ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th April 2017, 07:44 PM   #1
MrFliop
Scholar
 
MrFliop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 96
PragerU: If there is no God, murder isn't wrong

I apologize if there is already a thread on this video, but I thought you guys could use the laugh.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Transcript
Do you believe that good and evil exist?

The answer to this question separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values.

Let me offer the clearest possible example: murder.

Is murder wrong? Is it evil? Nearly everyone would answer yes. But now I’ll pose a much harder question: How do you know?

I am sure that you think that murder is wrong. But how do you know?

If I asked you how you know that that the earth is round, you would show me photographs from outer space, or offer me measurable data. But what photographs could you show, what measurements could you provide, that prove that murder or rape or theft is wrong?

The fact is...you can’t. There are scientific facts, but without God there are no moral facts.

In a secular world, there can only be opinions about morality. They may be personal opinions or society’s opinion. But only opinions. Every atheist philosopher I have read or debated on this subject has acknowledged that if there is no God, there is no objective morality.

Judeo-Christian values are predicated on the existence of a God of morality. In other words, only if there is a God who says murder is wrong, is murder wrong. Otherwise, all morality is opinion.

The entire Western world – what we call Western Civilization – is based on this understanding.

Now, let me make two things clear.

First, this doesn't mean that if you don't believe in God, you can’t be a good person. There are plenty of kind and moral individuals who don’t believe in God and Judeo-Christian values. But the existence of these good people has nothing – nothing – to do with the question of whether good and evil really exist if there is no God.

Second, there have been plenty of people who believed in God who were not good people; indeed, more than a few have been evil – and have even committed evil in God’s name. The existence of God doesn't ensure people will do good. I wish it did. The existence of God only ensures that good and evil objectively exist and are not merely opinions.

Without God, we therefore end up with what is known as moral relativism – meaning that morality is not absolute, but only relative to the individual or to the society. Without God, the words “good” and “evil” are just another way of saying “I like” and “I don’t like.” If there is no God, the statement “Murder is evil” is the same as the statement “I don't like murder.”

Now, many will argue that you don't need moral absolutes; people won’t murder because they don't want to be murdered. But that argument is just wishful thinking. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn’t want to be murdered, but that hardly stopped them from murdering about a hundred million people.

It is not a coincidence that the rejection of Judeo-Christian values in the Western world – by Nazism and Communism – led to the murder of all these innocent people.

It is also not a coincidence that the first societies in the world to abolish slavery – an institution that existed in every known society in human history – were Western societies rooted in Judeo-Christian values. And so were the first societies to affirm universal human rights; to emancipate women; and to proclaim the value of liberty.

Today, the rejection of Judeo-Christian values and moral absolutes has led to a world of moral confusion.

In the New York Times, in March 2015, a professor of philosophy confirmed this.

He wrote: “What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun? Would you be surprised? I was.”

The professor then added: “The overwhelming majority of college freshmen view moral claims as mere opinions.”

So, then, whatever you believe about God or religion, here is a fact:

Without a God who is the source of morality, morality is just a matter of opinion. So, if you want a good world, the death of Judeo-Christian values should frighten you.

I’m Dennis Prager.
MrFliop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 08:17 PM   #2
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 61,932
Typical ignorance of people who think the only reason we aren't all out there murdering people is because we are afraid of God's wrath.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 09:04 PM   #3
portlandatheist
Master Poster
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,628
And Michael Shermer's response to this video:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

What an absurd notion. Imagine when Moses came down the mountain with the 10 commandments and people having realized for the very first time that murder and theft are wrong having been enlightened by God's wisdom.
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 10:15 PM   #4
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,501
It's amazing that people can talk this kind of crap and keep a straight face.

On the other hand I think we are witnessing the Christians in their death throes, trying to maintain some credibility, when the walls are crashing all around them.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 11:23 PM   #5
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,188
In any case, it's never been a question of knowledge, it's a question of belief as to whether murder is wrong. Stupid stawmanning is stupid.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 12:15 AM   #6
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,094
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
It's amazing that people can talk this kind of crap and keep a straight face.

On the other hand I think we are witnessing the Christians in their death throes, trying to maintain some credibility, when the walls are crashing all around them.
It's ongoing and can flip at any time. New people keep getting born and the same arguments are revisited. Is there a religion that doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time socializing its young?

