected, but required...If you don't have any problem with different cultures believing different things then you should have no problem with the Romans practice of child rape.
Your specific morality comes from your society. I still claim that general morality (the basics) are inherent/built-in, and expressed as the golden rule. Violations of the golden rule, like slavery, comes about from society convincing itself a certain clan/race/sex are less than people so that it doesn't apply. I would also argue that this is wrong in the most basic moral sense.
If morality is societal convention on what basis do you condemn the Romans for not following the golden rule? If your specific morality comes from your society then Corrie Ten Boom was evil for following the golden rule instead of her societal norms when she risked her own life to hide Jews from the NAZIs.
Cordially,
Then he's terribly stupid.
I do have a moral problem with actions that cause unnecessary or unwanted human suffering. To what or whom do I credit this moral compass? Our development as a social, trusting, compassionate society.
You are describing the way you think society developed, but you do not say why historical development creates an obligation to refrain from causing unwanted human suffering.
Look at the natural world. Social species almost universally exhibit some form of altruism and a protective instinct for their society's members and culture (land, rituals, etc). Non social species exhibit these characteristics much less frequently.
So what? A mere description of animals that have been conditioned by their environment to act in certain ways that benefit the survival of the species doesn't address why one ought to act with altruism and a protective instinct for society's members and culture (land, rituals, etc), especially if doing do conflicts with one's self interest.
In the eyes of the Nazis, yes. In our eyes, no. In the majority of humans, no. Why? The argument is compassion. It's a good argument that the great majority of people would accept. In that way, it's "objective".
You are describing subjective views of past human behavior, but you are not saying why is there an obligation to be compassionate, especially if doing so is conflicts with one's self interest.
Cordially,
You can’t reason with an atheist, Diamond. There is simply no common ground of discourse. An atheist would deny this, but the fact is they are in a flight from reality, to a “second reality” of their own preference. Moreover, this entails holding reason and evidence in contempt on a systematic basis. Lies and what Cicero called "the refusal to apperceive" are ever so much more "convenient."
Eric Voegelin gives an excellent analysis of the syndrome:
The Second Realities [that]... cause the breakdown of rational discourse are a comparatively recent phenomenon. They have grown during the modern centuries...until they have reached, in our own time, the proportions of a social and political force which in more gloomy moments may look strong enough to extinguish our civilization — unless, of course, you are an ideologist yourself and identify civilization with the victory of Second Reality.A-G and I take a page from Voegelin in our own analysis of the problem (in our book, Timothy) [The dramatis personae: TFB is the First Bird; TSB is the Second Bird; F is “brother” Frog; and T is St. Timothy]:The [grotesqueness of Second Realities]... must not be confused with the comic or humorous. The seriousness of the matter will be best understood, if one visions the concentration camps of totalitarian regimes and the gas chambers of Auschwitz in which the grotesqueness of opinion becomes the murderous reality of action.
TSB: I was … wondering: Is it possible to reason about the nature of true existents of reality — which might include such noncorporeal things as, say, individual human rights — with an opponent of different religious persuasion, or of differing scientific or social philosophy, and make a persuasive case that objectively establishes their reality to that person’s satisfaction? To that question, I think the answer is: Yes, that is possible.[End of excerpt]But what of the case where you want to persuade an opponent [e.g.., an atheist] who is in deliberate revolt against First Reality — against the very idea of reality as a given constituted order of being? That, I think, is simply not possible: You cannot make any objective case to such a person. His revolt against the natural order constitutes a flight from reality and reason itself, for the operations of reason are ultimately premised on that order. Such a person has deliberately chosen to inhabit a “dream world” designed to be hermetically sealed against any impressions or experiences that come from “outside.”
His system is relentlessly self-referring and self-contained. Nonconforming data are simply screened out as illusory or nonexistent. The self-selected dream world that enfolds him is, of course, a “second reality.” It was adopted precisely because his existence in “first reality” has somehow become unbearable for him.
