One argument against evolution that comes up exasperating often is that evolution taken to its logical conclusion resulted in the Holocaust. This is rather like a gay person deciding to reject electromagnetic theory because they dislike the cultural impact of laws like “opposite charges attract.” It's only funny until millions of people believe it and vote accordingly.
This is such an inflammatory argument that it is rarely is given a passionless rebuttal. Shouting back at it is an enormous rhetorical mistake. All you have to blow on it a bit and the whole thing collapses marvelously.
To justify the Holocaust with evolution requires four different conclusions. First, it is logically possible that some races are better or more fit than other races. Second, Aryans are in fact superior and Jews are in fact inferior. Third, eugenics could effectively be used to advance evolution. Fourth, doing so is morally right. The Theory of Evolution fails to be at fault in all four steps.
Are Some Races Inferior?
The first issue is whether or not evolution creates a basis for racism by providing a basis for the possibility of one race being better than another. And it certainly does. It is logically possible that one race is more fit than another due to evolution.
However, different races are all part of the same species. So we're talking about microevolution. Creationists accept microevolution, so it makes absolutely no difference which view of origins you accept. Poodles and wolves are part of the same species and differ only due to microevolution – one certainty need not believe in their equality. Similarly, it might be the case that one race has better genes than another regardless of your theory of origins.
Which Races Are Inferior?
Evolutionary theory does not tell us which race is superior, or even if a superior race exists at all. If someone wants to argue that evolution led to the Holocaust, the least they could do is explain how evolution leads to a negative view of Jews or any of the other races that were targeted.
The hatred of the Jews had nothing to do with Darwin. It goes back to at least the Middle Ages and is due in large part to religious differences and anti-Jewish propaganda spread by the church. This component of the case for the Holocaust comes not from a distortion of evolution, but a distortion of Christianity.
Is Eugenics Effective?
How do you get rid of Jews? You kill them, or otherwise prevent them from reproducing. Any view of science sufficiently advanced to realize that Jewish children typically come from Jewish parents will reach this conclusion. Of course, I'm not talking about ethics, I'm only asking if a worldwide Holocaust would have accomplished Hitler's goal. The answer is yes. This hardly shows us the evils of believing that children usually look like their parents.
A harder question is if killing the weak and disabled would have a noticeable effect upon improving the human race's gene pool. Would it take three generations to see a difference? One thousand? Would it never help at all? But notice that the question here is about the effectiveness of a particular means of reducing the frequency of particular alleles so that a less fit homo sapiens population can become a more fit homo sapiens population. Or in other words, eugenics deals with microevolution, which is kind of funny, because creationists accept microevolution. Thus, it is not defenders of macroevolution who are inadvertently making the case for eugenics – we explicitly argue that evolution doesn't imply eugenics. The people whose rhetoric makes the case for eugenics are creationists.
Is Eugenics Morally Acceptable?
The alleged reason that evolution defends the morality of eugenics is that in evolution, life progresses through struggle and death. While there are some awkward moral issues if you believe that a loving God set it up to work this way, evolution itself does not say anything about the morality of the process. Evolution is a description of how the process works.
To argue that the efficacy of survival of the fittest somehow implies that a Darwinian society should be our goal is the “is-ought” fallacy. This is rather like telling the child of a rape victim that because their existence is good, they must believe rape to be morally acceptable. Or rather, it is like the child concluding that he wasn't conceived by means of rape because the moral implications of this would just be too terrible to be true. Evolution is merely a theory about the manner in which it happened – this isn't a moral claim, and only the barest amount of common sense is needed to see this.
Conclusion
I don't reject Christianity because Hitler also used religious language to defend hatred of the Jews. I don't even fault religion for Hitler's use of religious language – this would only be relevant if the Bible actually taught people to hate the Jews. The question is if Hitler's evolutionary case for the Holocaust was valid.
It is difficult to overstate just how bad the case for evolution leading to the Holocaust is, or just how badly it reflects on creationists' integrity. Ignorance is no excuse for falsely accusing others of harboring mass murderers. All you have to know to see through the argument is that different races are part of the same species, and thus the origin and extent of racial differences are questions for microevolution. I can more easily forgive the good-faith mistake of accepting many of creationists' other arguments, as they at least require some level of scientific knowledge to be refuted. But this takes next to nothing to be refuted and still it is a mainstream creationist argument. Just how gullible do creationists have to be for their leaders to be able to get away with this kind of thing for decades on end without an enormous backlash from within? Well, there actually is a backlash from within. We, the former creationists, are vilified for “trusting the reasoning of man.” When a group has catchphrases that antagonize people for the sin of thinking, there is no limit to what they will believe.
It is my understanding that anthropologists and biologists generally agree that there is no biological basis for race and that it is only a cultural construct.
ReplyDeleteIn light of this conclusion it would seem to be a non sequitur to use evolution to justify racial cleansing. That can only be a culturally motivated goal.
Evolution is hardly a "mere theory." As with all things ideas have consequences (Read Richard Weaver). To say evolution had no hand to play in the Holocaust is naive and shows a lack of knowledge about the history of ideas. The idea of the "survival of the fittest" had devastating consequences for Europe's Jews when Hitler took Darwinism's ideas to its logical conclusion. You can argue it away all you want but history says otherwise.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, if you accept microevolution like basically 100% of creationists, then you too accept survival of the fittest. Thus, the implications of survival of the fittest are irrelevant to the origins debate.
ReplyDeleteNext, the historical role played by evolution is not even the topic of my post. The question is if Hitler's evolutionary case for the Holocaust was valid. If not, the problem is that Hitler was illogical, not that he started with evolution.
Similarly, the Holocaust is Christianity taken to its logical conclusions only if Hitler made valid religious arguments in condemnation of the Jews.
>when Hitler took Darwinism's ideas to its logical conclusion.
The topic of my post is that eugenics is not the logical conclusion of evolution. If you want to disagree with me, it would be nice if you would at least make some attempt to answer my arguments.
If you were to take Darwin's ideas to their 'natural conclusion' wouldn't you leave it up to the natural world to see which 'race' was most 'fit'? Wouldn't people tinkering with it, i.e. via the Holocaust, be meddling with the natural conclusion to Darwin's ideas?
ReplyDeleteAnd IF Hitler used ideas he got from evolution to justify the holocaust, that does not invalidate evolution in any way. the theory still stands as science. we used physics to make a terrible powerful bomb but saying that nuclear weapons are bad does not negate the theories behind the physics of it.
This is rather like a gay person deciding to reject electromagnetic theory because they dislike the cultural impact of laws like “opposite charges attract.”
ReplyDeleteThat's true, but that's only the so-called "weak-force", the one that makes protons and electrons attract eachother; however, this is not enough for the atom not to disintegrate, because of the huge distance between its core and electron-layers. The force that is responsible for this is called the strong force, and is responsible for proton-proton attraction [thus avoiding the core's explosion], as well as proton-electron rejection (otherwise the atom would simply self-implode: fall down on itself).
Are Some Races Inferior?
ReplyDelete"Creationists accept microevolution, so it makes absolutely no difference which view of origins you accept." - Actually, it does make a difference.
You raise a valid point that the difference between races is an issue of microevolution. However, I believe you have inaccurately identified the two sides here as evolutionists and creationists. The real two sides to this debate (consistently) are evolutionists and creationist-evolutionists VS. creationists who do not believe in a combined creation-evolution theory. Also, you seem to have completely missed the fact that although evolutionists and creationists agree that microevolution exists, THEY LOGICALLY DISAGREE ON ITS SIGNIFICANCE.
To a creationist, macroevolution is non-existent. Since macroevolution does not exist, it is not improving the species. Also, since microevolution involves the reduction of genetic information, any microevolution which improves survivability in some ways may reduce survivability in other ways. In other words, to a creationist "survival of the fittest" is true or false on a case-by-case-basis and is not necessarily universal. Hence, a macroevolutionless creationist belief in microevolution can not possibly result in the idea that eugenics would result in an improvement of any kind, only differences.
An Evolutionist, if he is honest regarding evolutionary theory, must admit that microevolution is a part-and-parcel component of macroevolution by helping to steer the macroevolutionary process. Since microevolution is a part of macroevolution and macroevolution is said to be improving the species, microevolution is involved with improving the species. Hitler's eugenic belief that some races were genetically superior and others inferior WAS a direct result of his belief in combined/related microevolutionary/macroevoluitonary Darwinism and that this evolution was improving the species. It seems to me that Hitler was not the one who was illogical, but you.
Your argument "it makes absolutely no difference which view of origins you accept" implies two things:
1) That you don't understand creationist microevolutionary theory.
2) That you have an underlying assumption that microevolution and macroevolution are completely unrelated and can be placed into separate, distinct boxes, which is why you can claim that macroevolution can be disconnected from eugenics. As stated before, though, no macroevolutionist can HONESTLY claim this (who has a lack of integrity?). Unless you can defend this supposed separation???
Which Races Are Inferior?
"the least they could do is explain how evolution leads to a negative view of Jews or any of the other races that were targeted." - Creationists don't need to. Eugenicists who believe/believed in connected microevolution/macroevolution already have (see above)!