Anyhow, I don't have any difficulty being a moral relativist. Prager gives this position rather short shrift, dismissing it without taking it seriously.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:48 AM   #7
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,475
It's always interesting to see how people react to a piece, and whether they manage to accurately portray it.

We have this:

Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
And Michael Shermer's response to this video:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

What an absurd notion. Imagine when Moses came down the mountain with the 10 commandments and people having realized for the very first time that murder and theft are wrong having been enlightened by God's wisdom.
But of course, the piece by Prager is quite explicit that people's behavior can be good without religion, and bad with religion. He talks about an innate moral sense, "knowing that murder is wrong", independent of religion.

He does, I must admit, stray into the weeds by saying that the mass murders of the 20th century are obviously linked to the abandonment of Judaeo-Christian belief. That's something that cannot really be defended well, and seems to link atheism with immorality, but in general he separates the two.


Then there is this.


Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
In any case, it's never been a question of knowledge, it's a question of belief as to whether murder is wrong. Stupid stawmanning is stupid.
So, he is accurately characterizing your position. He says that it is taught that good and evil are matters of opinion, i.e. belief. He is characterizing your position completely accurately. You are stating your position exactly as he stated it, with the exception of you saying "belief" and he says "opinion". Not a hill of beans worth of difference, it would seem to me.

The difference between your position and his is that he would say that his belief that murder is wrong is not a "belief" at all. He would say it is knowledge, that there is a right answer, and that he knows the right answer. Moreover, he does not know it via scientific observation, he just "knows" it is wrong. He would attribute that to his awareness of a moral absolute, which he says comes from God.

This whole business of good and evil is probably the single biggest thing I struggle with ever since rejecting belief in God some decades ago. If I say that Adolf Hitler or Ted Bundy are evil people, how do I justify that as anything more than a matter of opinion?

When it comes down to it, it all ends up with moral relativism. They are evil because society says they are evil. We can go a little bit further and say that they are evil because the things they did cannot be tolerated by any stable society. We are genetically inclined to be social animals, and we cannot create social structures that allow us to live as we wish if we have, in our midst, people like Ted Bundy, it just wouldn't work. So, he's defective, and we either kill him, or lock him up, or exile him so that he and his ilk don't interfere with our lives.

That answer isn't very palatable to a lot of folks. We want to be able to say that our condemnation of those things we call evil is not simply a matter of opinion, nor just some matter of convenience for creating stable societies. We want it to be the case that there are things that are really, truly, evil, in a meaningful way. That answer cannot be justified without some sort of non-scientific assertion.
__________________
On vacation.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:53 AM   #8
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,767
Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
PragerU: If there is no God, murder isn't wrong
If there's no God, cake isn't delicious.



Same argument, same level of hilarity.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 08:57 AM   #9
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,767
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
And Michael Shermer's response to this video:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

What an absurd notion. Imagine when Moses came down the mountain with the 10 commandments and people having realized for the very first time that murder and theft are wrong having been enlightened by God's wisdom.
15. He came down the mountain with 15.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:05 AM   #10
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,088
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
He does, I must admit, stray into the weeds by saying that the mass murders of the 20th century are obviously linked to the abandonment of Judaeo-Christian belief.
I would say that at this point he goes off the rails completely, and reveals a hidden agenda.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
When it comes down to it, it all ends up with moral relativism. They are evil because society says they are evil.
It would seem to me a lot simpler than that. Morality, in my view, is treating people the way I would reasonably expect them to treat me if our positions were reversed. I wouldn't want to be murdered, so I shouldn't murder anyone else. I wouldn't want to be a murderer, so I'd expect other people to stop me murdering. It requires a certain amount of thought, because one has to visualize one's positions being reversed and apply the qualifier "reasonably", but it seems to me that if applied correctly it results in people being fairly treated. At no point does God come into the premises, yet morality is the result.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:07 AM   #11
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,433
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It would seem to me a lot simpler than that. Morality, in my view, is treating people the way I would reasonably expect them to treat me if our positions were reversed. I wouldn't want to be murdered, so I shouldn't murder anyone else. I wouldn't want to be a murderer, so I'd expect other people to stop me murdering. It requires a certain amount of thought, because one has to visualize one's positions being reversed and apply the qualifier "reasonably", but it seems to me that if applied correctly it results in people being fairly treated. At no point does God come into the premises, yet morality is the result.

