Atheistic Double Standard?

[1robin]

I find the notion of a supernatural to be a HUGE mistake that has diverted time, energy, resources, and skills away from critical problems and towards superstitious nonsense.

Right, you have a bias. You may think you have a good reason for it, but a bias is an inhibitor concerning truth. I am probably biased to (though I recognize the tendency and resist it where possible), however my motivation is far better. My motivation is based on several experiential facts I know to be true that rove the core of the Christian faith, not some mere intellectual agreement with a proposition. I also know that no matter how much work and accomplishments we make in natural science the human race is utterly doomed. So what to do, treat theology as primary and science as secondary but work on both.

Not too bad. Yes, natural laws are descriptive. They are not causes themselves, but are used to describe causality. So, for example, if there is a natural law that shows an initial state will develop into a final state, then we say that the initial state is a cause of the final state.

1. I am not as much interested how one domino acts on the next causing to tip over as I am as to why there exists dominos and laws the govern them to begin with.
2. If natural law cannot cause natural events then what does?
3. I asked that question to make two points.
A. That science does not even explain science.
B. That there are many theories concerning the natural and supernatural. Some believe God sustains all events. We call the regular ones natural, and the exceptions non-natural (trans natural, or supernatural). So on that view all events could be called natural or supernatural, but the only distinction would be between routine and exceptional.

I have no idea if that theory or any other explanation of the nature of events is true but that one might be more palatable to you. Also keep in mind that like man made equipment everything may require a mechanism and an agent to explain it. If you look at a jet engine the laws of metallurgy, thermodynamics, and aerodynamics alone do not explain it, you also need the agent Frank Whittle to account for it. Or if you see a kettle of water boiling thermodynamics and fluid mechanics are not enough to explain it, you also need an agent that wanted a cup of hot tea to explain it.

 

[1robin]

I'm not.

It appears you claiming God must act over time because our brains must act in time.

And what I'm saying is that performing actions that imply time while "outside of time" is just as much of a logical contradiction as a square circle.

Another one of the many explanations for the dilemma you seem to be hung up on is that God is causally prior to time but not temporally prior to time.

If your not looking at how nature acts and presuming God is bound by the same laws then I have no idea where your getting the criteria by which to make any conclusions upon.

 

[Polymath257]

Another one of the many explanations for the dilemma you seem to be hung up on is that God is causally prior to time but not temporally prior to time.

And this makes no sense. You cannot have causal priority without temporal priority. Causality requires time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It appears you claiming God must act over time because our brains must act in time.

No, I'm saying that the act of choosing implies a before and after, and therefore time.

Another one of the many explanations for the dilemma you seem to be hung up on is that God is causally prior to time but not temporally prior to time.

The word "prior" implies time. The statement "causally prior but not temporally prior" is self-contradictory like "square circle".

If your not looking at how nature acts and presuming God is bound by the same laws then I have no idea where your getting the criteria by which to make any conclusions upon.

I'm not assuming anything about God. I'm just pointing out the implications of the terms you're using to describe God: choosing and creating imply time. Something being prior to something else implies time. If you want your God to be "outside of time", fine, but then don't describe him with terms that imply time.

 

[1robin]

But you think that "natural laws" are inferred from what happens. So they're only inferred from some things that happen? How do you decide which?

I do not have to thank goodness, because I am not qualified. I learned what most of the mainstream natural laws are in college. Science tells us what natural laws are. Actually what science does (or used to anyway) is to test a hypothetical law on what it is supposed to describe. If it turns out to be successful enough times scientists call it a law and assume it applies across the universe.

I am pretty sure I know where your trying to get to. Your trying to say that at least one explanation for miracles in the bible is some natural mechanism that was unknown at the time, or may still be unknown. I will wait for you to actually make that argument before I counter it.

I've personally witnessed a dead man come back to life. It seemed to be natural to me: they used CPR and defibrillators.

That man was not clinically dead. I am not talking about some who experiences a life threatening event and simply does not die. If you actually want to claim that is the best explanation for Christ's resurrection then formally state that argument.

I don't know what you mean by this.