Hate for Jews was certainly derived from a variety of other sources. However, in your argument here you seem to be ignoring the fact that back then they had plenty of bogus, popular, "factual" science just as basically every society does (one can't help but think of other popular science "facts" like the former ice-age theories from the 70s or a great deal of the current "facts" regarding the current global-warming hype). In the instance of Hitler and the Nazis, there was a plenty of well-funded, bogus "science" to show that Jews were inferior. Creationism would obviously be useless to this sort of "science". Hence they relied heavily on and aligned themselves exclusively with their intricately-connected microevolutionary/macroevoluitonary Darwinism.
Is Eugenics Effective?
"Thus, it is not defenders of macroevolution who are inadvertently making the case for eugenics – we explicitly argue that evolution doesn't imply eugenics" - Again, you can only argue this if you put microevolution and macroevolution in separate, unrelated boxes. But evolutionists of the past who did not make the separation, certainly argued the opposite. If you really believe that there is no connection between evolution and the holocaust and are upset about Christians bringing up the Holocaust-Evolution connection, you should 1) defend your microevolution/macroevolution distinction and 2) go straight to the source and attack the evolutionists who generated the eugenics connection you claim is false. This would be far more productive than attacking Christians who are merely reminding us of history.
"The people whose rhetoric makes the case for eugenics are creationists." - Bogus. See the above creationist definition of microevolution. Also, creationists neither invented nor propagated the term "microevolution". Science did. Current evolutionists are simply tired of hearing this word in the mouths of creationists and have decided to despise the term for that immature, political reason. This flippant accusation implies your acceptance of that same prejudice.
Is Eugenics Morally Acceptable?
"To argue that the efficacy of survival of the fittest somehow implies that a Darwinian society should be our goal is the “is-ought” fallacy....and only the barest amount of common sense is needed to see this." - Apparently you are saying that evolutionists throughout history have not had the barest amount of common sense, since they did see the implication. Also, how can the "is-ought" fallacy exist if there is no such thing as "ought"? You need to defend your atheist idea(s) about where morals come from at this point.
I don't normally even talk about micro v. macroevolution because as an evolutionist, I don't think it is a useful distinction. I only referred to microevolution because I'm pointing out a problem that is internal to creationist thought, and hence it was legitimate to take advantage of a distinction that I don't accept myself.
ReplyDeleteIn a well-known example, bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon. While not all creationists accept that nylonase really evolved, William Dembski does and doesn't seem to think it falls outside his idea of what microevolution means. If this is microevolution, then even as a creationist you must accept that microevolution can involve beneficial mutations that create addition genetic information that results in a change within a species. Eugenics could seek to spread this sort of microevolutionary change.
This is why I don't usually use the word microevolution at all. If your definition of the word does not allow for things like the evolution of nylonase, then as you noted, creationist microevolution has much less to do with eugenics than evolutionist microevolution. If you do define it to include things like the evolution of nylonase, I'm right on the money.
>Also, how can the "is-ought" fallacy exist if there is no such thing as "ought"? You need to defend your atheist idea(s) about where morals come from at this point.
Why do you believe genocide is wrong? Believing the Bible requires you to condone genocide. Maybe God told Hitler to utterly destroy his people for rejecting his son - this would be a very Yahweh thing to do.
Also, it's kind of funny how quickly you switched between explaining the moral implications of evolution, and claiming that atheists have no morals. We just can't win.
But this is far off-topic, and you know that. I'll bet you just said it because you know your argument commits the is-ought fallacy, so you had to change the subject to save face.
Are you the Andrew R I know from real life? If so, I just now figured that out... (Although, with about a dozen people I don't know commenting this month, a coincidental name match wouldn't be too far-fetched.)
ReplyDeleteAbout an hour before you commented, I found a new link to this post from a (politically) conservative blog discussion. Together with the global warming reference, I incorrectly put two and two together as far as how you found my blog.
Yes! I am the Andrew R. you know from real life. I've known about your blog for quite a while and have meant to visit it for a long time, but have not had the time. I'm sure you can guess several of the reasons why...
ReplyDeleteWhile I have not studied the nylonase example in detail, I disagree that nylonase falls outside of my definition of microevolution. As I stated before, microevolution can create differences within a species that may increase survivability in some instances but decrease survivability in others. Has anyone done any studies to see how resilient nylonase is to antibiotics compared to the bacteria it evolved from? Many bacterias develop resistances to antibiotics through microevolution. Is nylonase more or less capable of developing resistances than the bacteria it came from? Can nylonase continue to evolve to digest other things besides nylon, or has its developing abilities become stunted due to loss or change of genetic information? These case-by-case questions and others like them are critical to an attempt to disprove my definition of microevolution.
ReplyDeleteI am, of course, aware of atheist accusations regarding genocide in the Bible. These accusations always 1) ignore the Creator-created difference and/or 2) ignore the idea of certain morals trumping others.
1) Creator-created Difference - Jer 18:1-10. I don’t know if I really need to cover this with you or not, but I will just to get it out of the way. Saying that it is wrong for God to destroy people is as silly as saying the Arnold Schwarzenegger does not have the right to destroy cardboard cutouts of himself just because they were made in his image. If Arnold wants to destroy the cutout and it belongs to him, there is no wrong done. Same with God and people.
2) Moral Trump Cards - Since we are made in the image of God, we are equal in value so far as we humans can possibly determine. This makes genocide wrong for people to do against people…in normal scenarios. But your reference to Num 31 is not a normal scenario. In that instance God’s right to justly destroy people trumps the wrong of the Israelites killing to the Midianites. For example, the Bible forbids lying. It also instructs us to protect life. When these two morals collide, protecting life trumps lying. This is why Rahab’s lie was considered righteousness (Joshua 2:1-7& James 2:25). So in the same way people who hid Jews were in the right when they lied to the Nazis. Num 31 is not an instance of Biblical contradiction but an instance of one moral trumping another.
I was not claiming that atheists have no morals. Far from it. I know full well that there are some atheists who live better lives than some Christians. That is not in question. The question is where to an atheist’s morals come from? The title of your post is “Evolution and the Holocaust”. Evolution is a science issue. An understanding of evolution’s claims regarding the origin of the species was necessary before you could make this post. The Holocaust is a moral issue. So, philosophically, what is your origin of morality? That is what I am asking. This is a different topic of course, but it is directly connected and critical to the discussion.
>I disagree that nylonase falls outside of my definition of microevolution.
ReplyDeleteThis may or may not be relevant, but it falls outside Ken Ham's description. To him, a population has stronger genes than another because it is more genetically diverse. Microevolution and/or new species result when a population loses the genetic information for, say, short hair leaving only long haired animals.
Just think about it in reverse. Suppose we started with a population of bacteria some of which could digest nylon and others of which could digest sugar. And then something happened that killed off all the nylon-digesting bacteria, or simply separated the two into different populations. This would be precisely the kind of devolution that reduces genetic diversity and Ham thinks separated the “kinds” into the hundreds and thousands of species within each “kind.” If it's downward evolution viewed backwards, then it's upward evolution viewed forwards. The population of bacteria has now increased its genetic diversity – which is precisely what Ham thinks can't happen.
The evolution of nylonase is the kind of thing that eugenics could seek to advance within humanity. Which is why “it wouldn't help humanity evolve” needs to be a very secondary reason for not advocating eugenics. It makes sense to think that if done correctly, it just might work. The real reason to not do so is that it is cruel. Creationists undermine the main argument against eugenics by suggesting that if a theory implies eugenics works, it also implies we should do it.
>I was not claiming that atheists have no morals.
Certainly. I would have responded less polemically if I had realized who I was talking to. (And I should have anyway.)
What I failed to say clearly is that “atheism provides no basis for morality” and “according to atheism, eugenics is moral” are two incompatible arguments.
>So, philosophically, what is your origin of morality?
Wherever it comes from, I have a moral sense, and I choose to follow it. I care about promoting my own happiness, reducing my own suffering, and about others'. Societies work better when everyone or most people act this way, and hence we have constructed both written and unwritten rules that people are to follow and penalties for not following them. When some kinds of rules are broken, the penalty is jail – with other rules the penalty is a loss of reputation. The fact that I think other people should value others' happiness means that I'm part of a system that penalizes selfishness with a loss of reputation. A concept of morality is useful for humanity and it would be at great personal cost to go without one, so I go with it.
These rules both deal with particular actions as well as overarching principles. For instance, America had the overarching principle of equality of man long before racism was viewed negatively. This is what is going on when someone criticizes a groups ethics. They are judging the inconsistency of the particular rules (or lack of rules) with the overarching principles. Because of the inconsistency, it make sense for ethics to come from the group, and also for an individual to see that the group's ethics are wrong. “Does this particular ethic serve the overarching principles?” is a question with an objective answer regardless of how many people know the right answer.
When I say I and the rest of humanity have a moral sense and similar ideas about the overarching principles, this isn't a statement about a concept of right and wrong that transcends humanity, but a statement about humanity itself. Orchestras sound better than musicians with no talent and I have a concept of morality. On some level, the only reason the concept of musical talent has meaning is that there is widespread agreement about who is good and who isn't. And yet it's not just truth by majority. Even without God telling us which musician is more talented, and even though very many comparisons truly are mere preferences, no one objects to the concept that someone can be very talented but not that popular or very popular but not that talented. Precisely unweaving what I'm talking about when I talk of musical skill or morality is difficult – but it works, and while music theorists and moral philosophers should seek to do better, it's good enough for me.
