Petr
11-29-2005, 05:50 PM
Excerpted from here:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=82
...
"Though Richard isn’t able to establish any sort of objective morality without using arguments that he condemns others for using, he offers several reasons to be moral, and I concede that any of them could lead a person to live a moral life. For instance, Richard states that “immoral behavior is risky. Like playing Russian Roulette, having unsafe sex, smoking cigarettes, or driving drunk, you might get away with it, but it is a gamble, and you can never to your dying day be sure of escape.”[vii] It is important to note, however, that some people like taking risks, and that the possible benefits of immoral behavior (pleasure, wealth, etc.) are often enough for many people to accept the risks.
He also points to potential self-loathing as a reason to be moral:
Because of this natural, acquired human sentiment, whenever we act like those we hate, we will be faced with a psychological dilemma: we will be forced, on some level of our being, to hate ourselves. With feelings of self-loathing, someone who hates himself, in any sense, will always be handicapped, even sabotaged, in his own quest for happiness.[viii]
[B]The problem with all of Richard’s reasons is that they miss the point of the Christian argument. Richard seems to be responding to a claim such as “You can’t think of any reason for a person to be moral.” That’s certainly not a claim that I would make. Indeed, a person can be moral for any reason at all. [/B] [B]I could even conceive of a person living a moral life for purely evil reasons. For example, I could imagine a person who says, “I want as many people as possible to be melted by the sun, so I’m going to encourage love and peace so that society will grow and expand. By the time the sun melts us, there will be trillions of people! Then everyone will melt! Ha! Ha! Ha!” [/B]
So the point isn’t that atheists can’t offer reasons to be moral (any reason would suffice for some people). The Christian argument is that atheism (1) offers no real [I]foundation [/I]for any specific moral values, and (2) offers no compelling reason for a person to be moral, if that person would prefer to act otherwise. In other words, if we say that cannibalism is bad, and the cannibal wonders why, atheism cannot offer a reasonable explanation, whereas theism can.
[B]
To illustrate, let us suppose that instead of arguing against William Craig, Richard was instead arguing with Jeffrey Dahmer. Based on Richard’s arguments for morality and Dahmer’s interview on [I]NBC Dateline[/I], the conversation would go something like this: [/B]
[FONT="Arial"][B]Jeffrey:[/B] I’m hungry, Richard. I think I’ll go kill someone and eat him.
[B]Richard:[/B] What? You can’t do that, Jeff. It’s immoral!
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] That’s funny. I thought you’d be beyond this sort of thing by now. Anyhow, I can see that it’s immoral from [I]your [/I]perspective, Richard. So if it bothers you, I just won’t tell you about it when I do it.
[B]Richard:[/B] It’s not that it’s immoral from [I]my [/I]perspective. It’s that it’s immoral period.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] You’ve obviously got some leftover baggage from Christianity. Welcome to the new world. Objectivity went out with the Bible, didn’t you hear? There is nothing that’s really immoral anymore.
[B]Richard:[/B] Eating people is immoral.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Why? We eat animals, don’t we? And humans are just animals, you silly boy. Don’t tell me you’ve gone out and joined P.E.T.A.
[B]Richard:[/B] Yes, humans are animals. But we’re not [I]just[/I] animals. We’re different from the rest of animals, so you can’t say that we should act like them.[ix]
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Perhaps. But you can’t really say that I [I]shouldn’t [/I]eat people, if that’s what I want to do. I’m free to do as I like.
[B]Richard:[/B] But you’re using[I] your [/I]freedom to deprive others of[I] their[/I] freedom, and that’s unacceptable.[x]
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Says who? You say in your new book that it’s wrong for a person to force his moral views on other people.[xi] Quit trying to ram your views down my throat.
[B]Richard:[/B] But some moral values are objective. That’s what I’m arguing for. True morality is [I]objective[/I], and I can prove it.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Ha! Ha! Ha! Who are you going to prove it to? Your fans? People who listen to whatever you say because they don’t like to think for themselves?
[B]Richard:[/B] No, I’m serious. Check this out. It’s objective because it’s the view that everyone would have if they were fully informed of all the facts, provided they analyze the facts correctly.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] That sort of reasoning might work on someone who’s willing to latch on to anything to support his worldview, but I’m a skeptic, Richard. You can’t prove what you’ve said. You can only lay it down as an unsubstantiated rule and hope that no one questions it. But I’m not blindly accepting your rule. I enjoy my freedom.
[B]Richard:[/B] Freedom? You’re eating people!