Dave

Mirror neurons.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:07 AM   #12
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,475
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
If there's no God, cake isn't delicious.



Same argument, same level of hilarity.
I don't get it.

If there is no God, then whether or not cake is delicious is a matter of opinion. There is no absolute concept of "delicious" which can be measured against some unchanging standard.

If, on the other hand, there were a God that dictated that something is or is not delicious, then we could say that a person who did not find cake to be delicious was going against the will of God. I guess that would be bad, or something.

The point is that "delicious" is just a matter of opinion. So is "evil", except that Dennis doesn't like that answer. He wants "evil" to be defined as an absolute, and he invents a God to provide that absolute.
__________________
On vacation.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:10 AM   #13
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,767
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I don't get it.

If there is no God, then whether or not cake is delicious is a matter of opinion.
That's exactly my point.

Quote:
If, on the other hand, there were a God that dictated that something is or is not delicious, then we could say that a person who did not find cake to be delicious was going against the will of God.
I don't accept the idea that a decree from an omnipotent creator god makes that god's opinion "objective". It's all a matter of opinion either way.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:20 AM   #14
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,857
Quote:
In a secular world, there can only be opinions about morality. They may be personal opinions or society’s opinion. But only opinions.
Religion is just another form of society. It only depends on where you draw the lines to define a particular society. There is no absolute objective truth as different religions can have different truths, and they can even change and evolve within a particular religion. They are still a form of societal opinion.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:34 AM   #15
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,475
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I would say that at this point he goes off the rails completely, and reveals a hidden agenda.
I'm not sure it's all that hidden.


Quote:
It would seem to me a lot simpler than that. Morality, in my view, is treating people the way I would reasonably expect them to treat me if our positions were reversed. I wouldn't want to be murdered, so I shouldn't murder anyone else. I wouldn't want to be a murderer, so I'd expect other people to stop me murdering. It requires a certain amount of thought, because one has to visualize one's positions being reversed and apply the qualifier "reasonably", but it seems to me that if applied correctly it results in people being fairly treated. At no point does God come into the premises, yet morality is the result.

Dave
I think that's pretty much where modern, non-theistic, morality is going. The Golden Rule is pretty much the basis of it.

However, even that is a matter of opinion, although it seems to me that we have evolved to accept that idea naturally.

One of the things that troubles me about morality is that there are physical conditions which cause people to behave "immorally". Do they "become evil" as a result of contracting those conditions? I once read an argument that Adolf Hitler was probably suffering from Syphillitic Dementia, and that all of the thngs that we call evil about Hitler were actually symptoms of the disease. I don't know if the author was correct in his diagnosis, but the very fact that there is a disease with those symptoms (megalomania, lack of empathy, utter disconcern for others) would tend to make one discount the concept of "evil" as a meaningful concept.
__________________
On vacation.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 10:08 AM   #16
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,088
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
One of the things that troubles me about morality is that there are physical conditions which cause people to behave "immorally". Do they "become evil" as a result of contracting those conditions? I once read an argument that Adolf Hitler was probably suffering from Syphillitic Dementia, and that all of the thngs that we call evil about Hitler were actually symptoms of the disease. I don't know if the author was correct in his diagnosis, but the very fact that there is a disease with those symptoms (megalomania, lack of empathy, utter disconcern for others) would tend to make one discount the concept of "evil" as a meaningful concept.
Only as applied to people rather than actions, which I think is generally a bad idea. If we accept that "good" and "evil" apply to actions rather than people, then we don't judge people for being evil or for being good, neither of which has any point to it anyway; we judge them for carrying out evil or good actions. And if it turns out that the best way to prevent them from carrying out evil actions and induce them to carry out good ones is to cure a disease they have, then we can achieve a very good result by doing simply that.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 10:36 AM   #17
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,054
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
If there's no God, cake isn't delicious.
The cake is a lie.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 10:36 AM   #18
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,767
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The cake is a lie.
And there is no spoon. So no way to eat it anyway!
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 10:46 AM   #19
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, he is accurately characterizing your position. He says that it is taught that good and evil are matters of opinion, i.e. belief. He is characterizing your position completely accurately. You are stating your position exactly as he stated it, with the exception of you saying "belief" and he says "opinion". Not a hill of beans worth of difference, it would seem to me.
Opinion is the wrong word for it though. Moral position may be *relative* between people, but they are generally far more stable and far more part of our own self than opinions. To compare them to opinion, a much weaker and far more arbitrary principle, is actually where he strays. There is a difference of quality which is important IMO, and it is intentional that he compares it to something weaker.

