Problems with Atheism

@spendius,

"Self" and "others" are co-extensive. All "moral choice" involves "dialogue" between those conjoint entities even if such dialogue is "internal".

0 Replies

@Thomas,

This discussion is too much in the theoretical. I think practical examples help.

I am claiming that there is a fundamental difference between scientific debates over scientific facts, and moral debates over moral facts. Look at the difference between the debate over evolution and the debate over abortion.

The debate over evolution is based on what is observable and testable. We have radio-isotope dating. We have fossils to study. We have geological. And now we have DNA evidence. In each case there are testable assertions-- people can go get fossils. People can do genetic experiments. There are people who deny the facts-- but it is in ways that are easy to debunk.

The debate over evolution is a debate about the facts.

In the debate over abortion, people on both sides agree on the basic facts. We agree that abortion is taking a life. There is no question that abortion does stop a beating heart. We all agree on the point of conception and the point of viability.

Even among people who completely agree on the testable facts, there is a deep disagreement about whether society should permit this practice. (For those who want to go there, this has nothing to do with religion. There are atheists who are strongly opposed abortion and devout "religionists" who are strongly pro-choice.)

The question of evolution can be solved by science (and ironically the only people who question evolution do so for religious reasons). This is because evolution has all of the traits of a scientific question -- it is a well-defined question that can be studied and tested.

Moral Questions like abortion are impossible to solve in any objective way. People who agree on the facts can be on opposite sides of the question-- and there is no way to resolve this other than a political battle yielding to society making an arbitrary decision.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

If that's seriously what you're arguing, then ante-bellum Southern nonconformists acted immorally in trying to abolish slavery. After all, under the norms of their specific cultural context, they were merely stealing slave owners' property, or trying to condemn it without just compensation.

I wanted to address this separately from my last comment because slavery was an interesting debate.

Slavery was morally accepted in many cultures throughout human history until very recently. I seems like modern Western culture is a exception... I don't know if the institution of slavery was questioned and abolished anywhere outside of modern Western culture.

What makes the end of slavery interesting was in the 19th century it revolved around scientific questions-- racial superiority is clearly a scientific question. I don't think the scientific question mattered to any culture before this point.

It was western developing views of human rights that begged the question. When slavery became a scientific question, it was pretty much doomed.

Quote:

Are you willing to follow your argument to this obvious and logical conclusion?

Yes, of course.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

This discussion is too much in the theoretical.

Ha! Your theory about the matter has run out of steam, and now you're changing the subject by saying you're not really into theory. What a hoot!

ebrown p wrote:

The question of evolution can be solved by science (and ironically the only people who question evolution do so for religious reasons). This is because evolution has all of the traits of a scientific question -- it is a well-defined question that can be studied and tested.

Moral Questions like abortion are impossible to solve in any objective way. People who agree on the facts can be on opposite sides of the question-- and there is no way to resolve this other than a political battle yielding to society making an arbitrary decision.

Not true. If you read the polls, you will find that Americans disagree about evolution as much as they disagree about abortion. For half of the American people, the question of evolution hasn't been solved by science.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Cardinal Ratzinger mandated that an IUD was effectively abortion as it kept a fertilized egg from implanting successfully. Part of the fight with Hans Kung, circa 1963 or 1964.

No, we don't all agree re abortion facts.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Well you won't if you want to have fairground sex.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Huh? Are you afraid of fairground sex? Or sex in marriage when you don't need another child? You got to get out of the pub, man .

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Ha! Your theory about the matter has run out of steam, and now you're changing the subject by saying you're not really into theory. What a hoot!

What. Now you want to be Setanta? (I don't enjoy discussions with Setanta nearly as much.)

Quote:

Not true. If you read the polls, you will find that Americans disagree about evolution as much as they disagree about abortion. For half of the American people, the question of evolution hasn't been solved by science.

This is irrelevant to the point I was making.

I am arguing there is a fundamental difference between moral debates and scientific debates. (This has nothing to do with American opinion.) The evolution debate is contested on matters of fact. The abortion debate is based on the question of whether abortion is murder.

In the evolution debate, there are discussions about how radio-isotopes decay. There are fossils presented and geological evidence. There are DNA studies. There are studies in bacteria, mold and fruit flies. This is in addition to practical use of an understanding of evolution to create new medicines and treatments. Evolution is a debate that is backed up by evidence (and the denial of evidence).

The abortion debate boils down to one side saying "Abortion is murder" and the other side saying "Abortion is not murder". There is no evidence that could clear this issue up. There is no experiment that can resolve this issue. It is clear that abortion ends a human life. It is clear that outlawing abortion takes away the freedom for women to choose a medical procedure. The conflict is a difference of subjective opinions.