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] I get to do whatever I want, Richard. It’s exhilarating. If I want to help someone, I can help someone. If I want to kill someone, I can kill him. You’re still being held back by your allegiance to a Christian morality when you’ve rejected Christianity. Your mind has been polluted. You said in your book that Christianity has taken our minds captive,[xii] and you’re right. But you haven’t been able to rid your mind of the Christian morality.
[B]Richard:[/B] Well, lot’s of religions have these same moral values, so there must be something to them.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] That’s because all theistic religions are able to offer a reason to be moral. If there’s a transcendent God, then he sets the rules. This sort of thinking has corrupted the minds of people everywhere, and it’s fine for people who believe in that sort of thing. But people like you and me are beyond all that. I’ve evolved to a higher stage of humanity, Richard. You can join me if you like.
[B]Richard:[/B] You’ve evolved?! You’re worse off than any of us!
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] No. The rest of humanity is still at the sheep level. They still feel bad when they do wrong, just as you feel bad when you do wrong. But I don’t feel bad when I do the things you call immoral, because I have risen beyond them. I am beyond good and evil—a superman, a god. Would it make sense for a god like me to lower himself down to follow the rules of mere insects?
[B]Richard:[/B] You’re insane! Look, I can show you that your beliefs are wrong[I] factually[/I]. You believe that you’re somehow higher than everyone else. But that’s factually false. You’re a human just like the rest of us.
[B]Jeffrey: [/B] I’m nothing like the rest of you. I was born with an amazing ability—the ability to control my emotions. Emotions weigh us down and keep us human. I threw mine off a long time ago, and I have risen to the heights of heaven.
[B]Richard: [/B] There is no heaven! So you must be lying!
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] I was speaking figuratively, Richard. The great ones do that from time to time.
[B]Richard: [/B] Look, if you kill people, you’ll be overcome by self-loathing. You’ll feel guilty because your conscience will convict you.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] My conscience is something that was forced into me by society. I consider it my duty to do the [I]opposite[/I] of whatever my conscience normally tells me to do. This is the only way to get all that pollution out of my head.
[B]Richard:[/B] Wait! I just remembered some more elements of my moral theory. The highest goal of morality is happiness.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] I am happy.
[B]Richard:[/B] But the people you’re killing aren’t happy.
[B]Jeffrey: [/B] They aren’t unhappy, either. At least, not after I kill them. Look, if it makes you feel better, I’ll only kill unhappy people.
[B]Richard: [/B] You shouldn’t be killing people at all.
[B]Jeffrey: [/B]Pardon me if I don’t bow to the dogmatic demands of others. I’ve invented my own morality. My highest moral principle is that it would be immoral to follow moral values that hold people back. So to avoid killing people would be immoral for me. Being immoral would make me unhappy. You want me to be happy don’t you?
[B]Richard: [/B] I want you to be moral, so I can live in a safe society.
[B]Jeffrey: [/B] Aha! The truth at last. You want a moral society so [I]you [/I]can live a good life. So you’re acting moral out of self-interest.
[B]Richard: [/B] There’s nothing wrong with self-interest. As I say in my book, “If I engage in self-sacrificing and selfless acts, if I maintain concern about others in my decisions, I am not selfish, even if I act this way out of self-interest.”[xiii]
[B]Jeffrey: [/B]Yeah, I’m acting out of self-interest too. That’s why I eat people, whether they like it or not. You can’t expect me to act for [I]your [/I]interests, can you? I do what makes me happy. It’s just as you’ve said, “If you should[I] not[/I] regulate your life according to your own happiness, what worth could life possibly have?”[xiv]
[B]Richard: [/B]But you can’t be truly happy if you eat people. You’ll live in constant fear of getting caught. You’ll have low self-esteem. If your cognitive faculties were functioning properly, you’d agree with me!
[B]Jeffrey: [/B] On the contrary, if [I]your[/I] brain was functioning properly, forcing you to reason consistently, you’d be joining me for a meal right now. Look, you can’t run around destroying the foundation of a building and not expect the whole thing to come crashing down on you. You’ve set yourself against Jesus, but a lot of things are resting on those shoulders. Your little theories can’t sustain the wait of a single critical mind, let alone all of society.