I judge a socially Darwinistic society to be repugnant because the “collective” can't experience pain or pleasure and fighting for the collective is often at the expense of the individuals. Caring for the elderly may hurt our society, but the effort I must spend now to be part of a society that does so is nothing compared to the value I gain when I am old – hedonistic selfishness alone is enough to reach that conclusion. My rational self-interest also knows that I can't be cruel to the elderly or disabled without compromising my reputation or more importantly my ability to interact charitably with everyone else. And my altruism cares how they feel for the simple reason that they feel. Even if I was inside a eugenic society, I would (in principle) be able to see the unnecessary damage being caused by a poor set of ethical rules. I wouldn't need an ultimate standard of rules to see that this set is damaging.
>I am, of course, aware of atheist accusations regarding genocide in the Bible. These accusations always 1) ignore the Creator-created difference and/or
Arnold can destroy cardboard cutouts because they lack the ability to experience pleasure or pain.
>In that instance God’s right to justly destroy people trumps the wrong of the Israelites killing to the Midianites.
The problem I'm going for deals not with God's ethics but with Moses' ethics.
Perhaps Hitler made exactly one mistake – not knowing the real source of the voices in his head. It is quite possible that Hitler fully understood exactly what he was doing and yet his only mistake had nothing to do with ethics, but just misinterpreting a subjective experience. Maybe he thought the command sounded brutal, but when he compared his experience to the Bible, he saw that God commanding a national leader to wipe out a people group was well within the range of commands God could issue. But our moral sense tells us that there is no way that Hitler's only mistake could have been miscommunication. Our moral sense says that Hitler should have known what he was doing was wrong no matter who commanded it. If Hitler thought God had told him to commit the Holocaust, Hitler should have looked up to heaven and said “NO!”
Ethics is at it's finest when a powerful authority commands something that is transparently wrong and the subordinate refuses even at great personal expense. That's why Moses should have said “NO!” and taught God the justice that was in his own heart. (He did get God to change his mind once...)
To believe otherwise is a very precariously balanced ethical system. Anything God says goes, what God says could include “thou shalt kill”, and your knowledge of what God says can hinge on subjective experiences. I'm sure you know plenty of sincere Christians who thought God told them something when he didn't.
lets just leave it at this I DOESN'T MATTER which race has superiority over another. If you think one race ois more superior than another, you better have scientific data to back it up. if you dan't have any solid evidence, and you think one race is superior over another, that makes you a RACIST!!!
ReplyDelete“What I failed to say clearly is that “atheism provides no basis for morality” and “according to atheism, eugenics is moral” are two incompatible arguments.” -
ReplyDeleteStraw man. The claim is not “according to atheism, eugenics is moral”. The claim, as you accurately identified in your original post, is that eugenics is the logical result of atheism.
“Wherever it comes from, I have a moral sense, and I choose to follow it.” -
I hope “wherever it comes from” does not imply that you don’t care where it comes from.
“I care about promoting my own happiness, reducing my own suffering, and about others'. Societies work better when everyone or most people act this way”
This is consequentialist ethics. It is certainly possible to rationally determine which means accomplish a desired end. Particular ethical rules benefit societies. But this, at best, only creates an internally consistent tautology. Internal consistency does not, however, equal truth or value. Consequentialist ethics look to the consequence of an action to determine its value. But this presupposes the value of the consequence. Why is the benefit of society the end that we should desire? Why is your own happiness of eminent value? Consequentialist ethics only begs the question. You can cascade the origin of morality all you want, but doing so does not explain where value comes from.
“I judge a socially Darwinistic society to be repugnant because the “collective” can't experience pain or pleasure and fighting for the collective is often at the expense of the individuals...And my altruism cares how they feel for the simple reason that they feel.” -
Uh-oh! This altruism sounds like “is-ought” again! It also, begs the same question - why are feelings of eminent value? Do pain and emotion have metaphysical characteristics? If so, then feelings may be a valid ends on which we can base morality. But then, you would be more of a deist than an atheist. If not, then pain and emotion are nothing but descriptions of electrochemical processes inside the brain. Why choose to base morality on this natural event instead of another? Instead, why not choose the natural event of gravity, which would make water pumps, airplanes, and rockets immoral? Why not choose the natural process of evolution and natural selection? What makes pain and emotion so special?
It seems to me that a consistent atheist cannot believe in the metaphysical. Would you agree? I’ll assume for the moment that you do. To such an atheist, the selection of any ends happens because the person’s brain chemistry just happened to prefer that ends. For you then, humanity just exists, and the selection of it, as an ends, just happened. Likewise, the Nazi belief in the eminence of a superior race just is, and the selection of it, as an ends, just happened. Since we are speaking in purely scientific terms here, neither of these selections can be called ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Rather, these were observable instances of natural processes we call brain chemistry, and nothing more. Upon what basis then, can a purely naturalistic atheist claim that the Nazis were wrong? If atheism is purely non-metaphysical, then there can be no rational claim that one person’s end is better than another person’s end. Ethical systems may be internally consistent. They may even be pragmatic in some way or another. However, in such a worldview they are ultimately neither rational, nor irrational, but rather they are non-rational. Morality ultimately deals with value. There are no non-metaphysical criteria by which anyone can determine the value of humanity either personally or in society.
“Does this particular ethic serve the overarching principles?” is a question with an objective answer regardless of how many people know the right answer. -
I agree, but where does the overarching principle come from? How were they selected, determined, or discovered? Upon what basis is one overarching principle ‘right’ and another ‘wrong’? This statement again only begs the question, “What is your origin of morality?”
“When I say I and the rest of humanity have a moral sense and similar ideas about the overarching principles, this isn't a statement about a concept of right and wrong that transcends humanity, but a statement about humanity itself.” -
What is humanity? Is it nothing but a part of nature, or is humanity transcendental somehow? Again, if it is not transcendental and is only natural, then humanity is just an aspect of nature that has been arbitrarily chosen as the basis for morality.
“Even without God telling us which musician is more talented, and even though very many comparisons truly are mere preferences, no one objects to the concept that someone can be very talented but not that popular or very popular but not that talented. Precisely unweaving what I'm talking about when I talk of musical skill or morality is difficult – but it works” -
It sounds very much like you are doing metaphysics of some sort. At the bare minimum I would say that you are borrowing from a metaphysical world view to make this statement.
If the metaphysical (like God) does not exist, then in music, what is pleasing to the ear or not pleasing to the ear is nothing but a description of how certain vibrations in the air affect the electrochemistry of a person’s brain. In such a system truth would be completely relative. The majority opinion would not tell us anything about the music itself but would only be able to indicate a similarity in brain chemistries within the group of people in question. Popularity would determine pretty much any idea of “talent” and visa-versa for that group. Differences of opinion on music would indicate differences of brain chemistry.
If the metaphysical does exist and impacts our lives, then good or bad music and musical talent can, in some way, be determined by its relation to that metaphysical reality no matter how tangible or intangible that metaphysical reality is. I may misunderstand your example, but this sounds exactly like what you are saying, and I don’t see how it can possibly be consistent with naturalistic atheism at all. In fact, what you are saying here sounds exactly like the foundation of every organized religion – the idea that there is a non-physical ‘something else out there’ that helps us to define and understand the physical world.
“Arnold can destroy cardboard cutouts because they lack the ability to experience pleasure or pain.” -
This is a non-answer to the Creator-created difference. From a Christian perspective, pleaser and pain are part of God’s creation. How does this aspect of creation limit the Creator’s rights? From a naturalist perspective, (see above) what is the value of pleasure and pain?
“Perhaps Hitler made exactly one mistake – not knowing the real source of the voices in his head.” -
From a naturalist perspective, it makes no difference where the voices in his head came from. They were just a natural phenomenon, right? Wherever it came from, Hitler had a moral sense, and chose to follow it. (This last statement doesn’t sound so good coming back at you, does it?)
“Ethics is at it's finest when a powerful authority commands something that is transparently wrong and the subordinate refuses even at great personal expense.” -
Indeed this is excellent ethics. Indeed this sounds exceedingly heroic. But from a consistent, non-metaphysical atheist perspective it is only heroic within the internally consistent tautology. As long as morality is based on arbitrarily chosen natural phenomenon, then I guess everyone who is engaged in a moral conflict is a hero.
“To believe otherwise is a very precariously balanced ethical system. Anything God says goes, what God says could include “thou shalt kill”, and your knowledge of what God says can hinge on subjective experiences.” -
Even if I accept the precariousness as stated (which I don’t), how is that any worse than morality based on the arbitrary selection of natural phenomenon, which is based on a person’s subjective experience? To a Christian, though, this is not so precarious since we have God’s Revelation to study and a belief in the Holy Spirit’s active role in guiding our understanding of that same Revelation.
All ethical systems have difficulties, in fact, the same difficulty: where to start? Christianity has the exact same difficulties as I will argue.
ReplyDeleteThe final conclusion I draw is that morality is not an effective way to determine if God does or doesn't exist. The places where moral arguments against the Bible fit into my overall case are as a counter-argument to a moral/desire argument for Christianity, and as a pragmatic argument.
>But this, at best, only creates an internally consistent tautology. Internal consistency does not, however, equal truth or value.
Certainly. Now apply this to “God is good and the definition of good is God's will” or whichever answer you choose.
>If not, then pain and emotion are nothing but descriptions of electrochemical processes inside the brain.
I fail to see how an effective description of a process affects its beauty. Newton didn't ruin rainbows by teaching us about the light spectrum.