Then his thesis is not only a bit insulting for atheist, but for *ALL* religions or folk on earth not bathed in judeo christian culture. Does he really think that japanese see murder as fine ? Chinese ?

The problem is that the *core* of morality for human can be boiled down to a few first principle, very general ones, don't murder, don't rape, don't steal. Judeo christian religion simply pretend it is the source of those principle, but in reality they exists in all human populations. That makes his whole thesis fall down on the face in ignorance.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:17 PM   #20
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,094
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
(some snipped)

That answer isn't very palatable to a lot of folks. We want to be able to say that our condemnation of those things we call evil is not simply a matter of opinion, nor just some matter of convenience for creating stable societies. We want it to be the case that there are things that are really, truly, evil, in a meaningful way. That answer cannot be justified without some sort of non-scientific assertion.
As a moral relativist myself, the "matter of opinion" bit irks me. Of course it's a matter of opinion. But that doesn't mean it isn't as stable as anything else we form judgements about. "Opinion" is not the same thing as "capricious," nor "vapid and ill-informed." Prager is using it as a slur.

Prager is a moral relativist too, only he won't admit it. In his opinion, moral teaching comes from God - but that's just his "opinion." The best he can do is exactly what I would do when it comes to explaining differences in moral answers across humanity - they are constituted differently than I am or have a different experience base or were taught differently.

His theory does not explain why one person thinks abortion is obviously wrong and another disagrees. All he can say is there is some flaw in the person whose opinion varies from his. All I can say is that it shouldn't be counted as a flaw so much as normal variation of perspective.

Last edited by marplots; 21st April 2017 at 10:15 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:24 PM   #21
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,094
It's interesting to note that our best example of moral defectives is the sociopath. But the sociopath's "evil" springs, not from a desire to act immorally, but because of a psychology that allows them to act a-morally - that is, without considering the moral realm at all. It's not a desire to do evil, it's a lack of empathy that identifies evil deeds as evil in the first place.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:28 PM   #22
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,094
Here is another flaw in the absolutist take on morality. If moral rights and wrongs exist outside of my own understanding/opinion, then why do we not complain about immoral lions? The male of the species is well known to kill off the progeny of other male lions when assuming leadership of the pride. Under an absolute morality, how could this be forgiven?

On the other hand, moral relativism explains this and extends the idea of morality to other species, including insects and even bacteria. Perhaps this is where Prager becomes uncomfortable, insisting on the old party line that mankind is a special sort of being instead of just another social animal.

Last edited by marplots; 21st April 2017 at 10:13 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 09:31 PM   #23
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Well this is the first time I've heard that.

But seriously, this has been a bad argument for at least 2500 years. It seems like every couple years - on the same cycle they release dragon and meteor movies - some goofball acts like they just came up with this great new idea.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 06:03 AM   #24
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,908
I think the biggest problem with an argument that correct morality comes from God is that, for example, slavery is endorsed throughout the Bible. Even Jesus speaks of punishing (i.e. beating) slaves as a simple fact of life. So if we are to take the morality put forth in the Bible as absolute, then we should have no problem with slavery. And if you do have a problem with slavery, then you're not getting your morality from the Bible.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 06:17 AM   #25
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,088
There's also the Euthyphro dilemma to consider. Is morality independent of God, in which case God is not omnipotent; or is morality no more or less than that which is commanded by God, in which case there can be no such thing as objective morality? The simple argument that morality stems from following God's commands runs into serious problems with that question.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 06:22 AM   #26
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,496
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Precisely. This is the description. The only prescription needed for ethics and/or democracy is to start with this natural trait and consensually build from there. Massive kudos.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 06:34 AM   #27
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,561
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
It's amazing that people can talk this kind of crap and keep a straight face.