I mean that you do not have to appeal to angels, demon's, of seas parting to find things that have no natural explanation. I gave you three things almost everyone grants consent to that have no known natural explanation.

What do you mean by "natural law"?

The descriptions that account for the regularities of the universe. For example see Newton's 3 laws of motion.

"There are four major concepts in science: facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories," Coppinger told Live Science. "Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton’s Law of Gravity or Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work."
What Is a Law in Science? | Definition of Scientific Law

Do you mean our current understanding of natural law? If so, it seems very presumptuous to assume that just because something is beyond our current understanding, it's supernatural.

So your saying that the predictions of a messiah dying and rising, the actual dying and rising of Jesus who claimed to be the messiah, and which fulfilled every detail given through out time is best described by scientific laws we just don't know about yet? That would be called a horrific example of "science of the gaps".

It just occurred to me a good way to distinguish between natural and spiritual laws.

Nature's laws seem to lack any disenable intent.
Spiritual laws (or descriptions of supernatural events) would seem to include intent.

Do you mean the entirety of natural law? If so, it seems presumptuous to assume that you know what natural law entails beyond the current scope of science.

Either way, I don't see how you have a reasonable basis for your position.

It seems obvious we have natural laws which operate predictably almost all the time, it also seems to me that events occur to which using natural law as an explanation seems absurd (because intent seems to exist for them). My clarification simply accounts for both better than anything else I have seen from secular scholars.

 

[1robin]

Wrong. It is founded in human biology and how we have to structure rules for society to make them work for us.

For an intelligent species of spiders, eating your mate would be a moral thing to do.

Wrong, I used the word objective which necessarily implies that they are not grounded in preference.

Biology is simply one type of nature or set of laws. I have already pointed out what should be obvious that nature only tells us what is, it does (because it cannot) tell anyone what should be.

Many species evolved by doing exactly what you said is immoral. Many species kill and or eat their mates, those are amoral adaptations that have no more to do with objective morality, than Male lions killing male lion cubs, dolphins raping each other, or a deer scraping the bark off of trees in his territory.

Let me quote your own side.

"The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called 'ethical principles'. The question is not whether biology- specifically, our evolution-is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God's will ...In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding... Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place."
Michael Ruse

And if that is not a bleak enough picture:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” p.133
Dawkins’ Deluded Logic

That is utterly depressing but at least those two scholars rightfully admit the moral bankruptcy that Atheism results in.

 

[metis]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

My observations here at RF is that it's overwhelmingly the other way around.

 

[1robin]

Mathematics and logic are part of language. They are how we, as humans, approach the universe in order to understand it. Both mathematics and logic are *formal* systems that we invented to order our thoughts.

We did not create a single principle in either field, we discovered them existing, and invented ways of notating them.

Morality is based on human biology and how we have to structure our societies to match that biology.

You already said this.

So, yes, these all have a foundation in nature. In particular, a foundation in *human* nature.

Ok, prove to me (I have already asked and you already failed to answer once so far) that any act you can point to or even think of which is objectively evil, without appealing to a transcendent foundation. Objective implying true whether anyone believes in them or not. Just one, I have asked this of non-theists hundreds times, not one rational response yet.

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong, I used the word objective which necessarily implies that they are not grounded in preference.

And I do not believe there is a cross-species objective morality. Morality has to do with well-being. And for human morality, it has to do with the well-being of humans.

Biology is simply one type of nature or set of laws. I have already pointed out what should be obvious that nature only tells us what is, it does (because it cannot) tell anyone what should be.

And that is correct. We, as humans, get to decide what is considered to be well-being for humans.

Many species evolved by doing exactly what you said is immoral. Many species kill and or eat their mates, those are amoral adaptations that have no more to do with objective morality, than Male lions killing male lion cubs, dolphins raping each other, or a deer scraping the bark off of trees in his territory.

Exactly. There is no objective morality unless it would also apply to an intelligent species of dolphin.

Let me quote your own side.

"The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called 'ethical principles'. The question is not whether biology- specifically, our evolution-is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God's will ...In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding... Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place."
Michael Ruse

And if that is not a bleak enough picture:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” p.133
Dawkins’ Deluded Logic

That is utterly depressing but at least those two scholars rightfully admit the moral bankruptcy that Atheism results in.

