Skip to main content

To atheists who are confused about God and morality

The objection to religion is that it's unnecessary: that is, I don't need to believe in God to be morally good.  Evidence is given in the form of pointing to many decent/nice/exemplary/moral persons who are not believers (while ignoring their positions on Eugenics, abortion, infanticide, bestiality [between consenting mammals], etc.)

Instead, offer to clear their heads by asking a few questions.  I imagine the clarification would take place thus:

"Why do you believe that morality comes from God: isn't it obvious to you that an atheist can be moral and a theist can be quite wicked?"

"Do you believe that morality comes from evolution?"

"Yes."

"Do you need to acknowledge the role of evolution in order to be morally good?"

"No."

"So morality can in one sense rely upon something that doesn't even occur to the mind of the virtuous person."

"Yes, but I am not claiming that evolution somehow whispers in our ears what we're supposed to do or commands/threatens us in a personal way.  It's a biological process."

"What if --at some level -- God is  the source of morality in a causal way: couldn't God be the source of morality in this way without your having to recognize or acknowledge it?"

"But why is that important?"

"Well that would explain something very important about morality."

"What is that?  Is it the fact that we think of moral norms as absolute?  I can explain that without talking about God."

"I am confident that you think you can do so, but regardless of whether you are right or wrong, I have something else in mind."

"And what is that?"

"Our longing for the infinite."

"Say what?"

[to be continued]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han...
2 comments
Read more