How is it that souls are able to make morally responsible choices? How can a soul feel pain? How is hurting a soul worse than breaking a rock? Is there a spirit world where spiritual parts work together to make a spiritual computer that analyzes moral options? How do processes inside this spiritual realm behave – are they deterministic or are they random? Or did a God of order create the realm he inhabits to be simply chaotic? And how does free will or conscienceness fit into this? I'm not going to let you get away with blackboxing the “soul” while deconstructing the brain.
Theism only addressed the problems by packaging them up in “spiritual concepts” that are to be understood by faith – which is to say, by not addressing the problems.
>Why is the benefit of society the end that we should desire? Why is your own happiness of eminent value? Consequentialist ethics only begs the question. You can cascade the origin of morality all you want, but doing so does not explain where value comes from.
You are right – it doesn't. I can go back to evolution to seek to answer why it is the case that human brains are structured in a way that causes us to value our own and others' happiness. But I can't go back to evolution (or anywhere) for a metaphysical “value.”
But you have the exact same problem in explaining the origin of value. Why do you seek heaven for yourself and others? If it's because you want to be happy in heaven, this begs the question. If it's because you want to do right, this begs the question. If it's because you love God, this begs the question.
You also have the exact same problem in justifying a concept of “ought.” The problem comes when you back up a step and consider God's ethics. Why does God seek his own glory? Why does God love us? How did God come up with this overarching principle?
Theism only answers the question of the ultimate source of value by burying it inside the concept of “God” and declaring attempts to understand this concept to be irreverent. Which is to say that theism doesn't answer the question.
>It seems to me that a consistent atheist cannot believe in the metaphysical. Would you agree?
It's possible, but I do not. (I might be misunderstanding the question, so I'll spell it out. I do not believe people have a soul existing outside naturalistic laws or in a standard of right and wrong that would exist in the absence of humanity.)
>At the bare minimum I would say that you are borrowing from a metaphysical world view to make this statement.
The reason I gave for continuing to have a concept of musical talent and by implication morality is because it works. That is the exact opposite of metaphysics. But metaphysical language is still a useful means of communication. I could just as easily say that when Christians talk of the physical states that lead to a storm they are borrowing language from a philosophical system where God doesn't do anything.
>If the metaphysical (like God) does not exist, then in music ... truth would be completely relative.
How does God help out here? Did he tell you that Britney Spears is popular but not talented? We both have the same resources at our disposal to define the terms and answer the questions.
>To a Christian, though, this is not so precarious since we have God’s Revelation to study
Which is still problematic because of the contents of God's Revelation...
>and a belief in the Holy Spirit’s active role in guiding our understanding of that same Revelation.
The Holy Spirit would help. A belief in the Holy Spirit does not. And if there is anything that can be learned from the massive theological differences both in the church today and throughout history, it is that the Holy Spirit is really bad at his job. One enormous advantage of an atheistic ethic is that it does not lead to empirically false claims.
The ultimate moral answers (or non-answers) available to atheists are exactly the same ones in Christianity. The only difference is that atheisms' answers do not hide their weaknesses.
We may have come close to discussing this topic as much as we can, but I must respond at least once more.
ReplyDelete“But you have the exact same problem in explaining the origin of value. Why do you seek heaven for yourself and others? ...”
I disagree that Christians have the same problem explaining the origin of ultimate value. The problem with your examples is that they all have to do with personal desires. Ultimate value is not determined in this way for a Christian (at least not consistently anyway).
“The final conclusion I draw is that morality is not an effective way to determine if God does or doesn't exist.”
What is a good place to start? What should we use to determine if God does or doesn’t exist? Logic? Where does logic come from? The atheist has the same problem with logic that he has with morality. It is nothing but an electrochemical process in the brain. What is the difference between using this electrochemical process to determine if God does or does not exist or using some other electrochemical process? For an atheist then, the use of logic is no different or better or more beautiful than the lack of logic or misuse of logic. It is no different from believing ‘just because’. It is no different than not believing ‘just because’.
Whether or not evolution is logically connected to the holocaust is a minor side issue compared to this – nihilism is the inevitable logical result of atheism. A consistent atheist may prefer to use logic, but cannot account for its superiority in any way to anything else. One can’t help but wonder then, what the point is behind constant attacks by atheists on other worldviews. For them, ultimately no one else can really be wrong. One can’t help by wonder why an atheist should even care about defending his own worldview. Nihilism is unassailable in the sense that it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks or believes. Beliefs just exist. That’s it. Nihilism is just nothing. That’s it. Nothing. Nihilism is like a black hole. Consistent atheist logic will lead an atheist through the event horizon and then throw him into the black hole where he must leave everything, even logic and knowledge, behind because they are just natural phenomenon. Surely anyone using logic who is on a search for truth must find that at least a little bit unsatisfying.
An atheist might be content to stop with the use of logic, here, and simply say ‘Yup. Everything is ridiculous.’ or ‘Yup. Everybody has the same ultimate problems, including both me and you!’ or ‘Yup. We just have to pick something…and I have chosen best!’ - despite the fact that in nihilism there is no best. But those who believe in God are not content with this ultimate absurdity. Those who believe in God go one logical step further and realize that the existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary.
Everyone believes in some concept of ‘ultimate value’, even atheists. (Or that is, at a minimum, atheists show that they believe it based on their actions if not in their words.) We all believe (in some form or another no matter how consistent or twisted) in the ultimate value of morality, humanity, and especially laws of logic. Not only do we just believe, but we also act on these beliefs on a regular basis. Hitler really believed in the value of a superior race, hence his eugenics. I really believe in God, hence my response to this post. You really believe that there is no God, hence you created this blog. I could go on and on, but I’m sure you get the point. We all act on our beliefs in ways that are more than just random. We think of our beliefs as if they are ultimately true. We think of our actions is good if they line up with some kind of ultimate value and bad if they don’t. But the problem is that atheism/nihilism cannot account for ultimate truth or ultimate value. Therefore atheism/nihilism cannot really account for our day-to-day lives. Hence the absurdity and impossibility of naturalism/atheism/nihilism convinces people that the metaphysical must exist. More than that, it convinces us that God must both exist and be the source of ultimate value. We find two things at the same time 1) God exists and 2) “God is good and the definition of good is God's will” is a tautology that must be true. It cannot logically be otherwise.
“Theism only answers the question of the ultimate source of value by burying it inside the concept of “God” and declaring attempts to understand this concept to be irreverent. Which is to say that theism doesn't answer the question.”
Recognition of the impossibility of the idea that ‘God does not exist’ is not the same thing as “burying” the idea of ultimate value inside a concept of God. Nor is it failing to answer the question. It’s simply not accepted by atheists. Atheists often cast aspersions on a belief in God as ridiculous, illogical, and a cop-out to answering questions. They think that it is just silly to perform this extra logical step. But no amount of slurs and sarcasms invalidates the logic.
“I'm not going to let you get away with blackboxing the “soul” while deconstructing the brain.”
Since a belief in God is automatically, logically coupled with the idea the He is the source of value, any deconstruction of the soul or the metaphysical world would have to be based on the idea that God exists and is good.
“I fail to see how an effective description of a process affects its beauty. Newton didn't ruin rainbows by teaching us about the light spectrum.”
How is this an answer? What is so great about beauty? How is beauty better than ugliness? From an atheist/nihilist perspective, what does beauty have to do with determining truth? I guess for some atheists, an arbitrary, electrochemical brain function of belief in beauty might compliment arbitrary, electrochemical brain functions of beliefs in morality and/or logic, but that doesn’t even come close to answering the challenge. Nihilism is still a black hole. Nothingness is still nothingness.
“Which is still problematic because of the contents of God's Revelation...”
Again, what is the point of pointing out any problems you may think you see? For a nihilist, beliefs just exist. There is nothing problematic about the existence of differing beliefs, unless you can come up with an ultimate source of value for why “problematic” is bad.
“And if there is anything that can be learned from the massive theological differences both in the church today and throughout history, it is that the Holy Spirit is really bad at his job.”
As a former Christian, I expected a more honest representation of Christianity than this from you. You are fully aware of the doctrine of sin as well as the doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit’s role in helping us understand scripture. Even though you don’t believe the doctrines, surely you must be aware that these two doctrines balance each other. Also, this is nothing but an irrelevant distraction. I could just as easily try to invalidate any evolutionary claim by pointing out that evolutionary scientists are really bad at their jobs because they can’t agree with each other at all on the time frames it took for evolution to happen and various other things. But I’m not because would only distract from the issues at hand.
“The only difference is that atheisms' answers do not hide their weaknesses.”
Interesting. I disagree. While there may be exceptions, I think most atheists do try to hide their problems. In regard to science, unanswered questions regarding evolution keep coming back, but the evolutionists don’t just disagree, they refuse to engage. In regard to morality, there is the problem of nihilism. In regard to the origin of logic, there is the problem of nihilism again, and few are willing to admit that their logic is ultimately meaningless. Are you willing to not hide the atheist problem of nihilism?
To bring up an old point, atheism taken to it's logical conclusions results in nihilism/the Holocaust are incompatible arguments. If it leads to nihilism and nothing matters then “so why not help people” is every bit as valid of a conclusion as “so why not kill people?” Leading to nihilism means atheism points nowhere in particular, and hence “atheism leads to charity” and “atheism leads to the holocaust” are equally false. Saying that taken to it's logical conclusions it results in the Holocaust would mean that it points somewhere in particular.