F: So what? If someone wants to live in a dream world, that doesn’t have anything to do with me!
TFB: Let Sister Bird finish, Froggie — and you’ll see that it does involve you and everyone else, too.
TSB: Yes it does involve you, Froggie — whether you create a dream world for yourself, or get drawn into some other person’s dream world. If history tells us anything it is that many constructors of Second Realities cannot be satisfied unless or until the rest of humanity accepts and approves their construction. And to this end, they are willing to employ certain means that, on first-reality grounds, would be excluded as illegitimate. Such means cover the ground from polemical propaganda, through frank censorship or coercion, up to outright, mass-scale violence.
Karl Marx, for instance, absolutely forbade all questions regarding his system; e.g., “dialectical materialism,” originally suggested to him by Hegel’s dialectical system of absolute science. You either have to accept it uncritically, whole-cloth, as “received doctrine”; or you become its “enemy.” Just consider how much mass-scale violence has been committed in post-Enlightenment world history, in the name of Karl Marx.
F: That’s ridiculous! How do you get from a “dream” to “mass-scale violence?” Dreams are of no consequence.
T: Well, that’d be true if, according to Brother Frog, dreams were merely “epiphenomena,” and thus incapable of being causative factors.
TSB: Indeed, Timothy! But Froggie, these kinds of dreams can become very real, and actually have. To give the names of some dreamers who have had stupendous social consequences: Lenin, Stalin; Hitler; Mao; other names you can supply for yourself....
The extraordinarily perceptive philosopher of history Eric Voegelin noted the spiritual implications involved in flights from first reality:
...a lack of seriousness in spiritual matters is by no means harmless. For a society cannot renounce the order of the spirit without destroying itself, and when the institutions which are to serve the life of the spirit...cease to be serious, then their function will be taken over by men and institutions who do take their work seriously.... Indeed, one cannot realize a Second Reality, but the spiritual closure within it is a real phenomenon and has an actual effect on reality. In this regard the structure of the pneumopathological case [i.e., the case of a diseased spirit] doesn’t differ from that of the psychopathological [i.e., the case of the diseased mind]: the delusions of a paranoid person ... correspond to no reality, but the delusions are real and the actions of the paranoid enter into reality.... [The constructors of Second Realities have] overlaid the reality of [human] existence with another mode [in which] the common ground of existence in reality has disappeared....In so many words, it seems to me that what Voegelin is describing here boils down to the dreamer’s complete denial and refusal of the human condition — a denial which sets up a fertile ground for “existential alienation.” All of which seem to arise from a deeply-felt sense of profound anxiety about the terms of human existence.
T: Fascinating suggestion, little sister.
TFB: Indeed.
F: I don’t have the least clue what you’re talking about here, lady frog! Try again, will you?
TSB: Well, let’s put it this way: A human being is never consulted about the terms of his coming into the world, nor of his departure from it. It is the essence of the human condition that a man is neither the origin nor the “end” — in the sense of telos, meaning a purpose, or goal — of himself. Meanwhile, in between birth and death, there is a litany of evils to which mortal human nature is subject. “The life of man is really burdened,” as Voegelin put it, “with the well-known miseries enumerated by Hesoid. We remember his list of hunger, hard work, disease, early death, and the fear of the injustices to be suffered by the weaker man at the hands of the more powerful — not to mention the problem of Pandora.”
Notwithstanding, Voegelin continued, “as long as our existence is undeformed by phantasies, these miseries are not experienced as senseless. We understand them as the lot of man, mysterious it is true, but as the lot he has to cope with in the organization and conduct of his life, in the fight for survival, the protection of his dependents, and the resistance to injustice, and in his spiritual and intellectual response to the mystery of existence.”