The disagreement on abortion is a core moral disagreement. There are no important facts in dispute (outside of a few fringe issues that wouldn't change opinions either way).

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

I'm not in the least afraid of such things osso. I am not interested in them. I prefer ladies as they are without any objects manufuctured on industrial estates being inserted in their bodies in the service of the profit motive.

You'll be suggesting that I'm afraid of chaps wriggling out of their underpants next. Or sheep. Or holes in telegraph poles.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Listen eb-- if these guys don't have you on Ignore you're arguments are second rate. They can only deal with second rate arguments. Give them some first rate ones and watch them scurry off looking for an apron.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

What. Now you want to be Setanta? (I don't enjoy discussions with Setanta nearly as much.)

Your enjoyment in this thread is of the utmost indifference to me. It will not make me treat your pathetic excuse for a theory with even a grain of respect. (Does that answer your question?)

ebrown p wrote:

The disagreement on abortion is a core moral disagreement. There are no important facts in dispute (outside of a few fringe issues that wouldn't change opinions either way).

Not true. For example, my own view on abortion changed -- in the direction of conservatism -- when I studied the morphogenesis of the nervous system, which changed my conception of when an embryo starts to feel pain.

Just for reference, just what does it mean to you for a question to be "settled"? What is your evidence that radio-isotopes and the like settled the question of evolution, and that the dissent from half the American population doesn't disturb the settlement? Or to ask the same question the other way round: If you were wrong, and if a question of morality was settled, what practical evidence would convince you of that?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Not true. For example, my own view on abortion changed -- in the direction of conservatism -- when I studied the morphogenesis of the nervous system, which changed my conception of when an embryo starts to feel pain.

This is an interesting point. Am I correct that this an argument of when an embryo becomes human? (I am assuming that taking measures to relieve the pain wouldn't make abortion any more morally acceptable to you).

Quote:

What is your evidence that radio-isotopes and the like settled the question of evolution, and that the dissent from half the American population doesn't disturb the settlement?

My arguments have nothing to do with what percentage of the American population agrees with me or you (and neither does yours). Dissent really has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The issue is whether the presumed correct answer is precise (i.e. the question is exact and no-ambiguous) testable and observable. Science can answer questions precisely with experiment, observation and measurement.

Quote:

If you were wrong, and if a question of morality was settled, what practical evidence would convince you of that?

If there were evidence that anything other than humans (and perhaps dogs) cared a bit about human life, it would demonstrate the value of human life (which is the basis for proscriptions against killing). If there were no examples of species like turtles surviving by abandoning their young, or of primates forcing females into sexual servitude or of insects devouring their mates-- it would lend support that our moral rules against such behavior said something about nature.

If human cultures hadn't developed such vastly differing views of right or wrong (which persisted until travel made the world smaller).

Or, of course, the easiest way to prove the existence of universal truth is to explain what such a truth would be based on.

Where does moral truth come from?

Proving the existence of a deity would do the trick.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

This is an interesting point. Am I correct that this an argument of when an embryo becomes human? (I am assuming that taking measures to relieve the pain wouldn't make abortion any more morally acceptable to you).

Not really. I think all pain is bad, no matter who feels it. I don't think that belonging to the species homo sapiens makes a morally important difference. And yes, measures to relieve the embryo's pain would make abortion more morally acceptable to me.

ebrown p wrote:

If there were evidence that anything other than humans (and perhaps dogs) cared a bit about human life, it would demonstrate the value of human life (which is the basis for proscriptions against killing). If there were no examples of species like turtles surviving by abandoning their young, or of primates forcing females into sexual servitude or of insects devouring their mates-- it would lend support that our moral rules against such behavior said something about nature.

Fair enough -- you technically answered my question. But I don't see how studying animals could prove anything about morality either way. Morality applies to choices -- and turtles don't choose to abandon their dead; gorillas guys don't choose to rape gorilla girls. Insect girls don't choose to rip insect guys heads of to make them hornier. How can the study of animals who can't make moral choices prove anything about morality?

1 Reply

If one wants to posit a utilitarian origin for "morality," i have no problem with that. The origin of a prohibition on murder is rather obvious. A small hunter gatherer group cannot afford to lose any contributing members. At the same time, stories of the old and infirm being left behind are sufficiently ubiquitous to suggest that concepts of morality are pretty damned flexible.

In more "modern" societies, with higher population densities, the prohibition on murder is rather obvious. Even the allegedly primitive pre-Christian German tribes had a concept of compensation for the death of members of any clan or society--it was known as weregild to the Anglo-Saxons, and was intended to eliminate or at least to limit the prosecution of feuds which would ultimately and inevitably be destructive of the tribe's society.