ReplyDeleteSo for you to argue toward the holocaust at all, you have to argue toward nihilism first, as in, “evolution leads to nihilism and therefore the Holocaust is one of millions of equivalent conclusions.” If nothing else, the consistency of theism with evolution refutes the evolution-nihilism argument and hence defends my “is-ought” distinction. This by itself refutes the arguments against evolution.
The arguments, and not just the flow of the conversion, have forced you back to arguing atheism-nihilism. This is a retreat on two fronts – both what the problem is caused by (atheism v. evolution), and what the result of the problem is (nihilism v. the Holocaust.) An argument still remains, but these two shifts should not go without mention.
>The problem with your examples is that they all have to do with personal desires. Ultimate value is not determined in this way for a Christian (at least not consistently anyway).
God's will is the personal desire of three Persons. Yet again, the only difference is your use of the word “God.”
>What should we use to determine if God does or doesn’t exist?
You are the one making the positive claim. You show me what can be used.
>even logic and knowledge, behind because they are just natural phenomenon. Surely anyone using logic who is on a search for truth must find that at least a little bit unsatisfying.
To claim a difference between the problem of a mind in a soul and a mind in a brain, you must argue for a difference. And you do:
>Since a belief in God is automatically, logically coupled with the idea the He is the source of value, any deconstruction of the soul or the metaphysical world would have to be based on the idea that God exists and is good.
I can just as easily claim that my idea of consciousness is coupled with my idea of value. Thus, if you want to deconstruct this approach, it must be based on the idea that conscienceness exists and has value. We are saying the exact same things about the source of value. You're still just throwing in the word “God” and declaring your answers to be different.
>Everyone believes in some concept of ‘ultimate value’, even atheists.
I think that deep down inside, even Christians realize I can have a pragmatic concept of morality while lacking an ultimate one. Or at a minimum, you show by not being willing to complete your thought and call me a liar that you don't really think my value concept is ultimate. Even Christians believe that genocide is wrong no matter who commands it. This is why, deep down inside, all the killing in the Bible bothers you. I, too, can play this game of telling you what you really believe.
>Therefore atheism/nihilism cannot really account for our day-to-day lives. Hence the absurdity and impossibility of naturalism/atheism/nihilism convinces people that the metaphysical must exist. More than that, it convinces us that God must both exist and be the source of ultimate value.
Here's my best shot at clarifying this argument:
1. Everyone lives like they believe in values.
2. Values must be ultimate/metaphysical values.
3. Therefore everyone believes in ultimate values.
4. If everyone believes something, it is true.
5. Therefore ultimate values exists.
6. Therefore a source of ultimate values exists.
7. We cannot be the source of ultimate values.
8. Atheists cannot explain what this source is.
9. Therefore God exists and is this source.
1 is false, but it doesn't hurt the argument much. With "nearly all" in place of "everyone," later steps are not damaged much.
2 is false because I have a pragmatic approach to morality. Even if I'm wrong – I have a pragmatic approach to morality. The weakness in this step is betrayed by the way you had to cheat and just tell me what I really believe. And there really isn't a way around this.
4 is clearly false. On some level, it's a misquote. What you actually said is that “it convinces us” as opposed to “proves that.” But I changed it because if it's left as “it convinces us,” the final conclusion is “therefore we are convinced of God's existence.” But that would mean all you are providing is an understanding of why people are convinced. When the subject is truth and not psychology, this isn't very helpful. It could just as easily be a description of a mental illness as truth. Later on, you talk of the impossibility of atheism, and so I interpreted “it convinces us” as “it shows that.” If I missed a third option that fixes the argument, please point out what it was.
4 could be weakened to “If everyone believes something, it's probably true” which, if the rest of the argument holds up, would weaken the conclusion to “Therefore God probably exists.” I would accept this weaker version of 4. But it further undermines 2. If the beliefs of everyone are a useful guide for learning about reality, then a concept of morality based on observations of what people believe will work. So not only have you failed to show that 2 is true, 4 shows that 2 is false.
7 doesn't answer pantheism. Maybe the universe is god and hence we are part of god. (This is atheism + personification of the universe. Or as Dawkins lovingly puts it, sexed-up atheism.) Thus, humanity as a whole is part of god and god's desires include our desires and hence they can be a basis for value in exactly the same way that God's desires can be a basis for theistic value. Not that I hold this position, but your argument doesn't point to an external God any more than it points to us being a part of god.
9 is an inference begging to be misunderstood. A theistic concept of God is a much more specific idea than merely an external being who is the source of meaning. When you say “God” I doubt that you are thinking of it as perhaps being a deity who created humanity and then died. But by using the word, much more gets rhetorically pulled out of the argument than is actually supported.
It also fails to explain how God's existence has any meaning without a Higher God to give him the concept. The argument depends on the idea that we can't give ourselves meaning, and it ends with the assumption that God can give himself meaning. You are, in effect, defining God as “the being who is immune to criticism”, noting that your position is immune to criticism, and then deciding that as the only position immune to criticism, it must be true.
>God is good and the definition of good is God's will is a tautology that must be true. It cannot logically be otherwise.
From here on, I'll assume that a god external to ourselves is our source of our sense of morality, and this god falls under theism. If it's just a tautology reasoned to by elimination, rather than a claim with direct evidence, why not substitute a different word into the tautology? How about “god is evil and the definition of evil is god's will?” Maybe we have a sense of goodness because god created us with this sense to amuse himself with our futile opposition to his evilness. If the way you reason to God is to exclude alternatives, then this internally consistent position takes away your basis for believing God is “good” in any sense of the word.
From here on, I'll assume God is “good” according to your definition. Now you have no basis for thinking that this definition of “good” corresponds to our intuitive ideas about the meaning of good. Our concept of good says that a good being with the power to stop the Holocaust would have. Our concept of good says that a good being wouldn't watch a rape or any other violent crime if he had the power to stop it. But this happens thousands of times every day. This is strong empirical evidence that God's “good” is closer to our idea of evil (or indifference) than of good.
“Good” is no longer a descriptive term, but you are borrowing language from pragmatic moral views so as to use it like a descriptive term. But you can't do that under your definition. Maybe God's idea of “good” is to promise people eternal life and tell them that he is truthful, when he's really a lying prankster who's sending Christians to hell and atheists to heaven. This is fully consistent with the idea that the Bible is inspired by God, this is fully consistent with the idea that your perceived relationship with God is objectively real, this is fully consistent with the Resurrection or a miracle performed on national television, and this is even consistent with the idea that God is “good.” So when you tell God he is “good,” it's not much of a compliment, and when the Bible tells you he is “good”, that's not very reassuring. Unless there is something logically impossible about God lying to us about his truthfulness, a presuppositional approach cannot get further than the existence of a god about whose nature nothing can be known.
Your argument for God was the impossibility of the contrary. If this isn't impossible, your proof by elimination can't show one to be more plausible than the other. Could you name one argument against it that can't be used against Christianity? If you don't have the time or interest in answering this post in full, this is the one question I am most interested in hearing an answer to: Suppose God is lying and really sending you to hell – what argument can be used against this position that cannot be used against Christianity?
Jeffrey: Which is still problematic because of the contents of God's Revelation...
Andrew: Again, what is the point of pointing out any problems you may think you see?
If a worldview causes someone to condone genocide, does this discredit the worldview? If no, why argue anything about atheism/evolution and the Holocaust? If yes, why are you still clinging to a discredited worldview? You look at every other worldview and see that if it leads to a condoning of genocide, it's wrong.
Also, in this one place, I think the ethical problems in your view are worse than in mine. The final ethical impact of the atheism-nihilism argument is that if true, it would mean atheists are unable to condemn the Holocaust. This should be contrasted with the way [your version of] Christianity forces Christians to not only be unable to condemn Moses' genocide, and to not only condone it, but to call it good and say that for Moses to have done otherwise would have been wicked.
Andrew: we have ... a belief in the Holy Spirit’s active role in guiding our understanding.
Jeffrey: And if there is anything that can be learned from the massive theological differences both in the church today and throughout history, it is that the Holy Spirit is really bad at his job.
Andrew: As a former Christian, I expected a more honest representation of Christianity than this from you. You are fully aware of the doctrine of sin
Your answer actually surprises me. I didn't expect you to think that the reason some Christians believe that tongues as a private prayer language are an essential part of their relationship with God is due to sin. I didn't expect you to think that pre-tribulation/post-tribulation/Bible-doesn't-say views come from at least two sides' sin. There are different Christian explanations to this one. I didn't know ahead of time which one you accept, and I guessed wrong. That's not a distortion of Christianity. It means I've failed to engage your position. I'll try again:
If there is anything that can be learned from the massive theological differences both in the church today and throughout history, it is that the Holy Spirit does not normally accomplish the goal of guiding people to right interpretations. As Pentecostals show, the people who are most certain that they have the Holy Spirit guiding them are often the people who are the most wrong. Based on the resulting disagreements, we can conclude that sincere Christians are so mired in sin that the Holy Spirit normally does not get through. Why makes you think you are the exception? If the answer you choose to the problem of theological diversity is sin, then it's not the Holy Spirit's failure that prevents him from being an effective guide, but mankind's inherent and/or de facto sinfulness. If the Bible condones instances of genocide, and Christians' sinfulness prevent them from having their interpretations of the Bible effectively guided by the Holy Spirit, then the same problem appears under a different phrasing.