I happen to disagree. I am, in addition to being an atheist, a humanist. I believe that human morals are determined by the well-being of humans. it is local to our species.

 

[Polymath257]

We did not create a single principle in either field, we discovered them existing, and invented ways of notating them.

And I strongly disagree with this. We formulate the axiom systems to agree with our initial intuitions and deduce the consequences of those axioms.

Ok, prove to me (I have already asked and you already failed to answer once so far) that any act you can point to or even think of which is objectively evil, without appealing to a transcendent foundation. Objective implying true whether anyone believes in them or not. Just one, I have asked this of non-theists hundreds times, not one rational response yet.

OK. A thermonuclear war that kills every human would be objectively evil. It would be supremely against human well-being.

 

[1robin]

You said that God was outside of time, but "relative to metaphysical time." It's not at all clear what any of what you're saying is supposed to mean.

I said God was independent of space-time. I said that one of the theories used to explain this says that time can be relative to something other than space and would not necessarily be accessible or comprehendible to us. They give that theory the label metaphysical time.

I have been telling you post after post that to investigate how God could act independently from space time is a very complex and many faceted subject, and so I asked you if you were sure you want to spend that much time down this particular rabbit hole. You never seem to answer. So I just respond to pot shots with pot shots.

 

[1robin]

And this makes no sense. You cannot have causal priority without temporal priority. Causality requires time.

You don't understand a meaningful fraction of how this universe works, why do you feel qualified to evaluate what is or is not possible independent from it external to it? It was less than a hundred years ago when the greatest scientist in history said the universe must be infinite and static and so he invented a cosmological argument out of thin air. If Einstein made the greatest career blunder trying to make our own backyard behave the way he wished I doubt your competence to evaluate abstract philosophy concerning the supernatural.

The cause of time cannot be dependent on time, whatever it is, it isn't that.

 

[1robin]

No, I'm saying that the act of choosing implies a before and after, and therefore time.

And what are you basing that on?

The word "prior" implies time. The statement "causally prior but not temporally prior" is self-contradictory like "square circle".

Let me quote some scholars to show you two things. That what I am claiming is taken seriously at the highest levels of scholarship, and that your simply not getting what I am saying.

God, Time, and Eternity

The Inner Life of a Rational Agent: In Defence of Philosophical Behaviourism

I don't usually site books so let me know if the links don't go where they are supposed to. They are supposed to go to certain pages in those books.

I'm not assuming anything about God. I'm just pointing out the implications of the terms you're using to describe God: choosing and creating imply time. Something being prior to something else implies time. If you want your God to be "outside of time", fine, but then don't describe him with terms that imply time.

Only if that being is operating in space time.

Forget God for a second. Let's make it even simpler.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. Time has either always existed or began to exist.
3. Time began to exist.
4. Therefor time has a cause.

and / or

1. Time is either necessary or contingent.
2. Time is contingent.
3. Whatever is contingent could not create it's self.

Therefor
1. Time has a cause which is not dependent or composed of time.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't understand a meaningful fraction of how this universe works, why do you feel qualified to evaluate what is or is not possible independent from it external to it? It was less than a hundred years ago when the greatest scientist in history said the universe must be infinite and static and so he invented a cosmological argument out of thin air. If Einstein made the greatest career blunder trying to make our own backyard behave the way he wished I doubt your competence to evaluate abstract philosophy concerning the supernatural.

The cause of time cannot be dependent on time, whatever it is, it isn't that.

if there is a cause of time, you would be correct. Now, why do you think there is a cause of time?

 

[Polymath257]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Prove this. Not just empirically, but logically.

Every piece of empirical information says that things that have causes have physical causes.

2. Time has either always existed or began to exist.

There is an issues with the word 'always', which means 'for all time'. So, of course time has alway existed. it may also have begun to exist (although possibly not).

3. Time began to exist.

Possible, but not necessarily.

4. Therefor time has a cause.

While this follows from your premises, your premises are flawed.

1. Time is either necessary or contingent.

Define these terms: necessary, contingent.

2. Time is contingent.

prove it.

3. Whatever is contingent could not create it's self.

Prove it.

