OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

A Fool's Game

Entry 1695, on 2015-01-11 at 22:50:06 (Rating 4, Religion)

I sometimes get comments on my blog (thanks to those who comment) from people who try to defend their religion against my attacks. That's fair enough and I have to admit that it's not always obvious how false some of the points these people make are until I do some extra research.

One philosophical point which is interesting is that a higher power (and by default I guess most people mean the Christian god) is needed to impose morality on us, and that because most people know what is right and wrong that there must be a higher power who has created these rules. But of course there are other ways that the rules could have arisen and I have listed these in previous discussions.

In this blog post I want to show that, even if you assume some sort of supernatural entity exists, that you still can't rely on that entity (god, whatever) as a source of morality.

I recently listened to a podcast (you may have noticed that a large fraction of my blog posts start this way) from the excellent "Point of Inquiry" series which took the form of an interview with Ronald Lindsay who has just published a book titled "The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can't Tell Us What to Do" which made this point.

So let's have a look at some of the arguments he made regarding why, even if a god did exist (and all indications are that he doesn't), he could never be a source of morality...

First, there is Plato's classic logical argument (I've seen this many times before and never heard a good response to it). In Plato's dialog, Socrates asks if something is good (or moral) because a god says it is, or does god say it is moral because it has some intrinsic good?

For example, if we are told not to tell lies, does that mean because God tells us not to lie then it is automatically bad, or is it because lying is bad so God tells us not to do it? Either way the god figure is unnecessary or inconsistent. Here's why...

If god approves of something because it's good then there must be some other independent standard apart from the god which makes it good, so who cares what god thinks? We don't need him because the independent standard tells us what is good and bad anyway.

But if there is no other source of morality apart from the god then how do we know that god is good? What he tells us could be bad and we would never know. The god could really be a deceptive demon, or an alien visitor with bad intentions, or purely imaginary and have no inherent qualifications for specifying moral standards at all.

There are also practical reasons why gods are not good sources of morality. How do we know what god really thinks? Different religions (even ones with the same god) have different rules.

For example, Muslims reserve Friday for prayer, Jews Saturday, and Christians Sunday. Jewish and Islamic rules include not eating pork but for Christians it's OK. The Catholic version of god says contraception is evil, bust most of the rest don't.

What practical way is there to tell which is right and which is wrong? Not only are there many conflicting texts, but each text can be interpreted many ways.

Also, why was revelation only communicated to certain prophets? Why did God choose these privileged individuals? Was it a good idea to reveal the secrets of the universe to some desert nomads in the Middle East? What was God thinking when he did that?

How would we know who has received a genuine revelation and who just has some psychiatric problem? People who claim to be prophets today are generally said to be insane or dishonest but we believe Jesus and Moses were genuine. Why? And Mohammed was confused about his first revelation until his wife convinced him it was true.

Finally, why did God's interaction with humans stop? Christians say it ended two thousand years ago. Muslims say it didn't, because God talked to Muhammad 1500 years ago. Mormons say Joseph Smith had revelations just 180 years ago.

Smith was told having multiple wives is OK, but when his wife had a revelation that for women having multiple husbands is also OK that was rejected. Why? It's completely arbitrary. Mormons think their president can continue to have revelations and more recently they have changed their minds about polygamy and allowing black priests. Does that mean the original revelation was wrong?

Obviously what's right and wrong cannot come from religion. It really is a fool's game relying on religious texts. So where does morality come from? There is a common morality which isn't a top down phenomenon, it is a practical solution which has evolved to allow humans to live together in peace. The Golden Rule is just common sense (and pre-dates the Bible by the way).

Poor old God. It seems like the more you think about it the more useless he gets!

Comment 38 (4295) by OJB on 2015-01-28 at 16:57:44: (view earlier comments)

I have no idea what you are talking about. If a moral standard is based on the opinion of a single entity then that is subjective. It really doesn't matter if the entity is a human or a god. For something to be objective it needs to be an inherent attribute of the laws of nature. I can't see how moral statements ever can be (Google "Non-cognitivism").

So god has changed his mind but there might be good reasons for him doing that which we don't know about. Wow, that's the most pathetic argument I have ever heard, even from a believer. You can justify any evil action and any absurdity that way!

So you say your god hasn't "encouraged" any immoral actions but he has "allowed" and "demanded" them. I would have said demanded is a step beyond encouraged. If the Bible is true he's an evil monster, just admit it!

I have made it clear I think, on balance, Christianity is the most destructive force to have ever infected the human mind, so anyone who follows it as seriously as you do deserves some shame, however we aren't discussing that point right now.

I'm not sure what you think is suicidal without objective morality. Are you saying I can't make moral judgements based on my personal, subjective morality, because I believe I can (and do).

The belief system is contained within the individuals who are affected by it so of course it's the believers doing the bad things, as a result of their interpretation of the belief system. The problem is that some belief systems make violent, immoral (according to my standards) interpretations very easy. When the god described by the belief system kills millions on a whim it sort of makes that easier for the followers to do as well. Do you not agree?

Comment 39 (4296) by richard on 2015-01-29 at 18:14:52:

Aaah - arbitrary definitions again, based purely on your materialist world view to avoid the problem. Unfortunately, it only puts the problem one step back - what makes the laws of nature the final standard?