A more enlightened (said with tongue in cheek) view is that we cannot know the value of any other member of our society, and we waste our human resources if we do not prohibit and do all that we can to prevent murder. The problem with moralists is that they have no better argument than "God says so" for their strictures, and the most devout are able to justify their own departures from such rules.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Not really. I think all pain is bad, no matter who feels it. I don't think that belonging to the species homo sapiens makes a morally important difference. And yes, measures to relieve the embryo's pain would make abortion more morally acceptable to me.

OK OK you got me. The statement "pain is bad" (a moral statement) is an example that is in conflict with scientific principles.

Pain clearly has an evolutionary advantage. Animals that feel pain have an survival advantage over animals that don't feel pain, it often motivates us to avoid behaviors against our survival interest-- although at times it motivates us in the opposite direction.

Many species feel pain during natural processes... for example humans feel pain during childbirth. Yet, if humans avoided childbirth due to the pain it would have a negative affect on us as a species.

Other species evolved to ignore, or even enjoy, the pain of others. A lion that cares about the pain it is causing its prey will not survive long. Cats seem to have evolved a desire to play with their food, and species like killer whales seem to enjoy causing pain-- they will hunt far beyond their nutritional needs.

Quote:

But I don't see how studying animals could prove anything about morality either way. Morality applies to choices -- and turtles don't choose to abandon their dead; gorillas guys don't choose to rape gorilla girls. Insect girls don't choose to rip insect guys heads of to make them hornier. How can the study of animals who can't make moral choices prove anything about morality?

Do you real mean to argue that humans aren't animals? This is an interesting argument.

Evolution is a series of random mutations that are selected only for survival value. Human traits developed with same process as gorilla traits or insect traits. I don't it is possible to argue that there was any guiding moral force-- evolution has no meaning behind it.

You still haven't answered the primary question; Where does morality come from? If morality comes from evolution-- it would apply to any species that evolved.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

OK OK you got me. The statement "pain is bad" (a moral statement) is an example that is in conflict with scientific principles.

No it isn't. At least no more so than "weights are heavy".

ebrown p wrote:

Do you real mean to argue that humans aren't animals? This is an interesting argument.

Of course humans are animals. That's not the issue. The morally relevant issues are two: First, humans can make conscious choices, including moral choices; non-human animals can't. Therefore, and because morality applies to conscious choices, it can apply to the behavior of humans, but not to that of non-human animals.

Second, humans can see much farther into the futures than non-human animals can. A cow cannot have a nervous breakdown today because her owner will butcher her in five years. A human in her position could. Therefore, it makes sense to criminalize the killing of humans, but not the (humane, stunned, etc.) killing of a cow.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas, let me push on your "pain as bad" standard with a direct question; if this is a the case, was impregnating my wife (which was consensual) immoral because I knew it would cause pain? What about when I held my daughter still to force her to get shots even when she was old enough to know what was going on (she shrieked when she saw the needle) but too young to understand why we were making her get them.

Then there are the deeper social issues. A philosophy of avoiding pain has implications for political issues-- such as poverty and immigration. Many of these I would agree with... but as an across the board principle, it isn't very practical. An avoidance of pain even has economic consequences, we use hunger and want to force people to work.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Second, humans can see much farther into the futures than non-human animals can. A cow cannot have a nervous breakdown today because her owner will butcher her in five years. A human in her position could. Therefore, it makes sense to criminalize the killing of humans, but not the (humane, stunned, etc.) killing of a cow.

I am in the same position of your hypothetical cow. Looking ahead to future, I know that nature will butcher me in 30 or 40 years. The same traits that might give me a nervous breakdown about this also allow me to accept this.

Is nature immoral?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Thomas, let me push on your "pain as bad" standard with a direct question; if this is a the case, was impregnating my wife (which was consensual) immoral because I knew it would cause pain?

Probably not. Granted, your act deserves moral disapproval to the extent that its consequences for your wife's were painful. But it also deserved moral approval to the extent that its consequences were pleasant and joyful. I expect that, overall, the joyful consequences dominated for both her and you. Certainly that's what your wife expected when she consented to conceive your baby. Therefore your act of impregnating your wife was not immoral.

ebrown p wrote:

Then there are the deeper social issues. A philosophy of avoiding pain has implications for political issues-- such as poverty and immigration. Many of these I would agree with... but as an across the board principle, it isn't very practical.

Why not?

ebrown p wrote:

An avoidance of pain even has economic consequences, we use hunger and want to force people to work.

Speak for yourself. I certainly don't do anything of that kind.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Is nature immoral?

No -- because "nature" is incapable of making choices, so the concept of morality cannot apply to it. On the other hand, if I believed in Jahwe, and that your death was a conscious decision of His, that would lead me to conclude He's immoral. Which, of course, would be ancient news to me, having read the Old Testament.

0 Replies

Problems with Atheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know