[B]Richard: [/B]I set myself against Jesus because I’m a lover of truth! A first-rate philosopher! Too many people have fallen for Christianity’s lies, and I’m here to set people free.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Then you and I are the same, Richard. We’re both trying to set people free. I’m trying to set people free from the chains that have kept them from becoming gods. But you stop short because you haven’t followed your atheism through to its logical conclusion. I feel sorry for you. Say, I have to go. Could you reach behind you and grab my coat . . . [bludgeons Richard to death with a golf club] . . . Sorry, Rich. I had to put you out of your misery. According to your moral theory, if a person knows all the facts he will come to the right conclusion. Well, if you knew all the facts, you couldn’t live with yourself. Objective morality! Ha! That’s no way for an atheist to live. Now, where’s my George Foreman Grill?
Some readers may respond to this dialogue by arguing, “But people can reject morality when they’re arguing with a Christian, too. So what are you saying here?” This objection misses the point. To illustrate, consider a different conversation. This one will be between Jeffrey Dahmer and Billy Graham.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] I’m hungry. I think I’ll go kill someone and eat him.
[B]Billy:[/B] That’s immoral, Jeffrey. It’s sin. Don’t do it.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Why not?
[B]Billy: [/B] The person you plan to kill was created in the image of God. It wouldn’t be right to kill him.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] But I don’t believe in God.
[B]Billy:[/B] You[I] should [/I]believe in him. God created the world. He created life. Then we all sinned and turned our backs on him. But he loves us so much that he sent Jesus to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin. God loves you, and he loves the person you want to kill.
[B]Jeffrey: [/B] That’s fine for you to believe, but it’s not for me.
Notice the difference here. In the first scenario, Jeffrey Dahmer rejected Richard’s argument for morality even though he agreed with Richard’s atheism, and if we really understand atheism, we have to acknowledge that it offers no foundation for morality. This doesn’t mean that all atheists are horrible people. An atheist can be a kind, loving, generous person. But an atheist can also be a serial killer, and there’s nothing in his worldview to prevent him from making that choice. Jeffrey Dahmer was just as consistent with his atheism as, say, Bertrand Russell.
In the second scenario, Dahmer rejected the entire system along with the morality. In other words, it made sense for him to say, “I reject Christianity, so I reject the Christian morality also.” But it would make no sense for a Christian to say, “I accept Christianity, but I reject Christian morality.” While a person could say that, he would be acting inconsistently with his worldview. An atheist, on the other hand, can kill a person without such inconsistency. Thus, just as with the issue of meaning, both Christians and atheists are free to live moral lives, but only atheists are free to live immoral lives (or, perhaps, amoral lives).
...[/FONT]
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=82
...
"Though Richard isn’t able to establish any sort of objective morality without using arguments that he condemns others for using, he offers several reasons to be moral, and I concede that any of them could lead a person to live a moral life. For instance, Richard states that “immoral behavior is risky. Like playing Russian Roulette, having unsafe sex, smoking cigarettes, or driving drunk, you might get away with it, but it is a gamble, and you can never to your dying day be sure of escape.”[vii] It is important to note, however, that some people like taking risks, and that the possible benefits of immoral behavior (pleasure, wealth, etc.) are often enough for many people to accept the risks.
He also points to potential self-loathing as a reason to be moral:
Because of this natural, acquired human sentiment, whenever we act like those we hate, we will be faced with a psychological dilemma: we will be forced, on some level of our being, to hate ourselves. With feelings of self-loathing, someone who hates himself, in any sense, will always be handicapped, even sabotaged, in his own quest for happiness.[viii]
[B]The problem with all of Richard’s reasons is that they miss the point of the Christian argument. Richard seems to be responding to a claim such as “You can’t think of any reason for a person to be moral.” That’s certainly not a claim that I would make. Indeed, a person can be moral for any reason at all. [/B] [B]I could even conceive of a person living a moral life for purely evil reasons. For example, I could imagine a person who says, “I want as many people as possible to be melted by the sun, so I’m going to encourage love and peace so that society will grow and expand. By the time the sun melts us, there will be trillions of people! Then everyone will melt! Ha! Ha! Ha!” [/B]
So the point isn’t that atheists can’t offer reasons to be moral (any reason would suffice for some people). The Christian argument is that atheism (1) offers no real [I]foundation [/I]for any specific moral values, and (2) offers no compelling reason for a person to be moral, if that person would prefer to act otherwise. In other words, if we say that cannibalism is bad, and the cannibal wonders why, atheism cannot offer a reasonable explanation, whereas theism can.
[B]
To illustrate, let us suppose that instead of arguing against William Craig, Richard was instead arguing with Jeffrey Dahmer. Based on Richard’s arguments for morality and Dahmer’s interview on [I]NBC Dateline[/I], the conversation would go something like this: [/B]
[FONT="Arial"][B]Jeffrey:[/B] I’m hungry, Richard. I think I’ll go kill someone and eat him.