Straw man. The claim is not “according to atheism, eugenics is moral”. The claim, as you accurately identified in your original post, is that eugenics is the logical result of atheism.
ReplyDeleteAnd here I thought that eugenics were the logical result of Darwinism...
Here's the problem with the entire argument. Take it as a given that survival of the fittest and competition are the last and final rule, whether we're talking about single-celled organisms or human beings. In addition, take it as a given that people behave just as mindlessly as single-celled organisms.
Survival of the fittest then drives out those populations which are least capable of surviving. In theory, at least, since even in a place where one genetic code is obviously better capable of surviving than another, it will take the weaker code generations to disappear assuming it ever does. This, however, is a natural process. To go back to nylonase, the bacteria which can digest nylon out competes the bacteria which can't because there is more potential food, not because they form armies and wave flags and fight the depraved non-nylonase eaters.
Eugenics and Social Darwinism are, in fact, counter-intuitive to evolution. They represent self-selective natural selection, which isn't natural at all. Who decided the Aryan Race was superior? Hitler. He didn't out-compete the Jews on a natural basis, he killed the Jews based on ideology.
In fact, I've been known to argue (located here, in case anyone cares) that the Nazis and the "Final Solution" don't actually come from any of the places we traditionally look. It comes from Millennialist thinking. Even if it's dressed it up with evolution, the thinking is about creating a Millennial Reich, which is apocalyptic in nature, not scientific.
Meanwhile, the argument is still moot. Since humans don't run around out-competing each other like mindless bacteria, we have to take in to account intelligence and self-interest. I tend to argue, then, that society evolves just as humanity does. It's why modern society is the child of the Enlightenment, wherein we realized that we were better off working together than trying to wipe us out.
And, in fact, it could easily be argued that humans were engaging in genocidal wars for as long as humans have existed. Most of them have been directed, at least for rhetorical purposes, by gods and clerics. It wasn't until the Enlightenment and the growth of things like science and skepticism that we began to see a wide-spread movement to say, "Why, exactly, are we killing each other?"
Back when I was a good little fundamentalist my pastors used to lament the waning power of Christianity in Europe. Yet in the post World War II world we've seen a dramatic upswing in the defense of human rights and a heretofore unheard of period of peace and unity between the European nations.
Strange, isn't it?
“If it leads to nihilism and nothing matters then “so why not help people” is every bit as valid of a conclusion as “so why not kill people?””
ReplyDeleteValid? What is this “valid” idea? Since we are at nihilism, why not insert the word ‘invalid’ instead? If it leads to nihilism and nothing maters, this means that logic and empiricism don’t matter either. It means that asking “so why not ____” (fill in the blank) doesn’t matter.
“The arguments, and not just the flow of the conversion, have forced you back to arguing atheism-nihilism. This is a retreat on two fronts – both what the problem is caused by (atheism v. evolution), and what the result of the problem is (nihilism v. the Holocaust.) An argument still remains, but these two shifts should not go without mention.”
Darwinism leads to the Holocaust, and atheism leads to nihilism are separate but in this case related issues. They are related here, because you are arguing from an atheist standpoint, and I was pointing out that a consistent, naturalistic atheist cannot have an ultimate refutation for the ‘evil’ of the Holocaust.
“I can just as easily claim that my idea of consciousness is coupled with my idea of value. Thus, if you want to deconstruct this approach, it must be based on the idea that conscienceness exists and has value.”
If I understand this correctly, this is the “I think therefore I am” approach. Are you holding this position? I can’t tell if you are, but if you are I would ask you to more fully define and defend what exactly you believe here. Is consciousness a physical phenomenon, a metaphysical phenomenon, or a combination of both? You have already said “I do not believe people have a soul existing outside naturalistic laws”. If this is what you believe, then where does consciousness come from? If consciousness is only physical, then how does this avoid nihilism? I don’t see how you can “just as easily” claim the above.
1 through 9 was a decent attempt at simplifying the argument.
“2 is false because I have a pragmatic approach to morality”
2 is not false if pragmatic ethical systems cannot explain empirical observations about morality as it is practiced in 1. This is my claim.
“4 is clearly false.”
For clarification, my position is ‘3. Everyone demonstrates the existence of ultimate values.’ This definition of 3 would eliminate 4. Even if 4 was not eliminated, though, I don’t see how it is worse than the idea that morality is based in a very vague, inadequately defined, non-metaphysical (or perhaps semi-metaphysical if there is such a thing) concept of ‘humanity’. I don’t understand how any idea of morality-via-humanity avoids the truth-by-majority problem.
“7…Maybe the universe is god and hence we are part of god”
The argument in 2 is the inadequacy of anything physical, including the universe and humanity, to be the source of values making this a bogus argument.
“9 is an inference begging to be misunderstood. A theistic concept of God is a much more specific idea than merely an external being who is the source of meaning.”
I know that the presuppositional approach does not get us to Christianity or anything else specific, but it was not meant to do so. I believe that is consistent with Christianity, though, and that it is enough to invalidate atheism.
“It also fails to explain how God's existence has any meaning without a Higher God to give him the concept. The argument depends on the idea that we can't give ourselves meaning, and it ends with the assumption that God can give himself meaning.”
I suggest looking up the word ‘ultimate’ in the dictionary. If anyone was content with a less-than-ultimate value, there is no need to reject nihilism. The whole point of rejecting nihilism is in my definition of 3. If we empirically see people demonstrating that values have an ultimate nature, then it is a logical conclusion, not an assumption that something or someone must exist with self-defining, ultimate value. Also, yes, the argument does depend on the idea that we can’t give ourselves meaning, but I have already provided arguments for this regarding the consistency of naturalism with nihilism. In contrast, the best you have offered so far is analogy to music, but this attempt at explaining how people can give themselves meaning has been unclear and woefully wanting.
“If it's just a tautology reasoned to by elimination, rather than a claim with direct evidence, why not substitute a different word into the tautology? How about “god is evil and the definition of evil is god's will?””
The evidence of the claim, again, is in 3. We would not substitute another word into the tautology because we are on a search for value not lack of value. The above tautology is impossible due to the nature of evil. I do not see good and evil as equal opposites (like matter vs antimatter). Rather, evil is the lack of good and/or distortion of good (kind of like space is defined as the lack of matter). Evil does not exist as anything in-and-of itself. I believe that this definition can be fairly well defended empirically. I do not know of anything I would consider evil that must fall outside this definition. If you think this definition is incorrect, please provide a clear, definitive example to demonstrate.
“Our concept of good says that a good being with the power to stop the Holocaust would have. Our concept of good says that a good being wouldn't watch a rape or any other violent crime if he had the power to stop it… This is strong empirical evidence that God's “good” is closer to our idea of evil (or indifference) than of good”
How exactly do you propose that God should instantly stop evil? I can only see two major possibilities (excluding wiping us all out), which are either the elimination of moral responsibility or the elimination of the consequences of evil.
What if God stopped evil by eliminating moral freedom? Is moral freedom a good thing? Would you consider it good for God to stop you from committing an evil, or would you consider it bad because He had trampled on your will? Would it be better for people to be robots who did good because they had no choice? If we were robots, would we resent him for that, too! We wouldn’t, of course, but only because we would not have the capacity.
What if God stopped evil by somehow eliminating the undesirable consequences of evil? No matter what people did or did not do, there would be no pain and no suffering. If He did this, then evil would cease to be evil anymore. Nothing would have bad consequences. In such a system the law of non-contradiction would have no meaning. The ideas of choice and moral freedom would just be a façade. Would you consider this good? Would we resent Him for that, too!
Considering the above, would you consider it ‘good’ for God to eliminate evil or its consequences? If your answer is “Yes”, then this is strong empirical evidence that your idea of ‘good’ is really closer to what we would consider evil (or absurdity) than good. Wouldn’t it be better if God came up with a plan to conquer evil instead? But His plan to conquer the evil in you, in me, and in everyone else is what you have rejected.
“Suppose God is lying and really sending you to hell – what argument can be used against this position that cannot be used against Christianity?”
I’m not sure I fully understand the question here, but I think the arguments above (people demonstrating values and my definition of evil for starters) may provide at least a partial answer.
“If a worldview causes someone to condone genocide, does this discredit the worldview? If no, why argue anything about atheism/evolution and the Holocaust? If yes, why are you still clinging to a discredited worldview? You look at every other worldview and see that if it leads to a condoning of genocide, it's wrong.”
This does not answer my question regarding to the nihilism an atheist must deal with and/or reconcile himself to. It only sidesteps the question.
In answer to your question, as long as the definition of ‘genocide’ includes unjustified mass murder and not just large scale killing, then the answer is yes. But I do not consider the Bible discredited on accusations of genocide. I realize though, that this is a feeble answer without responding to your question on Moses’ ethics which, in hindsight, I did not fully answer.
“The problem I'm going for deals not with God's ethics but with Moses' ethics.
…Moses should have said “NO!” and taught God the justice that was in his own heart.”
The real problem here is not Moses’ ethics but our belief regarding whether or not Moses and the Israelites were really receiving unusual, direct communication from God. If they were receiving direct commandments from God, then it is not genocide, but rather a just execution based on God’s creative and judicial rights. If they were not receiving direct commandments from God, then it is genocide. Whether or not my stance on Num 31 or yours is “discredited” depends on whether or not the Bible really is accurate revelation from God. This is a big enough topic, that it cannot be adequately debated within the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say then, that within the confines of this discussion, neither your claim that it is genocide nor my claim that it is not genocide has been “discredited” here. Outside of this discussion, I don’t yet know whether or not I will have time to answer any textual criticisms you have brought up, or may yet bring up.