1. Time has a cause which is not dependent or composed of time.

mmm...you had no statement about cause, only necessity and contingency.

 

[1robin]

And I do not believe there is a cross-species objective morality. Morality has to do with well-being. And for human morality, it has to do with the well-being of humans.

You just are not going to reckon with the term objective are you? Without God we get exactly what I said we do.

In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding... Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place."
Michael Ruse

no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” p.133
Dawkins’ Deluded Logic

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

I do not care what trail you take, what color you paint it, what labels you used without God all your left with are ethical preferences. No actual rights we should do, no actual evils we should avoid, just amoral socio-biological spinoffs.

And that is correct. We, as humans, get to decide what is considered to be well-being for humans.

On your view then the Imam's wanting to make the streets flow with the blood of the unbelievers, Hitler's efforts to create a race of Ü·ber·mensch, and Britain's efforts to colonize and strip the largest empire ever known are all equally valid.

Exactly. There is no objective morality unless it would also apply to an intelligent species of dolphin.

What? Intelligence has no relevance to objectivity.

I happen to disagree. I am, in addition to being an atheist, a humanist. I believe that human morals are determined by the well-being of humans. it is local to our species.

Exactly, that's your preference (speciesm). Since there is no ultimate objective judge your preference is no more valid than that of Hitler, Stalin, or my own.

 

[1robin]

And I strongly disagree with this. We formulate the axiom systems to agree with our initial intuitions and deduce the consequences of those axioms.

No, most laws are to stop us from carrying out our inclinations.

OK. A thermonuclear war that kills every human would be objectively evil. It would be supremely against human well-being.

Since human well being is a subjective goal (by who would guess it a human?) you have not proven anything objective yet. All you did was name something against your preferred ethical goal.

When a race of super aliens show up and tell you that alien well being is their preferred ethical standard (according to your criteria making it objective) and humans are their preferred food source, I bet you do not act consistently with your own standards.

You really do not have a handle on what objectivity means, do you?

 

[Polymath257]

You just are not going to reckon with the term objective are you? Without God we get exactly what I said we do.

OK, what does it mean to be objective? it means that all observers, when fully informed, will agree to the statement. I don't consider most moral statements to be of that type.

In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding... Ethics is illusory

inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place."
Michael Ruse

no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” p.133
Dawkins’ Deluded Logic

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

I do not care what trail you take, what color you paint it, what labels you used without God all your left with are ethical preferences. No actual rights we should do, no actual evils we should avoid, just amoral socio-biological spinoffs.

No, *moral* socio-biological spinoffs. Morality is *defined* in relation to our biology and our psychology (which is also biological, mind you).

On your view then the Imam's wanting to make the streets flow with the blood of the unbelievers, Hitler's efforts to create a race of Ü·ber·mensch, and Britain's efforts to colonize and strip the largest empire ever known are all equally valid.

No, they are not. Whether they serve the well-being of humans determines whether the acts are moral. People can be deceived about whether something promotes well-being (many medieval medical treatments qualify).

What? Intelligence has no relevance to objectivity.

Of course it does! To be objective is to have all fully informed sane people agreeing. Part of that is intelligence to use the information to reach valid conclusions.

Furthermore, our awareness of the mental states of others is part of what makes us a moral species. Most species do not have that capability.

Exactly, that's your preference (speciesm). Since there is no ultimate objective judge your preference is no more valid than that of Hitler, Stalin, or my own.

On the contrary, human well-being *is* the objective standard. It is the theist position that lacks any *objective* standard because it is all based on the whims (or 'nature') of a deity. Because it has little concern for human nature, this actually makes theism immoral in many contexts.

For example, recently there was a case where a little girl was killed because her step-dad thought she was a demon. if he had not been deluded by his superstitions, she would still be alive. I bet even you agree it was immoral for this guy to kill this little girl. But *why*? he *thought* he was doing God's work. And he has ample Biblical justification that 'faith in God' is more important than the well-being of that little girl.

 

[Polymath257]

No, most laws are to stop us from carrying out our inclinations.

I was talking about math and logic here.