[B]Richard:[/B] What? You can’t do that, Jeff. It’s immoral!
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] That’s funny. I thought you’d be beyond this sort of thing by now. Anyhow, I can see that it’s immoral from [I]your [/I]perspective, Richard. So if it bothers you, I just won’t tell you about it when I do it.
[B]Richard:[/B] It’s not that it’s immoral from [I]my [/I]perspective. It’s that it’s immoral period.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] You’ve obviously got some leftover baggage from Christianity. Welcome to the new world. Objectivity went out with the Bible, didn’t you hear? There is nothing that’s really immoral anymore.
[B]Richard:[/B] Eating people is immoral.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Why? We eat animals, don’t we? And humans are just animals, you silly boy. Don’t tell me you’ve gone out and joined P.E.T.A.
[B]Richard:[/B] Yes, humans are animals. But we’re not [I]just[/I] animals. We’re different from the rest of animals, so you can’t say that we should act like them.[ix]
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Perhaps. But you can’t really say that I [I]shouldn’t [/I]eat people, if that’s what I want to do. I’m free to do as I like.
[B]Richard:[/B] But you’re using[I] your [/I]freedom to deprive others of[I] their[/I] freedom, and that’s unacceptable.[x]
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Says who? You say in your new book that it’s wrong for a person to force his moral views on other people.[xi] Quit trying to ram your views down my throat.
[B]Richard:[/B] But some moral values are objective. That’s what I’m arguing for. True morality is [I]objective[/I], and I can prove it.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Ha! Ha! Ha! Who are you going to prove it to? Your fans? People who listen to whatever you say because they don’t like to think for themselves?
[B]Richard:[/B] No, I’m serious. Check this out. It’s objective because it’s the view that everyone would have if they were fully informed of all the facts, provided they analyze the facts correctly.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] That sort of reasoning might work on someone who’s willing to latch on to anything to support his worldview, but I’m a skeptic, Richard. You can’t prove what you’ve said. You can only lay it down as an unsubstantiated rule and hope that no one questions it. But I’m not blindly accepting your rule. I enjoy my freedom.
[B]Richard:[/B] Freedom? You’re eating people!
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] I get to do whatever I want, Richard. It’s exhilarating. If I want to help someone, I can help someone. If I want to kill someone, I can kill him. You’re still being held back by your allegiance to a Christian morality when you’ve rejected Christianity. Your mind has been polluted. You said in your book that Christianity has taken our minds captive,[xii] and you’re right. But you haven’t been able to rid your mind of the Christian morality.
[B]Richard:[/B] Well, lot’s of religions have these same moral values, so there must be something to them.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] That’s because all theistic religions are able to offer a reason to be moral. If there’s a transcendent God, then he sets the rules. This sort of thinking has corrupted the minds of people everywhere, and it’s fine for people who believe in that sort of thing. But people like you and me are beyond all that. I’ve evolved to a higher stage of humanity, Richard. You can join me if you like.
[B]Richard:[/B] You’ve evolved?! You’re worse off than any of us!
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] No. The rest of humanity is still at the sheep level. They still feel bad when they do wrong, just as you feel bad when you do wrong. But I don’t feel bad when I do the things you call immoral, because I have risen beyond them. I am beyond good and evil—a superman, a god. Would it make sense for a god like me to lower himself down to follow the rules of mere insects?
[B]Richard:[/B] You’re insane! Look, I can show you that your beliefs are wrong[I] factually[/I]. You believe that you’re somehow higher than everyone else. But that’s factually false. You’re a human just like the rest of us.
[B]Jeffrey: [/B] I’m nothing like the rest of you. I was born with an amazing ability—the ability to control my emotions. Emotions weigh us down and keep us human. I threw mine off a long time ago, and I have risen to the heights of heaven.
[B]Richard: [/B] There is no heaven! So you must be lying!
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] I was speaking figuratively, Richard. The great ones do that from time to time.
[B]Richard: [/B] Look, if you kill people, you’ll be overcome by self-loathing. You’ll feel guilty because your conscience will convict you.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] My conscience is something that was forced into me by society. I consider it my duty to do the [I]opposite[/I] of whatever my conscience normally tells me to do. This is the only way to get all that pollution out of my head.
[B]Richard:[/B] Wait! I just remembered some more elements of my moral theory. The highest goal of morality is happiness.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] I am happy.
[B]Richard:[/B] But the people you’re killing aren’t happy.
[B]Jeffrey: [/B] They aren’t unhappy, either. At least, not after I kill them. Look, if it makes you feel better, I’ll only kill unhappy people.