Never said God changed his mind. And I agree that is an easy rhetorical road to take when postulating against God - however, as I said it is exactly what we do (at least in the minds of our children) all the time. They absolutely think we have committed some great crime in injecting a sharp needle into their body. We however have information (truth) they do not. Nothing pathetic about that notion at all.

I think you have made it clear only in your own mind. Real historians know otherwise.

Yes you can make any subjective moral judgement you like, but they are of course being made against a 'standard' that is meaningful only to you, and no one else need take any notice.

Actually I do agree with it put that way. That it makes it easier to get it wrong however does not justify it - not by a long shot. A fair reading of the text makes this abundantly clear, as acknowledged by the vast majority of biblical scholars.

That is also precisely why I fail to comprehend how you deny that it is therefore obvious it is the athiest 'belief system' that has by far caused the worst harm in the world. Hands down obvious!

At the end of the day though - all that has nothing to do with determining the truth of either belief system.

Comment 40 (4297) by OJB on 2015-01-29 at 20:24:56:

The laws of nature are something which are absolute and control the way real physical processes operate. Why these laws exist and why anything (including a god if there was one) exist at all instead of nothing is the ultimate question for which we may never know the answer.

Well clearly your god has changed his mind many times. He says things are morally wrong but does them himself. I mean, his whole philosophy changed between the OT (eye for an eye) and NT (turn the other cheek). No wonder his followers are so confused!

OK, as I said, I'm not going to pursue the Evil Christianity thing right now.

I make a subjective judgement but compare it with what other people - especially those I respect and admire - think. If I find my moral standards being compromised in comparison with others then I need to reconsider them. It's a consensus (or emergent phenomenon as I have been saying all along) sort of thing.

Your god has clearly killed millions of innocents on a whim. That is, if you believe the ridiculous, childish fairy tales in the Bible. I'm thinking of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, and Exodus here, amongst others. He's an evil monster.

I dont recall any atrocities being caused through atheism. You must be thinking of something else.

Comment 41 (4298) by Richard on 2015-01-30 at 08:21:58:

Actually, it isn't 'we may never know', If your view is true we will never know, and if my view we will both know soon enough. And of course I agree that from our perspective the 'laws of nature' are absolute, but it is interesting when confronted with the overwhelming improbability of those laws as an argument for design, that atheists introduce multi-verses in which the laws change, so that this particular set becomes 'more probable'. Thus, perhaps they are not so 'absolute' as you claim?! OK - so we agree the laws of nature ARE absolute from our perspective, but not necessarily so from a perspective external to our universe.

This is precisely the same deal with the laws of morality. Because they come from a mind external to our universe, they are just as objective to us as the natural laws are, that also come from the same source. Unlike natural laws however, because they are the realm of mind rather than the physical, we are able to tinker with them with much more freedom, in order to fool ourselves, giving us the illusion of subjectivity, until we slow down and think more honestly about it, then we acknowledge that immorality must always be that, and could never be moral.

As that movie pointed out, consensus (statistical norms) says absolutely nothing about morality itself.

Sorry, but you need some perspective. Firstly, you (or I) are not in a position to make a moral judgement about people's 'innocence' when referring to early biblical events. While you may not agree, there is no evidence that God takes innocent lives. Obviously I am with you - I too agree that is a very tough concept when considering for example babies, but again, the fact that we lack the proper perspective to judge this is significant, and plausible even if it can be perceived as a copout. Secondly, what gives you any idea that God has some kind of moral obligations towards what is (according to biblical belief) His creation / property. You may believe he is a moral monster, but the sad fact for you (and I) is, even if that were true, (which has been well refuted in any books), we still have no basis at all for complaint. Clearly humanity has every chance to choose behave in a moral way, and avoid whateve ugliness and consequence that we ourselves create, but we choose not to. Whose fault is that?

Do some reading on that last question...please. Oh I know that old copout: Atheism is a non belief, so we can't attribute any evils to it. Whatever. Ideas have consequences, whatever they are. If you wish to lay blame on one set of ideas (Christianity) for evil, then you simply cannot exempt another idea from the same analysis. End of story. Let's move on...

Comment 42 (4299) by OJB on 2015-01-30 at 09:10:01:

I was talking about the ultimate question: why anything exists. If we accept reality then that is a difficult question. If we believe in your fantasy it is at least as bad. If your god exists, why does he exist? Why is there anything instead of nothing? You're no better off than anyone else.

You can claim anything you like but the fact is there is no absolute morality. Tell me any moral law and I will find exceptions, including those directly attributable to your god. That is different from physical law - there are no exceptions to those.

I think morality is about consensus. Morality is just an agreed set of values within a particular population at a particular time. As a population's priorities change so do its moral standards. This is what we see happening in the real world and is hard to deny I would have thought. Look at the history of slavery as an example.

God killed everyone in the Flood. Are you suggesting that every single person on the planet, including babies were all guilty of some imagined crime? So you agree there is a good case to say your god is an evil monster but we shouldn't do anything about it. Wow, what a sick worldview you have.

Well you're wrong about atheism of course. You're just quoting the same old illogical nonsense that most Christians use. There are no atrocities I can think of that were performed because of the dictates or philosophy of atheism. But yes, let's move on.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.