“The final ethical impact of the atheism-nihilism argument is that if true, it would mean atheists are unable to condemn the Holocaust. This should be contrasted with the way [your version of] Christianity forces Christians to not only be unable to condemn Moses' genocide, and to not only condone it, but to call it good and say that for Moses to have done otherwise would have been wicked.”
The final ethical impact of the genocide-in-the-Bible argument depends on textual criticism, which makes the argument a secondary subject and a poor, solitary accusation against Christianity. Hence, as a stand-alone argument, it also makes for a poor comparison to the atheist problem of nihilism which I believe I have demonstrated reasonably well here, and for which I have not yet read a decent response.
There is another perspective from which we can look at the ‘scariness’ of this comparison, though. Anyone who believes in God (Christian or otherwise) is going to have at least some kind of definitive restraint on the scope of large-scale-killing based on 1) what God said or is supposed to have said and 2) (for almost all theistic systems) the belief that he will someday, somehow be accountable to that God. In contrast, a nihilist will not have any restraints on scope at all. A non-nihilist atheist who believes in some kind of morality might have more restraint (depending on the ethical code he chose), but as I have demonstrated, I believe such an atheist has the problem of internal inconsistency.
“If there is anything that can be learned from the massive theological differences both in the church today and throughout history, it is that the Holy Spirit does not normally accomplish the goal of guiding people to right interpretations.”
Your second try at engaging my position was better stated, but it still assumes that the Holy Spirit is focusing primarily on intellectual understanding of Scripture. This is not the case. I assumed you already fully understood the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s involvement in Scriptural understanding, but apparently I was wrong. I will explain in more detail.
Christians believe that where the heart leads, the mind will eventually follow. Christians believe that the heart is mired in sin, and as a result, the mind is also since it is tethered to the heart. Hence, the Holy Spirit focuses on changing the hearts of people. As the heart changes and either slowly or quickly sheds sin and sinful attitudes, the mind slowly or quickly becomes clearer. Christians understand the Bible with both their hearts and their minds, not just their minds. In a way the Holy Spirit is affecting intellectual understandings of the Bible, but indirectly in a cause-and-effect way. This definition of the Holy Spirit’s involvement in theological understanding is difficult overthrow with the mere mention of theological diversity. Even a ‘small’ amount of sin, like pride or even flippancy, can potentially result in significant theological misunderstandings and differences on completely unrelated intellectual issues.
Geds-
ReplyDeleteI don’t think I can get into a second, long discussion on this, but I am going to point out some blatant errors or, at least, inadequacies in your thoughts. Jeffery seems to think that atheists are less prone to empirically false claims, but your claims seem to be evidence to the contrary.
“To go back to nylonase, the bacteria which can digest nylon out competes the bacteria which can't because there is more potential food, not because they form armies and wave flags and fight the depraved non-nylonase eaters.”
Sighhhhh…. Here we go again. Nylonase is not an example of natural selection! It is an example of genetic change. As long as Darwinism involves both genetic change and natural selection, nylonase is not an example of Darwinism. The assertion that both you and Jeffery have both made is that the ability to digest nylon is an improvement or a “beneficial mutation”. But my point is that this assertion is a scientifically unproven assumption. For us to know and not just suppose that a genetic change is an improvement, its survivability must be scientifically tested. For nylonase probably the best way to do this would be to release it into the wild and then study it after several eons to see how it has fared. In fact, in all fairness it should be released into the wild where the original bacteria is found and compared to the original bacteria eons later. However, I suppose we could even give nylonase really good odds by releasing it into multiple, warm, moist, nylon-rich environments (perhaps a Louisiana dump would be a good start), but we would still have to wait several eons before even having a chance to examine its survivability and say that it is evidence of Darwinism. Also, my questions regarding antibiotics still stand as valid scientific inquiries. Is the genetic change that resulted in nylonase really a comprehensive improvement? Or is this apparent improvement in survivability in one area coupled with such significant reductions in survivability in other areas so that nylonase just can’t complete in the real world anymore? Darwinists can look at nylonase forwards, backwards, or any way they like and say ‘Look its Darwinism!’ But as long as these scientific questions remain unanswered and nylonase gets manicured in controlled environments, it will remain only an example of genetic change, which is, at best, Darwinism in part and not Darwinism’s whole.
Also, even if nylonase was a fully proven example of Darwinism, it is a gross oversimplification to use bacteria alone as an example of natural selection. Other creatures here on earth do kill each other. Some animals co-operate with each other in packs to hunt. Some species kill each other not for food, but for no known reason other than competition. Some animals are so diverse in their digestive capabilities that they could easily survive even if they eliminated another species which served them as a food source (and who is to say they haven’t?). Your anti-eugenics bacteria example ignores blatantly obvious, violent possibilities of natural selection.
“It wasn't until the Enlightenment and the growth of things like science and skepticism that we began to see a wide-spread movement to say, ‘Why, exactly, are we killing each other?’… Yet in the post World War II world we've seen a dramatic upswing in the defense of human rights and a heretofore unheard of period of peace and unity between the European nations.”
Enlightenment ideas were widely distributed and firmly in place long before WWII. Christianity was in decline in Europe long before WWII. WWI and WWII were not religious wars. I see no reason, therefore, why we can’t include WWI and WWII as excellent examples for where Enlightenment ideas failed to produce peace.
If we do limit ourselves to post WWII, it must be pointed out that the current age in Europe is continuing and has not ended. It cannot, therefore, be fairly compared to past European ages for which we can see the big picture. For example, fascism and Hitler looked really good to a lot of people around the world prior to the war and the genocide. Even in the USA, prior to the war Hitler was hailed as a hero by the New York Times and various others for bringing stability to Europe. Modern, ongoing societies that are still being tested make poor examples for anyone’s social ideology. Still, if we are going to look to modern, ongoing societies for examples, then it is completely fair for me to broaden the cross-section we are examining. If “enlightened”, atheistic thought naturally results in better societies, why have post WWII Russia, China, and North Korea seen dramatic decreases in human rights and increases in tyranny?
“And, in fact, it could easily be argued that humans were engaging in genocidal wars for as long as humans have existed. Most of them have been directed, at least for rhetorical purposes, by gods and clerics.”
But by far the worst of them have been directed by confirmed, intelligent, knowledgeable atheists. Despite the fact that the Holocaust is more infamous and well known to Americans, in terms of scale, Hitler was a small, psychopathic fish in a big, genocidal pond. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Zedong all dwarf Hitler in terms of the number of people that they systematically murdered. These three go down in history as, to date, the three biggest murderers of scale. All three were atheists. More than that, all three believed that atheism was a good cornerstone upon which to build society. Why didn’t these men ask “Why, exactly, are we killing each other?” (BTW my answer is nihilism.)
The societal arguments above do not automatically invalidate Enlightenment ideology and/or atheism, but they do not lend Enlightenment ideology and/or atheism any credibility. They certainly do much more than counterbalance any kind of cursory, temporal, narrow-viewed ‘Isn’t Europe looking so much better!’ claim. Also, they begin to point out that the children of the Enlightenment, including atheists, of the past and present are at least as diverse in their beliefs and problems as any religious groups are. Hence my earlier response to Jeffery that his time would be much better spent correcting the errors of other atheists and/or Darwinists, than it is spent getting upset at theists for bringing up those errors. If any atheist really believes that societies evolve and naturally, inevitably turn away from theism, then why waste time debating the ‘doomed’ theists? It seems to me that such an atheist should be more concerned with the ‘sanctification’ of himself and his fellow atheists than with physical, verbal, or written crusades against religion.
There are two different moral objections to atheism that can be made. The first is that atheism does not allow one to be consistent and other than a nihilist. The second is that atheism does not provide an explanation for why it is the case that people behave morally or think in moral terms.
ReplyDeleteThe first is a question for moral philosophy. The fact that I can experience pain and pleasure and realize how external forces influence which I experience is a sufficient basis for a pragmatic concept of value. The fact that I see that certain behaviors are destructive and lead to a destructive lifestyle is sufficient to give me a pragmatic concept of morality. Whether or not you accept it, this is a perfectly good answer. Axiomatically caring about pain and pleasure isn't a different basis than the fact that you axiomatically care about whether you go to heaven and whether heaven will be pleasurable. This isn't different from God caring about humanity or his own will.
The second is a question for evolution or psychology, depending on if the objection deals with how a brain could produce what we observe or how this brain came to exist. No matter how good or bad the philosophical answer, it does not influence the question of if materialism is consistent with humans being the way we are.
The first objection has absolutely no hope of being phrased as an argument for the existence of God. What is missing from the objection is a clear statement about reality. At best, it would show that a logically consistent atheistic position is nihilist. Without an “everyone believes it, therefore it is true” step, it can go no further. Even if it meant that atheism is such a depressing conclusion that I couldn't live with it, it still wouldn't even be an argument that God actually exists. In the stages of grief, “denial” is not evidence that the tragedy did not occur.
An argument based on the second objection could be a valid argument. But you have yet to make it.
Jeffrey (summarizing Andrew): 2. Values must be ultimate/metaphysical values.
Jeffrey: 2 is false because I have a pragmatic approach to morality.