[B]Richard: [/B] You shouldn’t be killing people at all.
[B]Jeffrey: [/B]Pardon me if I don’t bow to the dogmatic demands of others. I’ve invented my own morality. My highest moral principle is that it would be immoral to follow moral values that hold people back. So to avoid killing people would be immoral for me. Being immoral would make me unhappy. You want me to be happy don’t you?
[B]Richard: [/B] I want you to be moral, so I can live in a safe society.
[B]Jeffrey: [/B] Aha! The truth at last. You want a moral society so [I]you [/I]can live a good life. So you’re acting moral out of self-interest.
[B]Richard: [/B] There’s nothing wrong with self-interest. As I say in my book, “If I engage in self-sacrificing and selfless acts, if I maintain concern about others in my decisions, I am not selfish, even if I act this way out of self-interest.”[xiii]
[B]Jeffrey: [/B]Yeah, I’m acting out of self-interest too. That’s why I eat people, whether they like it or not. You can’t expect me to act for [I]your [/I]interests, can you? I do what makes me happy. It’s just as you’ve said, “If you should[I] not[/I] regulate your life according to your own happiness, what worth could life possibly have?”[xiv]
[B]Richard: [/B]But you can’t be truly happy if you eat people. You’ll live in constant fear of getting caught. You’ll have low self-esteem. If your cognitive faculties were functioning properly, you’d agree with me!
[B]Jeffrey: [/B] On the contrary, if [I]your[/I] brain was functioning properly, forcing you to reason consistently, you’d be joining me for a meal right now. Look, you can’t run around destroying the foundation of a building and not expect the whole thing to come crashing down on you. You’ve set yourself against Jesus, but a lot of things are resting on those shoulders. Your little theories can’t sustain the wait of a single critical mind, let alone all of society.
[B]Richard: [/B]I set myself against Jesus because I’m a lover of truth! A first-rate philosopher! Too many people have fallen for Christianity’s lies, and I’m here to set people free.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Then you and I are the same, Richard. We’re both trying to set people free. I’m trying to set people free from the chains that have kept them from becoming gods. But you stop short because you haven’t followed your atheism through to its logical conclusion. I feel sorry for you. Say, I have to go. Could you reach behind you and grab my coat . . . [bludgeons Richard to death with a golf club] . . . Sorry, Rich. I had to put you out of your misery. According to your moral theory, if a person knows all the facts he will come to the right conclusion. Well, if you knew all the facts, you couldn’t live with yourself. Objective morality! Ha! That’s no way for an atheist to live. Now, where’s my George Foreman Grill?
Some readers may respond to this dialogue by arguing, “But people can reject morality when they’re arguing with a Christian, too. So what are you saying here?” This objection misses the point. To illustrate, consider a different conversation. This one will be between Jeffrey Dahmer and Billy Graham.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] I’m hungry. I think I’ll go kill someone and eat him.
[B]Billy:[/B] That’s immoral, Jeffrey. It’s sin. Don’t do it.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] Why not?
[B]Billy: [/B] The person you plan to kill was created in the image of God. It wouldn’t be right to kill him.
[B]Jeffrey:[/B] But I don’t believe in God.
[B]Billy:[/B] You[I] should [/I]believe in him. God created the world. He created life. Then we all sinned and turned our backs on him. But he loves us so much that he sent Jesus to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin. God loves you, and he loves the person you want to kill.
[B]Jeffrey: [/B] That’s fine for you to believe, but it’s not for me.
Notice the difference here. In the first scenario, Jeffrey Dahmer rejected Richard’s argument for morality even though he agreed with Richard’s atheism, and if we really understand atheism, we have to acknowledge that it offers no foundation for morality. This doesn’t mean that all atheists are horrible people. An atheist can be a kind, loving, generous person. But an atheist can also be a serial killer, and there’s nothing in his worldview to prevent him from making that choice. Jeffrey Dahmer was just as consistent with his atheism as, say, Bertrand Russell.
In the second scenario, Dahmer rejected the entire system along with the morality. In other words, it made sense for him to say, “I reject Christianity, so I reject the Christian morality also.” But it would make no sense for a Christian to say, “I accept Christianity, but I reject Christian morality.” While a person could say that, he would be acting inconsistently with his worldview. An atheist, on the other hand, can kill a person without such inconsistency. Thus, just as with the issue of meaning, both Christians and atheists are free to live moral lives, but only atheists are free to live immoral lives (or, perhaps, amoral lives).
...[/FONT]