On the other hand I think we are witnessing the Christians in their death throes, trying to maintain some credibility, when the walls are crashing all around them.
I do hope it is over with soon!!! I do not mind them (I have many xtian friends none of whom are at the crazy level. But..................)
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 06:47 AM   #28
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28,737
Here's where this idiot's argument fails. If God existed, and declared murder OK, it would still be wrong.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 07:23 AM   #29
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,908
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
There's also the Euthyphro dilemma to consider. Is morality independent of God, in which case God is not omnipotent; or is morality no more or less than that which is commanded by God, in which case there can be no such thing as objective morality? The simple argument that morality stems from following God's commands runs into serious problems with that question.

Dave
I don't think that's terribly convincing. Surely the argument is that morality is defined by God's decree, and that God's decree is that objective morality. God is all things, God is the arbiter of all things. His will is law.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 07:26 AM   #30
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Without god there's no morality?

Well, there's no god, so either there's no morality or we humans are charged with making the rules.

Since there is morality and there is no god, seems like it's up to us.

And, of course, as others have noted, when your morality comes from an unimpeachable source that is not human, they may have you kill your son or a rape a few people or enslave some folks and commit a little genocide. It would be immoral not to...

Last edited by TraneWreck; 22nd April 2017 at 07:33 AM.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 07:37 AM   #31
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't think that's terribly convincing. Surely the argument is that morality is defined by God's decree, and that God's decree is that objective morality. God is all things, God is the arbiter of all things. His will is law.
If it's good because god says so, then it sure isn't objective. Especially when god drowns everyone and everything then says, "Damn, I shouldn't have done that."

If God wanted, murder and rape could be moral tomorrow. How is that objective?

Also, should be noted that whole lot of rape and murder has been carried by people thinking they were obeying god's will.

Last edited by TraneWreck; 22nd April 2017 at 07:40 AM.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 09:31 AM   #32
Gregoire
Muse
 
Gregoire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 516
Unfortunately, there is a little strawmanning going on by our side as well as in the video. (Did everyone actually watch the video? Prager did deal with some of the objections raised, btw. :-))

In philosophy (just as science), one first wants to deal with the question as narrowly as possible—and use the most charitable interpretation. Bringing up Moses, although interesting, does not really deal with the precise question being raised.

So does atheism entail that there are no objective* moral facts? (definition below)

This is a conceptual question. It has to do atheism’s logical implications if one assumes it is true. And even Prager concedes it nothing to do with the behavior of atheists…..that is until he strawmans the argument by bringing up Hitler.

Contrary to what Prager says, atheists come down on BOTH sides. Actually, quite a lot of them think there ARE objective moral facts, even though they don’t ground this with a god or gods. (See Sam Harris, Shelly Kagan, Russ Shafer Landau among many others.)

And saying there are no objective moral facts doesn’t end the discussion. One could be a “moral skeptic”, (saying there are no moral facts) and endorse Mackie’s Error Theory. Or one could be another type of “moral skeptic” and be an Emotivist like A. J. Ayer.

Or, as Marsplots has pointed out, one can say there are moral facts but that they are relative to our culture (Cultural Relativism) or relative to our subjective opinions (Subjectivism). I would say these latter opinions probably constitute the majority of skeptics on this board.




*Standard definition of Objective “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”

So saying chocolate is better than vanilla would be Subjective:it is true relative to the individual.

Saying 1+1=2 or humans have a common ancestor with chimpanzees would be Objective: it is true regardless of what our opinion might be.
__________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..” Voltaire
"The crows seem to be calling my name", thought Caw.
Gregoire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 12:12 PM   #33
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,088
It's still arse-about-face logic. Even if we conceded - which I personally do not - that without God as a source there is no such thing as morality, that doesn't actually get us anywhere. Atheism is not a moral philosophy; it's the rejection of the claim of fact that there is an omnipotent creator. Whether atheism is morally justified is as meaningless a question as whether it is morally justified that water is wet. And if it could be shown to be true that there is no God and this implies that there cannot be such a thing as morality, then we'd better learn to accept that truth and work with it, because basing our moral philosophy on something that is admitted to be a meaningless concept is not a viable approach.