Andrew: 2 is not false if pragmatic ethical systems cannot explain empirical observations about morality as it is practiced in 1. This is my claim.
The flow is:
A: Objection 1.
J: Answer to objection 1.
A: The answer to objection 1 doesn't answer objection 2.
If you want to make the case that atheism is inconsistent with the existence of behaviors that we would describe as moral, then go for it. But I won't attempt to answer the argument before you make it.
(Btw, I agree with a similar objection you raised. Your argument for the existence of a god should not be criticized for not making it to the Christian God.)
>I don’t understand how any idea of morality-via-humanity avoids the truth-by-majority problem.
Whether it avoids the problem depends on how literal you are being. My moral views differ from a literal truth-by-majority in the way that a constitutional republic differs from a pure democracy that engages in post-election mind-control. If people thought about individuality in the way that ants don't, very few or none of my moral ideas would survive the change. Similarly, if God had different moral ideas, your moral ideas wouldn't survive the change either. Your views are truth-by-majority-of-One which makes an equal amount of philosophical sense. Either way, the basis for morality comes from some being(s) desires - it's not exactly the same thing as this being(s) desires, but that's where it comes from. This is problematic on some level, but my problem doesn't bother me any more than your problem bothers you.
>I have already provided arguments for this regarding the consistency of naturalism with nihilism.
Sure. Nihilism is consistent with atheism. Similarly, fatalistic versions of Calvinism and radical Islam are consistent with theism. But I don't stand for all things atheistic any more than you stand for all things theistic. Nihilism is only a problem for atheism as a whole to the extent that atheism implies nihilism. I almost wonder if consistency v. implies was a slip of the pen, but I think this explains a lot of our differences here. You look at the mere consistency and think I should care, and I look at the consistency and don't care.
Jeffrey: Our concept of good says that a good being with the power to stop the Holocaust would have.
Andrew: How exactly do you propose that God should instantly stop evil? I can only see two major possibilities (excluding wiping us all out), which are either the elimination of moral responsibility or the elimination of the consequences of evil.
There are two different problems of evil/pain. The first is why evil exists at all. The second is why so much evil/pain exists. My objection was the second, and your answer was to the first.
To what degree should a parent intervene when their children are fighting? Surely it should not be absolutely always. To stop a conversation whenever the first hint of bickering started would not only be practically impossible, but this level of external control would not be desirable. However, if one kid pulls out a knife with the intent and ability to kill, no parent with the ability to stop the murder should choose not to.
But suppose a parent did just this and allowed one child to kill another knowing full well what was not being stopped. I wouldn't need a complete understand of the perfect balance between control and freedom to observe that the single change “intervene when someone's about to be killed” is an improvement. Would the defense of parental inaction that children need a degree of freedom be acceptable? Of course not.
But this is precisely the defense you are giving God. I don't suggest that he stop us every time we try to do anything wrong, and hence I'm not faulting God for the existence of people doing things that are wrong. But stopping us whenever we are about to kill, say, more than a million people would be an improvement on the current system. Hitler's loss of freedom would be a small price to pay, and even then, God could have left his will free, while preventing him from actually succeeding.
>If they were receiving direct commandments from God, then it is not genocide, but rather a just execution based on God’s creative and judicial rights. If they were not receiving direct commandments from God, then it is genocide.
Replace “God” with “Allah” and that's how Al Qaeda thinks. Their religion is just still in its Old Testament phase.
I don't wish to belabor a semantic argument, but the definition of “genocide” is like the definition of “homicide.” The word itself does not contain a value judgment, but is merely a factual description of an action. The question is if it was a “justifiable genocide” or an “unjustifiable genocide.” Genocide only has a negative moral connotation because our culture has this weird idea that there is something inherently wrong with systematically killing children.
Suppose the best I had was to say that atheism really does lead to the Holocaust, but this merely tells us that the Holocaust was justified. If that was the best I had, it would be no worse than your argument that the genocide in the Bible simply shows us that genocide is justifiable in some circumstances. In other words, atheism's worst-case scenario that you are arguing for is equal to Christianity's actual-case scenario. Even if atheism led to nihilism, I'd still take not knowing if Hitler's mass killing was wrong over knowing for certain that Moses' mass killing was right.
Of course, neither of these are actually arguments that the position isn't true, only that it leads to conclusions we don't like or wouldn't want to defend. IMO, the logical force of the Christianity-genocide argument is not that it shows Christianity is false, but that it is inconsistent with a major argument for Christianity. My claim is that any defense of Moses' ethics undermines the moral argument for a god.
Do you at least agree that the intentional mass killing of children runs against our intuitive concept of morality? My argument does not depend on it actually being wrong, only it being contrary to our intuitive concept of morality. Your argument for the existence of God from morality depends on trusting our intuitive concept. So is our intuitive concept a trustworthy source of knowledge about morality or not? If no, both the atheism-nihilism and Christianity-genocide arguments automatically fail. If yes, my argument works because Christianity actually does lead to the justification of mass killing while I dispute atheism's implications elsewhere.
>There is another perspective from which we can look at the ‘scariness’ of this comparison, though. Anyone who believes in God (Christian or otherwise) is going to have at least some kind of definitive restraint on the scope of large-scale-killing based on 1) what God said or is supposed to have said and 2) (for almost all theistic systems) the belief that he will someday, somehow be accountable to that God.
You believe that God has, at times, commanded mass killings. Your strong motivation to do what God wants does not remedy this problem in the least. This defense of Christianity was true of the people behind the Spanish Inquisition as well.
>Your second try at engaging my position was better stated, but it still assumes that the Holy Spirit is focusing primarily on intellectual understanding of Scripture. This is not the case. … Even a ‘small’ amount of sin, like pride or even flippancy, can potentially result in significant theological misunderstandings and differences on completely unrelated intellectual issues.
But all Christians have at least a small amount of sin. Therefore, you can't count on the Holy Spirit to indirectly guide the process.
You can't have it both ways. If you have a ready-made explanation to defend every instance of the Holy Spirit not preventing Christians from making major theological errors no matter how severe, then you can't invoke the Holy Spirit to explain how you won't have major errors. Remember that this came up as you saying that one defense against the violent verses being applied is the guiding of the Holy Spirit. If it ever was the case that a Christian (again) misapplied this, your explanation would be that sin mucked up the understanding process. Consolation should not be taken from protection whose failure is understood in advance.
Also, the example of tongues hits at a problem even deeper than a simple misunderstanding. It shows that quite often, Christians doesn't know if the voices in their heads are the Holy Spirit or a psychological phenomenon. So some Christians need to be closer to God to see that their means of following God is the wrong path.
If you have to be following God closely to be close enough to know if your means of getting closer is the right path, even within Christianity, that presents quite the conundrum. You then have no basis for knowing that the "relationship with God" doctrine is not a similar false doctrine, because if you are wrong, then you might be far enough from the Holy Spirit's will that you can't see you are following the wrong path.
(This is the same conundrum with, say, mathematical and scientific reasoning. But empirical evidence supports the conclusion that thinking well leads to converging mathematical and scientific opinions that make true predictions about the world. That's the kind of evidence I see lacking in theology.)
You telling me that the Holy Spirit can prevent biblical misunderstanding is like extreme Pentecostals telling you that there is a sharp limit to how crazy their meetings can get because the Holy Spirit is guiding the process. I'm not seeing it. If you are going to make claims about the what the Holy Spirit accomplishes, the burden is on you to provide a reason to believe in it at all, not on me to disprove it. Despite this, I have provided a reason to think the Holy Spirit isn't helping Christians and you have yet to provide a reason to think he is.
Jeff, perhaps you are not aware that Darwins cousin, Francis Galton is known as the father of Eugenics and that he was highly praised by Darwin in The Descent of Man.
ReplyDeleteTo act as if these ideas had no influence on Hitler is pure DENIAL...even in the middle ages, Jews could pretend to convert but under the Nazis that made no difference because GENETICALLY you were still a JEW.
Atheists need to face this an deal with it.
www.waragainsttheweak.com
I'm assuming that Andrew is not Andrew R.
ReplyDeleteThere are two different issues: to what degree does atheism/evolution lead to the Holocaust as a logical conclusion, and to what degree did it lead to the Holocaust as a historical conclusion. I'm only dealing with the first question.
Similarly, Christianity led to the Crusades, historically speaking. Now, this wasn't a logical conclusion, but it did historically happen. The degree to which the Bible logically supports American slavery is debatable. But historically speaking, it is very clear that the Bible was used to support slavery.
I'm making the same distinction with the Holocaust. Without addressing the historical question, I'm arguing that the conclusion was not logical. In all of these cases, if the logical inference is addressed, then the problem is not Christianity or atheism, the problem is illogical conclusions.
A quick check of wikipedia shows that Francis Galton deserves praise for many of his accomplishments, even though they are tarnished by eugenics. Without reading what Darwin said about him in particular, I see nothing wrong with Galton being praised. In the same book Darwin expressed the opinion that eugenics would work, but concluded with:
“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”
So Darwin thought that letting the weak die would increases average strength. I have no problem with him thinking this together with a condemnation of the ethics of doing so. There are all sorts of horribly brutal military techniques that would work. In a total war, killing as many civilians as possible could be effective. Torturing everyone to death who doesn't surrender could increase the number of people who surrender. But thinking that it would work, and thinking it should be done are not the same thing. In all of these cases, it is disputable whether or not it would work. But the depravity of doing it does not imply the depravity of thinking it would work.