Now the “lot of man” as just given is a description of the condicio humana, the human condition. It is the very basis for the idea of a common humanity, or of a brotherhood of mankind. It is my conjecture that it is possible for a person to take great umbrage at this condicio humana, to deplore and reject it, to see it as a grievous insult to one’s own assumed personal autonomy; and so to take flight in an alternative reality that can be structured more according to one’s own wishes, tastes, and desires. And thus, a Second Reality is born.
As for me, all things considered, I’ll take First Reality, the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — any day, any time. I believe that human beings were put in this world to be creative actors, even if they never get to design the stage on which the acting (and observing) is being done, nor to control the writing of the script by which the play unfolds. And meanwhile they not only act, but suffer the actions of other actors or forces — personal or natural — from outside themselves.
Yet to recognize all this is to recognize the very basis of one’s own existential humanity. And to realize that the lot of any other man is no different. To be part and participant of this divinely constituted, dynamic “sub-whole” of a yet greater Whole is a glorious privilege. To go hole up in a Second Reality, to me, would be to lose one’s reason and probably one’s soul as well....
I think the atheist believes that there is no human freedom unless a man can get “free” of God. Now a person like me, a believer in God, believes there is neither freedom nor reason — or sanity — without God. So you see, there is no way that a common ground can exist between the atheist and the theist such that any agreement could ever be reached, and not just on the question of God, but probably on any question at all.
Bottom line, the difference is the atheist wants freedom from something; the theist wants freedom for something. That is a huge psychological difference.
But the atheist thinks that if he can bump off God and His Moral Law, then he himself can be “the measure of all things.” The theist would reply: You can’t “kill God.” You can’t “kill” His Moral Law either: It is built into the nature of things, including the human soul. As Christians suspect the atheist will discover one day; for God’s Moral Law is the very criterion of the Last Judgment to which every human soul is subject.
In closing, I have no answer for your musings at the top. One cannot reason with people who have lost their reason, or have performed a sort of spiritual self-lobotomy. If one debates such folks at all, it is only for the possible benefit of Lurkers, of the by-standers….
Thanks for letting me run on so, Diamond! And thank you so much for writing!
...becomes this...
“How do I know what is moral? I don’t on the whole.”
He's good with the self-contradiction, isn't he?
Thanks for posting this SLA. Have you ordered a copy yet? If so, any advice?
Amen. Fascinating post.
"Our argument as over against this would be that the existence of the God of Christian theism and the conception of his counsel as controlling all things in the universe is the only presupposition which can account for the uniformity of nature which the scientist needs. But the best and only possible proof for the existence of such a God is that his existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in the world. We cannot prove the existence of beams underneath a floor if by proof we mean that they must be ascertainable in the way that we can see the chairs and tables of the room. But the very idea of a floor as the support of tables and chairs requires the idea of beams that are underneath. But there would be no floor if no beams were underneath. Thus there is absolutely certain proof for the existence of God and the truth of Christian theism. Even non-Christians presuppose its truth while they verbally reject it. They need to presuppose the truth of Christian theism in order to account for their own accomplishments" (DOF 120). -- Cornelius Van Til""This is, in the last analysis, the question as to what are one's ultimate presuppositions. When man became a sinner he made of himself instead of God the ultimate or final reference point. And it is precisely this presupposition, as it controls without exception all forms of non-Christian philosophy, that must be brought into question. If this presupposition is left unquestioned in any field all the facts and arguments presented to the unbeliever will be made over by him according to his pattern. The sinner has cemented colored glasses to his eyes which he cannot remove" ("Defense of the Faith" 94).
The bottom line is whether there is a Supreme Being who could declare that to be so. If there is, and He has at some point done so, then the question is whether it was arbitrary or purposeful.
There can be no ultimate morality without a Supreme Being to declare it so. Otherwise, any morality would be situational.
Yet, I cannot expect a supporter of atheism to see that any more than I can expect a non-Christian to see the Kingdom of God.
Unless you are born again, you cannot even see the Kingdom of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.