It's also notable that the later part of the line of argument is equally fallacious, in that it appeals to an anonymous authority and doesn't make any attempt to substantiate the claim that "our public schools [are] teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun", a positive claim that I'm quite certain is untrue; while it may not be taught sufficiently explicitly for Prager's preference that murder is wrong, I cannot for a moment believe it is affirmatively taught in schools, as claimed, that murder is not wrong, and hysterical claims like this can only cast doubt on the whole line of argument.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 01:07 PM   #34
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,016
If murder is OK because there is no God then how do these nitwits account for Buddhists.; they have no God, yet not only do they believe that murder is wrong, they believe that killing any living creature is wrong.

In the meantime, how many millions of people have been slaughtered "in the name oif God" ?
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 01:27 PM   #35
surreptitious57
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 232
Morality is not objective only subjective or inter subjective. So even if God did exist and was the source of morality that could only be
subjective or inter subjective by definition. Objective morality is an oxymoron so is logically impossible. Also one cannot apply notions
of moral objectivity to humans for we are emotional beings as much as logical ones. For objective morality to be a viable concept then
we would have to be totally logical just like artificial intelligence. Then morality would not exist and so the point would still be academic
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 01:39 PM   #36
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,799
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
What an absurd notion. Imagine when Moses came down the mountain with the 10 commandments and people having realized for the very first time that murder and theft are wrong having been enlightened by God's wisdom.

Imagine if there had been a typo on one of the tablets, and it had said "thou shalt kill".

That's the basic problem with outsourcing your ethics.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 22nd April 2017 at 01:39 PM. Reason: Typo.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 02:36 PM   #37
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,908
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
If it's good because god says so, then it sure isn't objective.
It is if you believe that the entire universe only exists through God's will.

Quote:
Especially when god drowns everyone and everything then says, "Damn, I shouldn't have done that."
That is a different argument.

Quote:
If God wanted, murder and rape could be moral tomorrow. How is that objective?
"Objective" is not the same thing as "immutable".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 04:04 PM   #38
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,561
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't think that's terribly convincing. Surely the argument is that morality is defined by God's decree, and that God's decree is that objective morality. God is all things, God is the arbiter of all things. His will is law.
**** him!!!Posteriorly!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 04:09 PM   #39
Gregoire
Muse
 
Gregoire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If murder is OK because there is no God then how do these nitwits account for Buddhists.; they have no God, yet not only do they believe that murder is wrong, they believe that killing any living creature is wrong.

In the meantime, how many millions of people have been slaughtered "in the name oif God" ?
Good points which need to be mentioned in any conversation on this topic.

However, Prager did concede atheists can be good people and religious people often act horribly. He is really arguing a very narrow claim: atheists are being logically inconsistent if they claim there are objective moral facts. As I said, atheists come down on both sides of whether he is correct.

His points about Hitler are completely irrelevant (and actually contradictory) to his argument. Maybe he did this to appeal to his fan base.
__________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..” Voltaire
"The crows seem to be calling my name", thought Caw.
Gregoire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 11:49 PM   #40
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,815
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I don't get it.

If there is no God, then whether or not cake is delicious is a matter of opinion. There is no absolute concept of "delicious" which can be measured against some unchanging standard.

If, on the other hand, there were a God that dictated that something is or is not delicious, then we could say that a person who did not find cake to be delicious was going against the will of God. I guess that would be bad, or something.

The point is that "delicious" is just a matter of opinion. So is "evil", except that Dennis doesn't like that answer. He wants "evil" to be defined as an absolute, and he invents a God to provide that absolute.
There is not any absolute truth in morals. Neither with God nor without God.
There are some people that think that God says to them what to be done. This is an illusory and dangerous belief. This is bad faith (mauvaise foi)

Ilusory: There was a crazy woman that said that God talked with her by telephone, “And how do you know he is God”, the psychiatrist asked. “I don’t know”, said the crazy woman, “He says he is God”.
She was not so crazy. Because she knew what the religious man ignores: that he doesn’t really know if he is speaking with God. If God exists there is no way to know absolutely what he wants.

Dangerous: because if I think that my beliefs/opinions are sanctified by God in person I risk to turn into a violent fanatic. If God tells me what is the absolute good, people that don’t do as me are the absolute bad. This is not a good idea.

If you liberate yourself from the idea of a commanding moral god you will not get the Absolute Moral Idea, but you will get a more respectful attitude towards other people. This is not all, but it is a good beginning.

Last edited by David Mo; 23rd April 2017 at 12:18 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.