Since human well being is a subjective goal (by who would guess it a human?) you have not proven anything objective yet. All you did was name something against your preferred ethical goal.

Since we are concerned with *human* morality an not the morality of wolves, I am perfectly fine having a speciesist bias.

When a race of super aliens show up and tell you that alien well being is their preferred ethical standard (according to your criteria making it objective) and humans are their preferred food source, I bet you do not act consistently with your own standards.

On the contrary, I will still fight for what is in the well-being of humans. Those aliens and I will be in opposition.

You really do not have a handle on what objectivity means, do you?

Well, let me put it this way. I don't consider moral truths to be objective in the same way that truths of physics are objective. I would expect even an alien race to come to the same basic scientific conclusions (or, at least we could merge our understandings via testing). I do NOT expect that an alien race would have anything close to the same morals.

 

[1robin]

OK, what does it mean to be objective? it means that all observers, when fully informed, will agree to the statement. I don't consider most moral statements to be of that type.

I am not so sure about that one. Your describing the lack of bias or prejudice, not objectivity. The definitions I have seen for objective are a fact that is true regardless of what our opinions are concerning it.

Lets say several hundred or several thousand years ago we asked several scientists what the twinkling light we now call Saturn was.

1. Some claimed it was a sun.
2. Some with a little better equipment said it was one sun with two other suns on either side that were either smaller of farther away that the main star.
3. The best scientist of the day said it was a planet with irregular features on either side he called ears.

However the objective fact is that it is a gas giant (planet) surrounded by rings and moons. To be objective is to not be subjective, subject to what, our opinions?

Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. 6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
Objective | Define Objective at Dictionary.com

No, *moral* socio-biological spinoffs. Morality is *defined* in relation to our biology and our psychology (which is also biological, mind you).

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.
Malum in se - Wikipedia

There is no roll or relevance concerning biology in the above. On evolution my deciding to kill other humans is just as amoral as whether I walk upright or on all fours. On evolution my deciding to drown a handicapped child is just as amoral as rescuing that same child. Neither correspond to any objective value or duty I have to anyone.

Even kids know this. When you tell them to do that which contradicts their desires the first thing they ask is "oh yeah, who say". IOW if you can't point to an objective truth why should I be bound by your opinion?

No, they are not. Whether they serve the well-being of humans determines whether the acts are moral. People can be deceived about whether something promotes well-being (many medieval medical treatments qualify).

Your merely presuming (actually your merely declaring) that human well-being is the objective criteria for morality. Again this is speciesm, and can only be actualized because we can enforce our own well being upon all other creatures we know of. It is a self serving assumption forced others at the point of a gun which is unrelated to any objective moral values and duties.

Of course it does! To be objective is to have all fully informed sane people agreeing. Part of that is intelligence to use the information to reach valid conclusions.

You really really do not understand what objective means in the context of morality. It has nothing to do with the agreement by any or all of humanity. It has to do with it being true or not regardless of human opinion. What your describing is 100% subjective morality. Multiplying it from one person's opinion to every person's opinion makes it no less an opinion. This is also a perfect example of the fallacy of popularity. Something does not become any more true based on how many people believe it.

Furthermore, our awareness of the mental states of others is part of what makes us a moral species. Most species do not have that capability.

Again this makes nothing objective. It just describes one of the aspects by which you form your subjective ethical preferences.

On the contrary, human well-being *is* the objective standard. It is the theist position that lacks any *objective* standard because it is all based on the whims (or 'nature') of a deity. Because it has little concern for human nature, this actually makes theism immoral in many contexts.

For example, recently there was a case where a little girl was killed because her step-dad thought she was a demon. if he had not been deluded by his superstitions, she would still be alive. I bet even you agree it was immoral for this guy to kill this little girl. But *why*? he *thought* he was doing God's work. And he has ample Biblical justification that 'faith in God' is more important than the well-being of that little girl.

I hate for you to waste all your time arguing from an incorrect premise. I am going to have to get you to understand what "objective" means in a moral context. Instead of my trying to explain it then giving a short citation to back it up let me quote more exhaustively from well credentialed scholars.

This post is so long there would not be room to do this here I will pick a briefer post to really clarify what objective means in the context of morality. To be continued: