February 13, 2008

Having Sex Kills Brain Cells!

Posted by: Sarah @ 7:06 pm · Filed under · Commentary, God/No God, Politics ·

I just read an article in this week’s Gazette with the attention-grabbing title, “Smells Like Teen Purity.”

C’mon. You know I’m going to read this.

It opened with this paragraph:

The message rang loud and clear from the Paul Valley church. Teens, abstain from sex (not to mention drugs and alcohol) for the next 10 years. Don’t “defile” yourself. Instead, go to college. Make goals. Fulfill them.

A couple paragraphs later, I read a quote attributed to Gwendolyn Poteet, head of Central Oklahoma KEEP (Kids Eagerly Endorsing Purity) – which according to this article, is part of the largest abstinence program in the state:

“Would delaying sex give you the opportunity to have goals? We’re bringing a lot into the conversation. What could be the consequences? Abstinence gives young people the opportunity to achieve.”

Woah, woah, woah. I have so many problems with this, I don’t know where to begin.

First of all, we all know that abstinence-only programs don’t work. Furthermore, I’d argue that they’re downright harmful to teens. Since we know a lot of these purity-pledging kiddies end up having sex anyway, I think it’s reasonable to presume that they’re not having the safest of sex. Since they haven’t received any type of comprehensive sex education, many of them think that oral and anal sex are safe because “you can‘t get pregnant that way.” Many of them know little, if anything, about birth control, and many don’t know how one can and cannot catch a STD.

Secondly, I take issue with the implication here. Are these people really saying that having sex will lead, inevitably, to disaster? That once you decide to become sexually active, you automatically ditch your goals and dreams? Are they saying that sex creates crazed nymphomaniacs who blow off college in favor of getting laid all day?

Parents. Seriously. If your kid isn’t sexually active now, in high school, he or she probably will be when they get to college. Trust me on this.

Obviously, sex can lead to unpleasant, even disastrous, outcomes. Getting knocked up isn’t cool. STD’s are just as uncool. No one’s denying that these things are possible. But it seems insultingly stupid to insinuate that having sex – especially responsible, informed sex – is going to drain you of all ambition and potential. That’s absurd.

Kids should be informed about the pros and cons of having a sexual relationship. They should be urged to take sex seriously, and to make sure they’re completely ready before they do it. Abstinence should be presented as one path to take, but not the only path.

Ditch the scare tactics and be honest. The reason you’re against sex is because of your weird, religious hang-ups. If you’ve got a hard-on for abstinence, then come out and say premarital sex is wrong because God/The Bible/Pastor Tom says it’s wrong. Don’t make up bullshit like this and feed it to your kids. I assure you, they’re smarter than that.

63 Comments

  1. Jessika Said:

    February 14, 2008 @ 8:56 am

    Skimming the Gazette I saw that article and knew it was one for you. All points well said!

  2. Rhology Said:

    February 14, 2008 @ 10:47 am

    I can see what you mean, and I partially agree, esp with the last paragraph.
    But at the same time, I don’t think that such a curric should never ever mention the fact that living an immoral life (read: sex outside of marriage) does cause emotional discord in quite a few people, not to mention unnaturally extending relationships that otherwise would have ended in a breakup b/c of incompatibility or even abuse. It’d do an injustice to the kids to leave all that out.

  3. Sarah Said:

    February 14, 2008 @ 11:16 am

    Is it the sex that causes this kind of emotional fallout, or is it the fact that people are having sex before they’re emotionally ready to handle it, or maybe choosing the wrong people to have sex with? I agree that kids should be made aware that sex is not, by any means, something to be taken lightly. But I would strongly disagree that there is anything inherently “immoral” about premarital sex. Plenty of hearts get broken, and abuse occurs, where sex isn’t involved. And plenty of people (yes, teenagers included) are happily having responsible sex with no emotional or physical damage.

    I think some people are just weirdly squeamish about sex, and can’t fathom the idea that people have sex all the time without suffering lifelong trauma. I think most people have had a mix of bad sexual experiences and good sexual experiences, and most survive and go on to be reasonably well-adjusted and functioning members of society.

    Marriage is no guarantee of healthy sex.

  4. Rhology Said:

    February 14, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

    Hey Sarah,

    I’d say it’s both. God created sex to be in marriage ONLY, and so anyone who’s not married and having sex is not only committing sin (which isn’t good and has consequences of an emotional, spiritual, mental, and physical nature) but is also engaging in sex before they’re ready to handle it, since one of the prereqs is being married.

    But I would strongly disagree that there is anything inherently “immoral” about premarital sex.

    Well, of course, b/c you’re an atheist. Nothing is immoral or moral for you beyond what you yourself prefer. If you like it, it’s “moral”; if you dislike it, it’s “immoral”.

    Plenty of hearts get broken, and abuse occurs, where sex isn’t involved.

    True, of course. But what I’m saying is that sex tends to keep (unmarried) people together who shouldn’t be.

    And plenty of people (yes, teenagers included) are happily having responsible sex with no emotional or physical damage.

    Yet.

    Marriage is no guarantee of healthy sex.

    Agreed, of course. That wasn’t my point.
    And I was a virgin when I got married and my wife wasn’t. She’ll readily tell anyone that she wishes she would’ve waited. I’m glad I did.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  5. Brian G. Said:

    February 19, 2008 @ 1:10 am

    God created sex to be in marriage ONLY

    Do you have any proof of this? Where’s God? Where’s his magical sex-designing handbook?

    and so anyone who’s not married and having sex is not only committing sin

    Proof?

    (which isn’t good and has consequences of an emotional, spiritual, mental, and physical nature)

    Proof?

    but is also engaging in sex before they’re ready to handle it, since one of the prereqs is being married.

    Proof? Oh, and your answers can’t involve Jesus, the Bible, your personal opinions, or what your pastor thinks, even though everyone here should know those last two are identical.

    And I was a virgin when I got married and my wife wasn’t. She’ll readily tell anyone that she wishes she would’ve waited. I’m glad I did.

    Why? So you could trap her in a marriage with someone with no sexual experience? Sex is like music: you have to practice, and you have to keep trying different ones until you find the right instrument. Waiting until marriage to have sex is idiotic because you may be marrying someone you have no sexual chemistry with.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    And yes, I recognize your screenname from your trolling other sites like Pharyngula.

  6. Rhology Said:

    February 19, 2008 @ 11:05 am

    Hey Brian G,

    Do you have any proof of this?

    In the Bible.

    Where’s God? Where’s his magical sex-designing handbook?

    God is omnipresent. I think you know I’d say this; you’re just jagging me.
    He is. Just for your consideration.
    The “handbook” is the Bible; it has a lot of different instructions. Deals with sex too.

    (The 1st) Proof?

    Oy. And if I asked for “Proof?” of your own position?
    The God of the Bible lives; He has revealed Himself and His law; the law includes “Don’t have sex outside of marriage”.
    This is probably not going anywhere, but I’ll take the bait a few times.

    (the 2nd) Proof?

    Anecdotal evidence I’ve seen dozens of times.
    Studies show it, my friend. Studies show it.

    Proof? Oh, and your answers can’t involve Jesus, the Bible, your personal opinions, or what your pastor thinks, even though everyone here should know those last two are identical.

    Oh wow, as if your preconditions for acceptable answers have any rational merit.
    Give me a good reason to exclude such.

    Why? So you could trap her in a marriage with someone with no sexual experience?

    You know nothing about me or my wife and yet you would throw out such an offensive statement! What a rude thing to say.
    We did it b/c God said to do it that way. And have never regretted it.
    And sex is like music, fine. We practiced AFTER we got married. Practiced a lot.

    Waiting until marriage to have sex is idiotic because you may be marrying someone you have no sexual chemistry with.

    Unlike you apparently do, I don’t reduce sex (nor love) to “chemistry” and animal impulses. But that fits within your (probably) naturalistic worldview – people are just animals anyway, so might as well mount as many females as possible to further your genes, right?
    We had mutual sexual attraction; don’t need to HAVE sex to know that! It was easy to tell b/c we both wanted each other before we got married. We just didn’t do so.
    You may not want to admit it, and that’s fine, but sex is dangerous and awesome. It is powerful, and just throwing it around like you apparently want to will eventually burn you. It was made to do so if you use it incorrectly, kinda like trying to play a cup of coffee in a CDROM drive.

    And I’d be surprised if I’ve ever posted more than 2 times on Pharyngula, so maybe you’re thinking of somewhere else.
    A few more than that on ERV, but I don’t frequent those sites since my time is limited.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  7. Hayley Said:

    February 19, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

    Wow, that is quite a debate you guys have going on there. I can only speak from my own experience (which I won’t go into detail) but having young kids pledge/promise to God to save themselves until marriage is kind of silly. Ironically, when I was in highschool and stayed at an overnight church camp (with guys and girls) we were told in the morning that we would be dedicating ourselves to go to the front of the church and announce to everyone (including God) that we would wait until marraige. Needless to say I panicked…and not because of the waiting thing I was fully prepared to do that…but I didn’t want to lie to God and promise him something I wasn’t sure I could do. My friends that went to that church and made the dedication both lost their viginity just the next year. I think by forcing youth to make a promise to God to abstain from sex we are really saying, “You don’t have any options here….it’s a sin if you have premarital sex…don’t do it, and let’s not talk about it.” Instead, of giving them the cold hard facts to make an educated decision (like STDs, teen pregnancy, emotional loss, etc). I’m really proud of those who can wait until marriage (more power to you, really) but forcing kids “to promise” not to have sex is a silly notion.

  8. davidbmc Said:

    February 19, 2008 @ 10:35 pm

    I’ve sort-of taken the approach with my kids that my dad took with me. “Don’t have sex until you’re married. But if you do, for God’s sake use a condom.”

    We used a great book called “How To Talk To Your Child About Sex” by Linda & Richard Eyre. Of course my kids are 8 and 11. We have regular and open conversations with the 11 year old about all kinds of sexual things. I prefer he hears it from me than the kids at school. I remember those kids at school were idiots. The 8 year old is just now starting to get ramped up on this stuff.

    I agree that kids should be made aware that sex is not, by any means, something to be taken lightly. But I would strongly disagree that there is anything inherently “immoral” about premarital sex.

    Sarah, I think I know what you are getting at, but you can just clarify for me so I dont impose my own words in your mouth, how it is that sex should not be taken lightly if there is nothing immoral about premarital sex? If there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, why refrain?

    Thanks in advance.

  9. Dwight Said:

    February 20, 2008 @ 8:17 am

    Just answering for myself, but I don’t think that just because something carries with itself potential risk/danger makes it wrong or immoral.

    A butcher’s knife certainly isn’t immoral. But, if you know how to wield it safely, you can use it well and often with very little risk.

  10. Dwight Said:

    February 20, 2008 @ 8:20 am

    Besides…I can’t see any difference whatsoever between sex the day before you get married and the day after you get married. I don’t see how one is immoral while the other is not.

  11. Sarah Said:

    February 20, 2008 @ 8:28 am

    There’s absolutely nothing wrong with sex if it’s undertaken responsibly. I would’ve compared it to gun ownership, if Dwight hadn’t already beat me to a similar metaphor! A lot of people own guns, either for hunting or self-protection. There’s nothing wrong or immoral about owning a gun, but no one is going to advocate gun usage by someone who doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing. It takes proper education. Sex is the same way.

    I hope that helps clarify what I meant, David.

  12. Rhology Said:

    February 20, 2008 @ 9:29 am

    Since you guys are saying you don’t see the difference in morality vs immorality of sex in a given situation, maybe you could do a post sometime (or link to one if you’ve already done it) on *how you know* when something is moral vs immoral.

  13. davidbmc Said:

    February 20, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

    Let me ask it this way: When should sex not be taken lightly and why not?

    I’m not trying to trap you in anything. I just found your comment interesting and I’m trying to fully understand your position.

  14. Sarah Said:

    February 20, 2008 @ 9:22 pm

    It seems like there might be this weird dichotomy thing going on where I’m supposed to say either sex should only be within marriage, or we should all go around fucking everything with a pulse. Or, I’m supposed to compile an exhaustive list of situations that are acceptable and situations that aren’t.

    I thought the whole point of my post was that abstinence-only education is not only stupid, but dangerous. If kids don’t know the facts about how you get pregnant and how STD’s are transmitted (and cheers to you, David, for teaching your kids about condoms) then that, in my book, is “taking sex lightly.” Having unprotected sex is “taking sex lightly.”

    I’m not trying to be snotty, I just don’t know what more I can say.

  15. Dwight Said:

    February 20, 2008 @ 9:36 pm

    Yeah, perhaps there are two somewhat separate issues here (at least in my mind)…one being sex at too early of an age and the other being premarital sex.

    Oh, and contrary to popular opinion, the atheist motto is not “if it feels good, do it.” Nope. Our motto is super top-secret. We only divulge it at our secret ritual orgies. You will never find out our secret. Mwahaha!!!

  16. davidbmc Said:

    February 20, 2008 @ 11:26 pm

    Having unprotected sex is “taking sex lightly.”

    This answers my question thoroughly!

    thanks!

    and btw-i do not assume that atheists have no morals. i know many atheists who have what i would consider to be greater morals than some so-called christians.

    what i do not understand is a rational basis for atheistic morals. but that is going deeper than i really intended with my question. thanks.

    and i didnt think you were snotty and Dwight cracks me up. :)

    yes i teach my kids about condoms. to do otherwise would be irresponsible. but i also teach them that abstinence works every time its tried.

  17. Dwight Said:

    February 21, 2008 @ 9:08 am

    If atheism were a religion, then I might find it necessary to codify a “rational basis for atheistic morals.” But, it’s not. I speak only for myself. I don’t have a book that I go to in order to find out what is right or wrong. When I face a dilemma, I don’t wonder whether or not it is the atheistic thing to do (or whether Dawkins or Hitchens would approve).

    Simply put, I don’t beat my wife because God tells me not to. I can’t say precisely why I don’t beat her…I could give a reason, a logic, a rationale, but I’m not sure they can ever be completely sufficient…love, kindness, reciprocity, self-preservation, fear of prison, social norms, and on and on and on and on.

  18. Sarah Said:

    February 21, 2008 @ 9:35 am

    Thank you for not beating me, whatever your rationale. I’m quite grateful, indeed. (And for what it’s worth, I think Dawkins and Hitchens would approve.)

  19. Rhology Said:

    February 21, 2008 @ 12:25 pm

    Just so we’re clear…

    i do not assume that atheists have no morals

    Of course, neither do I, nor have I said anythg of the kind.

    If atheism were a religion, then I might find it necessary to codify a “rational basis for atheistic morals.” But, it’s not.

    Fine. On what do ***YOU*** base your judgments of “right” vs “wrong”, “good” vs “bad”? Just you.

    I could give a reason, a logic, a rationale

    Yes, please do. I’d really like to know in what way “I don’t like vanilla ice cream” and “I don’t like beating my wife” differ. I’m serious.

    love, kindness, reciprocity, self-preservation, fear of prison, social norms, and on and on and on and on.

    Whence do you derive your definition of “love”?
    “Kindness”?
    Is it important, morally, to be kind? Why?
    Why should you bother following social norms? Aren’t social norms sometimes bad, like (obviously) the 3rd Reich German society?

    These are serious questions, and so if you’re going to throw around moral/immoral questions like you did in this post, I think it’s only fair to question how you know those things.
    I know you may be pressed for time, but I’d really like to see you post about it sometime when you get a chance.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  20. davidbmc Said:

    February 21, 2008 @ 1:37 pm

    I can’t say precisely why I don’t beat her…I could give a reason, a logic, a rationale, but I’m not sure they can ever be completely sufficient…

    Thanks Dwight. I appreciate your answer here. I’m not sure though whether you are saying you are not sure it would be sufficient to satisfy me, or whether it would be a sufficient answer. IMHO, it would be the latter. I’m fairly easy to satisfy (even if I do not agree).

    And Rhology, I wasnt implying you had stated atheists have no morals. I was just making a general statement.

    As for me, I’m satisfied enough with this thread I propbably wont be checking back especially since I am leaving town and then it will leave my mind.

  21. Dwight Said:

    February 21, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

    if you’re going to throw around moral/immoral questions like you did in this post

    Actually, the post was written by Sarah and I’m not sure that the original post was really raising moral/immoral questions.

    I think it’s only fair to question how you know those things

    And, I’m also not quite sure where in the post she claimed to have any moral/immoral answers.

    As for myself, perhaps I’ll come back to the moral issue in a later post. But, for now, I think I’ve answered sufficiently albeit incompletely. So, I will bow out now as well. Sarah is busy with work and school…so she has likely already bowed out.

  22. Brian G. Said:

    February 22, 2008 @ 6:24 am

    Comment by Rhology — February 19, 2008

    Do you see the problem with asking for a rational reason why you can’t use something that’s irrational? If you were a physicist and I told you the answer to every equation was Jesus, would you take me seriously? That’s pretty much what you just did; you made several assertions based on your faith, I asked for proof and you cited your faith. Your arguments are simplistic and circular.

    Bringing your personal faith into sex and trying to apply it to everyone is arrogant.Not everyone has your “you have to be married, we do it once a month through a hole in a sheet” attitude, especially us non-Christians.

  23. Brian G. Said:

    February 22, 2008 @ 6:31 am

    Anecdotal evidence I’ve seen dozens of times.
    Studies show it, my friend. Studies show it.

    You have anecdotal evidence for your religious beliefs too, why should I give a shit about either? As far as studies, where are they? What psychological or medical journals were they in? Were they peer-reviewed? I’d love to read them if you can provide me with links.

  24. Rhology Said:

    February 22, 2008 @ 11:05 am

    Sure it was raising moral questions.

    I have so many problems with this, I don’t know where to begin.

    First of all, we all know that abstinence-only programs don’t work. – raises the question of why we should care.

    Getting knocked up isn’t cool.

    But it seems insultingly stupid to insinuate that having sex – especially responsible, informed sex – is going to drain you of all ambition and potential. That’s absurd. – raises the question of why responsible, informed things are better than irresponsible, uninformed things. You may think it’s obvious, but when it’s being questioned, it’s incumbent upon you to provide a rationale for it.

    Kids should be informed about the pros and cons of having a sexual relationship. – any occurrence of “should” is a moral statement.

    They should be urged to take sex seriously

    Abstinence should be presented as one path to take, but not the only path.

    Like I said, I want justification for your moral statements. I’m not content to let you be the Pope of Morality and dictate to me what my morality should and shouldn’t be – you need to offer an argument as to why.
    You’ve not addressed the issue even partially sufficiently, but that’s OK, it’s just a combox. I’ll be keeping an eye out for that post. :-)

    Brian G said:
    Do you see the problem with asking for a rational reason why you can’t use something that’s irrational?

    Yes and no.
    1) I never said that, so I guess I need to know to what you refer.
    2) On atheism, there’s no reason to conclude that our reasoning processes will reliably lead us to truth.
    3) On atheism, there’s no way to account for the laws of logic.
    So that’s the “no” part of the answer.

    If you were a physicist and I told you the answer to every equation was Jesus, would you take me seriously?

    Strawman. As if I’d ever say that. As if anyone is presenting the answer to “every equation” as “Jesus”.

    That’s pretty much what you just did; you made several assertions based on your faith

    I made several assertions, yes. But I’m perfectly happy to back them up with arguments. This is just a combox, though, and since that’s off-topic I didn’t feel like diverting the discussion so drastically.
    And I’m wondering if you even read the hyperlinked article under “He is”. If not – please do.

    Bringing your personal faith into sex and trying to apply it to everyone is arrogant.

    There’s another implied SHOULD. Please provide us with a reason to think that your atheistic system of morality is anythg other than based on your personal preferences and therefore totally subjective.
    If it’s subjective, then I’m sure you won’t mind if my subjective morality says yours is wrong.
    Thing is, you’re trying to impose your morality on me by calling me arrogant. I don’t appreciate that; you’re not asking consistently with your alleged morality.

    Not everyone has your “you have to be married, we do it once a month through a hole in a sheet” attitude, especially us non-Christians.

    1) As if I care whether everyone has such an attitude. I’m trying to persuade.
    2) Which is what you’re doing, so why even bring it up? Don’t be stupid.
    3) Your implication of hole in the sheet is a lot like the God hates fags morons up in Kansas. You act like a fundamentalist – a fundy atheist. The truth doesn’t matter – just caricature people and make fun of them as much as you can. And for God’s sake, don’t respond to their arguments!!!

    You have anecdotal evidence for your religious beliefs too, why should I give a shit about either?

    B/c anecdotal evidence is still evidence, for one thing.
    B/c it might actually be true that I *HAVE* seen extramarital sex rip people and relationships up. But you just don’t care, do you? More interested in winning an argument and keeping your precious beliefs intact.

    As far as studies, where are they? What psychological or medical journals were they in?

    Haha, oh, they’re out there!

    (For those of you keeping score at home, I’m being tongue-in-cheek, mocking the naturalist’s tendency to dispel all arguments with the magic incantation of “studies show…”)
    Eh, maybe if I get a little less lazy I’ll try to look one up. Don’t hold your breath; I’m very content in where my arguments stand compared to your (so far) non-answers.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  25. Brian G. Said:

    February 22, 2008 @ 11:42 am

    If it’s subjective, then I’m sure you won’t mind if my subjective morality says yours is wrong.

    You realize that if you’re going to use subjectivity, then that means your morality does not and cannot apply to me and that your own morality has just as much chance of being “wrong, thus defeating this entire line of argument, at least as far as it being an argument against me.

    Eh, maybe if I get a little less lazy I’ll try to look one up. Don’t hold your breath; I’m very content in where my arguments stand compared to your (so far) non-answers.

    You made the assertions, the burden of proof is on you. I don’t have to give you answers when you started the argument over a problem I don’t even think exists. Have you never been to court? I thought everybody understood how this works.

    3) Your implication of hole in the sheet is a lot like the God hates fags morons up in Kansas. You act like a fundamentalist – a fundy atheist. The truth doesn’t matter – just caricature people and make fun of them as much as you can. And for God’s sake, don’t respond to their arguments!!!

    The person “persuading” people that sex should be something that is either feared or inherently dangerous is calling me a fundy. (By the way, for those of you keeping track of things at home or putting sarcastic bullshit in parentheses, when I said “hole in a sheet”, that was tongue-in-cheek.)

  26. Brian G. Said:

    February 22, 2008 @ 11:45 am

    Like I said, I want justification for your moral statements. I’m not content to let you be the Pope of Morality and dictate to me what my morality should and shouldn’t be – you need to offer an argument as to why.

    Wow, I wish I had seen this first. That’s hilarious, man. The Christian, the one that’s trying to assert his view of sexuality on others is asking US for rational justification for OUR morals. That’s a doozy, seriously.

  27. Sarah Said:

    February 22, 2008 @ 11:51 am

    I think I’m going to make a t-shirt that says, “Pope of Morality.” That’s pretty awesome.

  28. Rhology Said:

    February 22, 2008 @ 2:05 pm

    Hey all,

    that means your morality does not and cannot apply to me and that your own morality has just as much chance of being “wrong

    EXACTLY. Which is why you should abandon your current position, b/c you HAVE TO act inconsistently with your own position.
    You have no way to make an objective morality, but you act like you have one.
    Here’s the difference between our two positions on morality.
    You won’t like the biblical one, but since the one you have now leads you to this futility you’ve just described, it’s better than the alternative.

    the burden of proof is on you.

    Yes, I know it is, but like I said, my other (and stronger) arguments lay unrebutted by you. This minor point I’m happy to let you have. Since you haven’t yet interacted seriously with my more central points, there’s no reason to waste time on a minor one; why would I think that you’d accept it even if I did find you some solid evidence?

    The person “persuading” people that sex should be something that is either feared or inherently dangerous is calling me a fundy.

    1) Neither is that what I’ve been saying. I think any fair-minded reader can see that.
    2) Am I wrong to teach people not to splash gasoline around and play with matches in a room filled with TNT? It’s wonderfully useful stuff, but used wrongly it blows up and hurts people.
    3) Put another way, sex is for binding married people together more intimately and for procreation. Your CDROM is for playing CDs. It’s not for processing oil, causing nuclear fission, or holding your cup of coffee.

    The Christian, the one that’s trying to assert his view of sexuality on others is asking US for rational justification for OUR morals.

    1) And what’s your argument for YOUR view being the default one that doesn’t need an argument to justify it?
    2) That’s hilarious, man. The atheist, the one that’s trying to assert his view of sexuality on others, is criticising me for asking for rational justification for his morals, while not even offering any for his. That’s a doozy, seriously.

    “Pope of Morality.”

    Haha, I’ll gladly cede you the license; I think I might’ve made it up first. ‘Course, who knows?

    Peace,
    Rhology

  29. Brian G. Said:

    February 23, 2008 @ 5:49 am

    Which is why you should abandon your current position, b/c you HAVE TO act inconsistently with your own position.

    That’s not what I said. My position is that sex is not inherently harmful or dangerous, especially extramarital sex. You claimed that it was and then refused to provide proof. That was the point of this thread, and you didn’t support your argument. Fuck off, troll.

  30. Rhology Said:

    February 25, 2008 @ 9:58 am

    I invite everyone to take a look at the original context of what Brian G said and compare it to the shifting maneuver he’s trying now.
    His pitiful attempt at deception is almost sad.
    He’s welcome to such as well, and he’s welcome to pathetic insults like his parting line. I’ve been commenting around here for a while; everyone knows that trolls don’t stick around.
    Finally, Brian G has not interacted with my latest comment at all but has chosen to try to demean me by calling me a name and then claiming I didn’t support my position. Let the reader judge who answered whose questions. Just dropping a thread with a parting obscene insult is far more troll-ish than actually answering questions and interacting with arguments.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  31. Jessika Said:

    February 26, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

    Wow, after all that it looks like a wordier version of the Argument Clinic sketch from Monty Python. I’m going to complain and hope I don’t walk into the being-hit-on-the-head lessons room instead. *walk-walk-walk*

  32. Brian G. Said:

    February 26, 2008 @ 6:40 pm

    Finally, Brian G has not interacted with my latest comment at all but has chosen to try to demean me by calling me a name and then claiming I didn’t support my position.

    You made a claim that you said there was evidence for and then REFUSED when I asked you to produce it. If you’d like to produce that evidence now, I’ll read it and we can discuss it, but my position from the beginning hasn’t changed.

  33. Brian G. Said:

    February 26, 2008 @ 6:43 pm

    Eh, maybe if I get a little less lazy I’ll try to look one up. Don’t hold your breath; I’m very content in where my arguments stand compared to your (so far) non-answers.

    By the way, this is where you refused to produce evidence for your claims, which you not only did but laughed about.

  34. Robert Mueller Said:

    February 26, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

    For the sake of brevity, I will try to address the points of discussion as I understand them. If I have misinterpreted you, please correct me.

    1) Premarital sex is harmful.

    I do not find Brian’s request for a study to cite on this point unreasonable. Clearly, Rhology has observed that this is true for several people he knows. However, his attempt to expand this to everyone is a Hasty Generalization. A peer-reviewed study would provide a much larger sample size from a statistically significant amount of humans and be a much stronger point of data than anecdotes.

    2) Athetists have no rational basis for morality.

    This is demonstrably false. Several schools of morality are available to atheists; two major ones involve Kantian reasoning (arriving at moral maxims through pure reason) and utilitarianism (act to produce the greatest amount of utility). On a simpler level, many people operate on a mixture of absolute (It is wrong to steal) and consequentionalist (What will produce the best result?) reasoning. While all of these will produce similar surface results (certain rules are necessary to operate in civilized society), they each have unique methods, solutions and problems. Research and choose what fits your ideas best.

    3) What should be the objective “default” view of morality?

    My best answer is “The minimum agreement needed for society to exist”. In my opinion, that disqualifies both “Premarital sex is a sin” and “Premarital sex is not a sin”. These are the kinds of maxims I would leave up to individual choice.

    4) What is sex for?

    Pleasure. Bonding between people who love each other. Procreation. I’d consider each of those a valid answer to this question.

    I take it that Rhology’s problem is not with sex in itself, but purely with sex before and outside marriage. That is a valid moral maxim for him, but it is an additional limitation upon the basic idea. There is nothing physically preventing us from having sex outside of marriage. Absent emotional connotations, there is no reason why sex should be diminished in any of its three goals (as stated above) outside of a marriage.

    5) What are the risks of premarital sex?

    You might be ostracized from friends and family that believe premarital sex is harmful or wrong. However, that is no compelling argument against the practice, but only says something about its popularity. We do not refrain from killing or stealing because we’re afraid the neighbours will think less of us; we have other, stronger reasons, such as our respect for the right to life or property, or our fear of legal consequences. Compared to these classical “sins”, premarital sex seems to have a weaker position.

    You may end up with a partner who is not right for you. Outside of studies on the topic, let us assume two essentially identical couples that each spend the same amount of time together before having sex, the difference being that one couple marries beforehand. Have they not both had the same chance to discover if they’re right for each other?

    Disease or pregnancy also loom large. There is little reason to assume either of the couples has an advantage here, provided they both go about sex the same way. Is there a study that compares infection rates of common STDs between people who have never had sense for want of someone they wanted to have sex with and people who saved themselves for marriage? If nobody involved has had sex before, I should assume that the risk is the same in both cases. I also see no reason why unmarried sperm should be more potent than that of a married man, so pregnancy appears to be a wash, too.

    Now, this is an awfully artificial example and one might now begin to dissect it by using statistics to say that people who are not keeping themselves for marriage have a more “adventurous” lifestyle or what have you, but in our constructed scenario where marriage remains the only variable, I see no reason why this ephemeral concept *alone* prevents harm.

    I had some more thoughts, but I will close here and await responses to my arguments before continuing.

    Gatac

  35. Rhology Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 7:58 am

    Gatac,

    Hi there! Good to talk to you!

    Rhology has observed that this is true for several people he knows

    Again, and I don’t know how many times I have to say this, this is a minor point, one that I am happy to concede for the sake of argument. I think it’s best if you stop trying to raise it to the status of keystone in my argumentation, OK?

    This is demonstrably false.

    Oh, by all means, demonstrate away. Brian G refused to do so. Dwight/Sarah might get around to it later.

    two major ones involve Kantian reasoning (arriving at moral maxims through pure reason)

    Relying on “pure reason” for statements on MORALITY is not tenable. You cannot confuse IS with OUGHT. To borrow a phrase from a friend, “one could observe all of the human behavior that one wants, but one will still have to assert some ethical principle in order to make a subjective statement about the observations…Many kings, dictators, and other tyrants throughout the ages have valued being able to control their subjects, even to what they say, while many freedom-lovers throughout the years have valued the ability to speak freely without retribution, and many have paid dearly for it. Who is right? Both people value what is opposite of the other. How does science decide who has the rights here? Do the tyrants have the right to control speech, or do the people have the right to speak freely? Both could be said to equally value the opposite of what the other wants. Thus, one must either say that science cannot decide the issue, or assert some ethical principle to decide what the “rights” are – a principle such as “those in power have the right” or “the majority of people has the right” or “I like the freedom of speech, so the people have the right” and so on. Science cannot decide these principles, because they are outside of its domain.”

    utilitarianism (act to produce the greatest amount of utility)

    And “utility” is defined how? Make sure it’s an objective definition! And you’ll need to ensure that you let us know how it is objective rather than subjective.
    And once you’re there, how do you know that what is of the highest utility is GOOD? You’ve just pushed the question back one step.

    Try again. Do you believe that *YOUR* morality is objectively based? On what?

    (certain rules are necessary to operate in civilized society)

    This of course begs the question of WHY we should care whether society is “civilised”. These are ethical questions that you can’t just assume when you’re challenged.

    3) What should be the objective “default” view of morality?

    My best answer is “The minimum agreement needed for society to exist”.

    What about that makes it objective and default? You’ve just asserted sthg.
    Sarah, I think Gatac would be a good candidate for the first recipient of the Pope of Morality T-shirt.

    I take it that Rhology’s problem is not with sex in itself, but purely with sex before and outside marriage.

    I thank you for correctly stating my position. That’s often more than one can ask for these days. :-)

    There is nothing physically preventing us from having sex outside of marriage. Absent emotional connotations, there is no reason why sex should be diminished in any of its three goals (as stated above) outside of a marriage.

    The Pope of Morality speaks again. I’m sure glad to know that Gatac can resolve all our moral questions simply by making naked assertions on a given topic.

    we have other, stronger reasons, such as our respect for the right to life or property, or our fear of legal consequences.

    Such a respect for rights can have no basis in an atheistic worldview, since any “rights” are totally subjective rather than granted by God.
    That’s not to say, of course, that atheists don’t *ACT* like the rights are objective by and large, but that’s where one of their grand inconsistencies lies. That said, I’m glad atheists don’t usually act in accord with the logical consequences of their worldview!

    Have they not both had the same chance to discover if they’re right for each other?

    Yes, but this begs the question at hand, as I would argue that sex beforehand would throw a kink in their relationship.

    Well, I’m interested in talking more, but I’m a lot less interested in people trying to shove their moralities down my throat like Gatac has been. Hopefully Gatac can offer some arguments WHY we should listen to his moral ideas.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  36. Robert Mueller Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 9:59 am

    Again, and I don’t know how many times I have to say this, this is a minor point, one that I am happy to concede for the sake of argument. I think it’s best if you stop trying to raise it to the status of keystone in my argumentation, OK?

    My apologies. I thought it was a point worth addressing.

    Relying on “pure reason” for statements on MORALITY is not tenable. You cannot confuse IS with OUGHT.

    That is not what Kant tried to do. You may remember his Categorical Imperative, which holds that your own moral maxims should be able to serve as guidelines for everyone’s behavior. (There are a multitude of formulations of his central idea, but I think this is the most accessible.) Another formulation is that one should not use people as only means to an end, but as an end in itself. This may seem abstract to you (it sure did when I first heard about it), but it is possible to judge all intentional actions through this kind of reasoning. A Kantian will tell you that it is wrong to steal because it would mean using the person you’re stealing from as merely a means to an end. Having premarital sex with someone for your sole pleasure would be similarly wrong, while a meaningful relationship would be accepting that person as an end in itself, helping them actualize *their* goal of having a meaningful relationship.

    It’s not the easiest moral system to follow, which is why I do not subscribe to it, but it’s out there and does not rely on God.

    To borrow a phrase from a friend, “one could observe all of the human behavior that one wants, but one will still have to assert some ethical principle in order to make a subjective statement about the observations…Many kings, dictators, and other tyrants throughout the ages have valued being able to control their subjects, even to what they say, while many freedom-lovers throughout the years have valued the ability to speak freely without retribution, and many have paid dearly for it. Who is right?

    The Kantian says that the tyrants are merely using their subjects as a means to an end, namely having power and getting rich of it. Freedom-lovers want to help others actualize their goals, so in Kantian reasoning they are clearly in the right.

    Both people value what is opposite of the other. How does science decide who has the rights here?

    Science doesn’t decide anything. It describes. That’s precisely why there are external systems of morality to guide our actions. Trying to make moral reasoning from scientific observations is a fruitless endavour, because it would be exactly the “IS implies OUGHT” fallacy you described.

    Do the tyrants have the right to control speech, or do the people have the right to speak freely? Both could be said to equally value the opposite of what the other wants. Thus, one must either say that science cannot decide the issue, or assert some ethical principle to decide what the “rights” are – a principle such as “those in power have the right” or “the majority of people has the right” or “I like the freedom of speech, so the people have the right” and so on. Science cannot decide these principles, because they are outside of its domain.”

    Science cannot decide the issue. That’s why we don’t use it to decide morality. It is a seperate thing and has other applications, but it does not tell us how we should live.

    And “utility” is defined how? Make sure it’s an objective definition! And you’ll need to ensure that you let us know how it is objective rather than subjective.
    And once you’re there, how do you know that what is of the highest utility is GOOD? You’ve just pushed the question back one step.

    That’s a matter of which philosopher you listen to. The biggest candidates are “happiness” or “pleasure”; utilitarianism judges an action by it’s consequences, and the action that produces the most utility (according to whichever definition you follow) is morally right. Yes, that means that utilitarians with a different definition of utility can potentially come to different judgments of actions. In my opinion, your standard of “objectivity” is misguided since it presupposes a moral system we can all agree on – which we don’t. What we must achieve is constructing a moral system that is *internally consistent*. Utilitarianism passes that test.

    We don’t know if the outcome of the highest utility is “good”, because good is an essentially contested concept – much like freedom. (What do we mean by freedom? Freedom to, freedom from? I do not wish to argue this point, but there’s a lively discussion there.) If you use “good” in the sense of divine command theory, then clearly any system that does not follow God’s will exactly will judge actions right that are “good”. If you use “good” merely in the sense of “What’s right”, then you will have a different “good” for every moral system. The idea doesn’t bother me, but I think it’s a rather useless standard – precisely because nobody can define what an universal idea of “good” is. If we could, we would construct a moral system around achieving this universal “good” and the whole debate would be settled!

    Try again. Do you believe that *YOUR* morality is objectively based? On what?

    Your usage of the term “objectively based” confuses me. I don’t intend to be snippish here, but what do you mean by that? I have a rough idea, but I would like to hear your definition before I argue for or against it. Could you clarify that, please?

    What about that makes it objective and default? You’ve just asserted sthg.
    Sarah, I think Gatac would be a good candidate for the first recipient of the Pope of Morality T-shirt.

    Nothing *makes* it the default. If I believe it should be, then it’s because I believe it’s a reasonable candidate. I base it on a long line of “liberal” tradition – John Locke, for example, asserted something similar as an universal conception of freedom. (I put the “liberal” in quotes because the concept I am referring to is the traditional sense, not the more modern interpretation that Liberal = US Democratic Party.) You are, of course, free to object and name your own principle.

    And yay, free t-shirt! Do you want my shipping address now or should we finish the debate first? :)

    The Pope of Morality speaks again. I’m sure glad to know that Gatac can resolve all our moral questions simply by making naked assertions on a given topic.

    See how much easier this is when you just accept everything I say? :)

    Seriously, though, I know that this was a brief and blunt version. I do not believe I asserted anything unreasonable, but if I did, please tell me where so I can address your objection.

    Such a respect for rights can have no basis in an atheistic worldview, since any “rights” are totally subjective rather than granted by God.
    That’s not to say, of course, that atheists don’t *ACT* like the rights are objective by and large, but that’s where one of their grand inconsistencies lies. That said, I’m glad atheists don’t usually act in accord with the logical consequences of their worldview!

    What makes rights granted by God universal? If I do not believe in your God and his idea of human rights, I have no basis for respecting these rights.

    A conception of human rights that does not include God is, of course, raw human convention. It is, however, a convention we agree to when we join a social contract such as society, and the argument can be made that the human rights society grants us are guarantees that grant us the highest possible freedom without infringing on the freedom of others. This concept borders on the self-evident, in my opinion, but I can expand on this if you wish.

    Yes, but this begs the question at hand, as I would argue that sex beforehand would throw a kink in their relationship.

    In the scenario I have constructed, both couples have sex at the same point in time after knowing each other for the same duration. Marriage being the only dividing factor in this scenario, how does it follow that the married couple will be happier than the unmarried couple? Note that I have specifically not used an example that includes sex before these relationships – everyone enters this thought experiment as virgins. As I’ve said, this is a very artificial setup, but I think it’s the only way to control for a myriad of other influences that could affect the relationship of a couple.

    Well, I’m interested in talking more, but I’m a lot less interested in people trying to shove their moralities down my throat like Gatac has been.

    I am merely stating my ideas on morality. Have I been too aggressive?

    Hopefully Gatac can offer some arguments WHY we should listen to his moral ideas.

    I believe I have hereby done so. My point throughout has, however, been that there exists a moral system independent of God (in fact, there are several), and my attempts to show that that these systems are worthwhile. I offer no reasons for abandoning your beliefs. I can only show how some of my beliefs work and why I think one might be inclined to follow them.

    Gatac

  37. Rhology Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 11:51 am

    Howdy Gatac,

    Categorical Imperative, which holds that your own moral maxims should be able to serve as guidelines for everyone’s behavior

    Which is not objective. Thanks for that admission.

    “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
    1) It’s based on PERSONAL desire and fulfillment. But different people have different desires, often contradictory.
    2) People’s desires can change, sometimes after a very short period of time.
    How is this objective?
    Remember, I’m not arguing whether it’s RIGHT; I’m arguing whether it’s SUBJECTIVE.
    3) And of course, Kant even rules your claim out explicitly. “…that it should become a universal law.”
    It wouldn’t become universal if it were already, and that’s precisely the question at hand!

    Another formulation is that one should not use people as only means to an end, but as an end in itself.

    1) But that means diff things to diff people as well. Thus the above criticisms apply.
    2) And this “should” statement could be, for all I or anyone know, just sthg stemming from HIM as an individual. Thus the above criticisms apply doubly.

    Having premarital sex with someone for your sole pleasure would be similarly wrong

    But suppose my intention were to bless that person with the opportunity to provide me sexual pleasure. Thus I have treated them as the end, not the pleasure.
    There are loopholes in the loopholes.

    it’s out there and does not rely on God.

    Well, there are 1000s of worldviews out there, but I’m wondering whether they carry an objective basis for founding morality.

    Science doesn’t decide anything. It describes.

    Excellent, I could not agree more.
    I’m gonna quote you next time an atheist tells me that he can use science and scientific reasoning to determine morality. And it happens all the time. What’s wrong with the atheist community that they would resort to such chicanery?
    (Well, for one thing, there’s no objective reason to be honest, but anyway…)
    Also, would you posit a qualitative difference between the following statements?
    1) I use science and scientific reasoning to determine morality.
    2) I use pure reason to determine morality.

    That’s a matter of which philosopher you listen to.

    The objectivity has vanished already. But let’s continue.

    The biggest candidates are “happiness” or “pleasure”;

    Which means diff things to diff people and usually diff things to any one person over the course of time, even a short time.
    And some people find happiness and fulfillment, pleasure, whatever, in committing gross sexually abusive actions upon another against the other’s will. But I don’t think you would rush to the defense of the rapist to proclaim that he is acting morally in rape, would you? I would hope not.
    If you do, though, you are being consistent.
    If you do not, you are being inconsistent and also proving the unlivability of your professed worldview.
    One thing I really dig about my worldview is that I can live consistently with it AND it is livable.

    your standard of “objectivity” is misguided since it presupposes a moral system we can all agree on – which we don’t.

    You have mistaken my position by a long shot.
    I’ve summed it up here.

    What we must achieve is constructing a moral system that is *internally consistent*. Utilitarianism passes that test.

    W/o addressing people’s often inconsistent and contradictory desires, I don’t see how.

    If you use “good” in the sense of divine command theory, then clearly any system that does not follow God’s will exactly will judge actions right that are “good”.

    Well, it’s not on the basis of a COMMAND solely. It’s on the basis of God’s NATURE, Who He is. The good is commanded b/c it lines up with Who God is. That’s my position.

    Your usage of the term “objectively based” confuses me.

    1) You’ve just spent most of your post trying to overturn my assertion that atheistic moral systems can’t be objectively-based and now you say you’re confused about what I mean? Do you make a habit of making arguments against stuff you admittedly don’t understand?
    2) See the linked-to blogpost above for an explanation.

    Nothing *makes* it the default.

    Then neither do you “make” it the default. So it’s not.
    But that militates against what I was responding to, which I believe was Brian G.

    Brian G said: The Christian, the one that’s trying to assert his view of sexuality on others is asking US for rational justification for OUR morals.

    Rhology said: 1) And what’s your argument for YOUR view being the default one that doesn’t need an argument to justify it?

    Gatac said: 3) What should be the objective “default” view of morality?
    My best answer is “The minimum agreement needed for society to exist”. In my opinion, that disqualifies both “Premarital sex is a sin” and “Premarital sex is not a sin”. These are the kinds of maxims I would leave up to individual choice.

    So your side is the one who brought it up.
    If you’re asking ME, I’d say the default would be the historical one (commmitted monogamy) but I neither make that an issue here nor do I even mention it. I’m reacting to Brian G’s wrongheaded and pitifully PC eruption against me, b/c he apparently has emotional reactions to what I say. Well, I can’t help that, but Jesus can. Or maybe a shrink.

    pope of morality

    Well, look at what you said to which I responded that way.
    You just ASSERTED that there’s nothing to prevent us… but that’s the question at hand!

    What makes rights granted by God universal?

    For one thing, they can’t be changed by anyone. Not God, not other humans.
    They’re based on ontology, identity, not capability.
    And I don’t expect you to agree or even understand. Problem is, an atheist worldview can’t even provide a good basis for agreement, logic, etc, not only morality, so it’s to be expected.

    If I do not believe in your God and his idea of human rights, I have no basis for respecting these rights.

    Exactly, and you end up with a human free-for-all if everyone acts consistently with those beliefs. Might will make right, b/c it will fulfill the desires of those who have the power.
    And if someone argues that it doesn’t create the good for the largest group, then those in power can justifiably simply kill all those who disagree until the state of affairs DOES reflect that. It’s a bleak road.

    A conception of human rights that does not include God is, of course, raw human convention.

    Which can be taken away, therefore, by humans.
    And when were these rights established? By whom? Which ones? What is your argument that they would or should or could speak for me or Timothy McVeigh or Mother Theresa or Osama Bin Laden?

    Marriage being the only dividing factor in this scenario, how does it follow that the married couple will be happier than the unmarried couple?

    1) Who cares? What Causes Happiness is an element in YOUR inconsistent and irrational moral system, not mine.
    2) Yet in the real world, I do believe that God in general blesses obedience to His commands, so it’s conceivable (no pun intended) that people who follow His plan for marriage and sex WILL have better sex lives. Again, in general.
    There was a Time magazine cover story about that very thing about 12 years ago, I seem to recall.

    I am merely stating my ideas on morality. Have I been too aggressive?

    I was acting like Brian G’s wild-eyed statement:
    The Christian, the one that’s trying to assert his view of sexuality on others is asking US for rational justification for OUR morals.

    Nothing against you, quite a lot against the guy with foam dribbling down his goatee.

    there exists a moral system independent of God

    I’d appreciate it a lot if you could try to stay on point.
    Who’d argue such a ludicrous assertion, that there are NO other moral systems apart from God? Certainly not me.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  38. Sarah Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 1:06 pm

    I’m probably going to regret this, but I have to bring just a few comments to the party.

    I don’t see where Brian G. or Robert Mueller ever said they were atheists. Since thousands of words have been written here, it’s entirely possible I could have missed where they did make such a statement, but from what I can tell, they haven’t. I think Brian G. once referred to himself as a “non-Christian,” but does that automatically make him an atheist? These guys could be agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, or Wiccans. Or any other one of a hundred other possiblities. Hell, maybe they’re really Christians themselves, and just fucking with you, Rhology. I don’t know these guys, and this is the first post they’ve ever commented on…so just because they’re debating you on an “atheist blog,” doesn’t mean that they themselves are atheists. Just had to point that out.

    So, since it appears that Dwight and I are the only self-professed “atheists” here, I assume all this effort is being expended to enlighten he and I why we’re wrong?

    I’m also fascinated by how far removed this has become from the original post, which pretty much made only two points:

    1. Abstinence-only education programs don’t work, and,
    2. One’s premarital sex life is not a predictor of one’s future ambition or success.

    That’s it.

    I fail to understand why whether I personally believe premarital sex is inherently “moral” or “immoral,” means that I have to explain and/or justify my entire belief system. I don’t think I ever said that everyone has to adopt my personal beliefs. (Maybe sometimes I think the world might be a better place if they did, if for no other reason than there would be fewer people to annoy me!) But, I never proclaimed myself to be the Pope of Morality (or of anything else). I expressed an opinion. Since this is my blog, I think I’m perfectly entitled to do that.

    I have no interest in arguing with you, Rhology, about whose belief system is better or more consistent. It’s pretty much pointless to me. I’m very content with my version of “morality,” or “ethics” (maybe that would be a better, less loaded, word to use). It’s worked pretty well for me so far. I think I’m a basically decent person, and I try to treat other people the way I’d like to be treated.

    If Rhology’s right about everything, then he’ll go to Heaven and the rest of us will go to Hell. And at that point, he’s perfectly free to have a Nelson Muntz moment and shout, “ha-ha” at our burning souls. If he’s not, then all of us will just eventually turn into a bunch of mulch. In the meantime, I don’t see how any of this really amounts to much more than a pissing contest.

    With that being said, I do find this all very entertaining. Please feel free to carry on. I’ll be watching…

  39. Rhology Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 1:44 pm

    That’s cool, Sarah.
    OTOH, they’ve had numerous opportunities to correct me, so I’m not going to worry too much about it.
    Besides THAT, my arguments are aimed at the -isM, not the -isT, so apparently they have been willing to step up to the plate to defend that -ism. They’re grown-ups, they can do that if they want.

    I assume all this effort is being expended to enlighten he and I why we’re wrong?

    And any lurking atheists.
    And anyone else considering atheism.
    And for Christians who likewise have discussions with atheists.
    Hey, I write for everyone! :-D

    And yeah, I know the thread has changed, but it’s your own fault. ;-) The question of Who gets to make moral judgments was brought up (and you made several “should” statements in your post), and that’s what came about. I was willing to let it go with the possibility that you’d address it in the future, and my interlocutors have retaken up the cause.

    I don’t think I ever said that everyone has to adopt my personal beliefs.

    Well, of course not, but you were trying to persuade others of your POV. Not that I begrudge you that, just don’t act like that’s not what you’re doing.
    It’s what *I’m* doing too!

    But, I never proclaimed myself to be the Pope of Morality (or of anything else).

    Yeah, I didn’t intend that for you.

    whose belief system is better or more consistent.

    Really? It really doesn’t bother you that your morality is based on nothing objective and that you have to live inconsistently with it to live in the real world?

    I think I’m a basically decent person

    Of course, the only way you can judge that is by your own morality. Hitler might well have thought that he was a decent person too. I’m not equating you to Hitler, but you have no way to judge between the two of you beyond “I don’t like it”. But maybe someone else DOES like it. You have no way to figure out who’s right and who’s wrong.

    If he’s not, then all of us will just eventually turn into a bunch of mulch. In the meantime, I don’t see how any of this really amounts to much more than a pissing contest.

    If, OTOH, *you* are right, then my deeds are your deeds are Hitler’s deeds are Mother Theresa’s deeds are Martin Luther King’s deeds are Tim McVeigh’s deeds.
    Good luck living like that!

    Peace,
    Rhology

  40. Sarah Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

    I’ll overlook the thinly-veiled insults for now (although I can assure you that they do nothing to endear me to your point of view) because I genuinely want to know what exactly you’re trying to get at, Rhology. Are you wanting us all to say that you’re right, that all morality comes from the Bible?

    Even supposing that was true, and that Judeo-Christian morality is the only perfect morality, how does that a) make it perfectly consistent and b) mean that it’s God’s doing and not Man’s? There’s more than one issue there, it seems.

    Okay, so the Ten Commandments are pretty cool and all. They make sense enough to me. They seem like good instructions for how to live right by other people. Some are pretty self-explanatory (don’t kill, don’t steal) but others are pretty broad. How do you interpret, for example, what is meant by “honoring your parents,” or by “keeping the Sabbath?” And wouldn’t such an interpretation be Man’s interpretation? Isn’t there some potential there for inconsistency, or at least vagueness?

    Finally, acknowledging that these may be good rules to live by isn’t enough to convince me that they were put forth by God. At least not the Judeo-Christian concept of God, since some of these tenets can also be found in the beliefs of many early pagan religions.

    You’re welcome to respond, and I’m quite certain that you will, but I’d appreciate it if you could kindly refrain from subtly comparing me to genocidal dictators. You obfuscate your remarks with emoticons and by saying that you’re not “equating me with Hitler,” but I suspect you knew exactly how it would sound.

    Dammit. I wasn’t going to let you draw me back in. I guess I’m just a sucker for abuse.

  41. Sarah Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 2:36 pm

    Okay. I mean it for real this time. I’ll let Rhology have the last word, if he chooses to take it, and then I’m out. I don’t have a chance in a pissing contest, since I’m pretty limited in my distance.

    Have fun, gentlemen.

  42. Jessika Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

    Too late though, Rhology already invoked Godwin’s Law. “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

  43. Brian G. Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 3:38 pm

    Too late though, Rhology already invoked Godwin’s Law. “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    Comment by Jessika — February 27, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

    Thanks for pointing that out, Jessika. I always love a good ad Hitlerem, don’t you? It adds that special touch of class to any discussion.

  44. Rhology Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 3:55 pm

    Eh, there’s invoking Hitler and then there’s invoking Hitler. I could’ve used any horrible evil person for my argument ad absurdum. I think the Godwin’s Law is more relevant for things like “you’re being just like Hitler” or sthg like that. But the fair reader will note I’ve assiduously avoided such inanities.

    Be back later to answer you, Sarah. And I’m sorry you saw insults toward you in my comment; none were intended to you, just to certain -ahem- others.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  45. Brian G. Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

    Be back later to answer you, Sarah. And I’m sorry you saw insults toward you in my comment; none were intended to you, just to certain -ahem- others.

    If you’re talking about me, Rhology, then let me apologize. I thought you were a troll and treated you like one accordingly. I disagree with you philosophically but don’t wish to insult you. I’m sorry.

  46. Robert Mueller Said:

    February 27, 2008 @ 5:33 pm

    I gladly acknowledge that both Kantian and Utilitarian reasoning have limits. Kantian reasoning has a very limited scope in that it can only judge actions with intent. However, what it does judge is cast very clearly. Rhology’s example of using someone for sex in order to bring *them* the pleasure of being with you is invalid under Kantian reasoning, since we do not have the right to presume somebody else’s objectives and goals. A truly Kantian approach to this problem would be to clarify beforehand what your partner expects from having sex with you and then deciding to either further this goal through having sex with them or abstaining from the act completely.

    Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is capable of judging every action, but can be very fuzzy. Although Rhology exaggerates the effect somewhat, there are real questions as to how to define “utility”. It also runs into the problem of judging an action by a reasonable expectation of its results, but of course that does not guarantee that you can foresee all consequences. The tougher form of raw Consequentialism judges actions on all actual consequences, but by its nature is not very helpful in decision-finding.

    All those weaknesses are no big secrets and do not keep these moral systems from being adopted and used widely.

    Even divine command theory of ethics (as related to us by the Bible) does not reach the high grade of perfection Rhology seems to expect from secular ethical systems. If you have the time, I recommend you look at the Law of Double Effect and the various permutations of the Trolley Problem.

    You talk about monogamy being the historical precedent. While that mostly holds true in the Christian tradition, that does not say anything about the rest of the world. Looking at other societies and (if you’ll pardon the excursion) the animal kingdom, monogamy is just one relationship strategy among many. It works, but it’s clearly not so great that it has displaced all other forms. If non-monogamous societies and animal species had a history of failure and stagnation, your argument would be more convincing. As it is, it seems to me that it is merely an Appeal to Tradition. What makes monogamy right? Just divine command/fiat? Look at Mormon fundamentalists: they have a divine command towards polygamy. Which is the right set of divine commands to follow, and more importantly, how can we – fallible, but hopefully also reasonable people – tell?

    Your argument that God’s law does not change ignores several historical facts. For one, the bible has been translated multiple times. We do not even have an example of the original language version anymore, and (correct me if I’m wrong) the King James version is descended from a Greek translation, for instance. There’s also evidence that the very act of putting the bible together had political connotations, viz: which religious texts to choose as canon. Look at the Council of Nicea – that was a couple hundred years after Jesus lived, and they had to argue about such (imo) basic tenets as the Holy Trinity. The sheer number of Christian faiths, churches and “heresies” does not speak well of the idea of One Law; if there is One Law, then there’s more than a few hundred interpretations of it (and when you look at things like Catholic Orthodoxy, their interpretation of the bible has actually changed over the years). Even if I grant that one of those interpretations gets it totally right, how am I supposed to judge which one does? How do I know that any of them does? How do I know any of them is even close? Unfortunately, God does not seem to be available for clarifications or errata.

    Regarding the lack of human rights that are not divinely granted, your objection is only meaningful insofar as powerful people taking advantage of those they can boss around. History shows us that this is a very instable and inefficient way of doing things. If you want people to obey you, you have to offer them something in return. Guaranteeing certain rights is a good idea in a social contract and has long been recognized as such – in fact, the man who invented the concept of the social contract (Thomas Hobbes, the author of the Leviathan) did not have a positive view of human nature at all, and still argued that the ruler of a society had certain obligations towards his subjects. The concept of rights and responsibilities arising from social contracts is now several hundred years old and forms the backbone of just about every modern government. None of them need to invoke God to make people obey the laws.

    True, there may be no higher power keeping us from doing horrible things and laughing while we set kill and pillage, but a reasonable man will see that playing nice with others is in his own best interest, lest they gang up and crush him. I consider this argument to be similar to the reasoning behind capitalism – human self-interest is a strong motivator for all of us and can be to everyone’s advantage when channeled properly. Look at the USA – free countries prosper, countries without human rights struggle. The idea of secular human rights depends on nothing more than our self-interest and is confirmed by its success. Trying to rule with an iron fist is expensive and inefficient; anyone who tries to do it is not only frowned upon for being uncivilized, he’s also plain dumb, rating short-sighted marginal success over long-term growth.

  47. Rhology Said:

    February 29, 2008 @ 8:38 am

    Brian G,

    That is very, very gracious of you to say. Apology accepted. I thank you.
    Back after this wknd probably.

  48. Rhology Said:

    March 3, 2008 @ 10:21 am

    OK, back. And Sarah/Dwight, thanks for hosting this discussion! We wouldn’t be here except for your willingness to tackle difficult subjects.

    My position is not that all morality comes from the Bible.
    It is that atheism cannot provide an objective basis for morality, and Christian (and Jewish) theism can.
    And while yes, I would also say that Judeo-Christian morality is perfect morality (which doesn’t mean it’s always 100% perfectly understood, but in the ideal abstract), that’s not been part of my argument here.

    how does that a) make it perfectly consistent and b) mean that it’s God’s doing and not Man’s?

    Good question.
    a) That doesn’t make it consistent, but I would argue that it is.
    b) It doesn’t, though I’d say it’s worth at least considering that it is God’s doing.

    How do you interpret, for example, what is meant by “honoring your parents,” or by “keeping the Sabbath?”

    Just FYI, I’m not bound by the 10 Commandments. I’m bound by the New Testament. The NT, however, reiterates and explains 9 of the 10. The Sabbath is left out b/c the book of Hebrews explicitly says that the Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
    Honoring one’s parents is expounded on in various places in the rest of the OT and NT. Not speaking evil of them, respecting what they’ve done for you, respecting and appreciating the fact that God set them in authority over you for a time (whether they fulfilled that responsibility well or not), etc.

    And wouldn’t such an interpretation be Man’s interpretation?

    There are good interps and bad interps. The text is clear enough to delineate the differences.

    Isn’t there some potential there for inconsistency, or at least vagueness?

    If someone’s interpretive grid leads them to inconsistency, then their grid is messed up.
    But I certainly grant that some commands are vaguer than others. God is teaching us responsibility, to listen to the Spirit, patience, to grow, etc.

    acknowledging that these may be good rules to live by isn’t enough to convince me that they were put forth by God.

    Of course, but that’s not been my argument.
    Not trying to be harsh here, but the entire thrust of my argument has been left untouched by you here. It is commonly the case that atheists, when atheism is attacked, resort to attacking theism again. I don’t get that.

    refrain from subtly comparing me to genocidal dictators

    That was not my intent, and I think I made that pretty clear when I said “I’m not equating you to Hitler”. 2nd to last paragraph.

    You obfuscate your remarks with emoticons and by saying that you’re not “equating me with Hitler,” but I suspect you knew exactly how it would sound.

    How is such an explicit statement obfuscation? Should I have put it in boldface and all caps?
    Like I said in the next comment, I could’ve used any horrible evil person for my argument ad absurdum. I should have… I’ll try to avoid mentioning Hitler, even in a manner that is perfectly legitimate, in the future to avoid such misunderstandings. I don’t want to get sidetracked with such things.

    Gatac,

    Sorry man, but I’m gonna have to keep pressing you to take a step back.

    since we do not have the right to presume somebody else’s objectives and goals

    OK, but keeping our eyes on the ball, *WHY* don’t we? I’m not interested in discussing Kantian ethics, just seeing whether it’s objective.

    The tougher form of raw Consequentialism judges actions on all actual consequences, but by its nature is not very helpful in decision-finding.

    The main failure for the purposes of this discussion, though, is its inability to tell us *WHY* we should prefer the highest happiness, etc.
    That’s not objective, so it fails to answer my questions here.

    Even divine command theory of ethics (as related to us by the Bible) does not reach the high grade of perfection Rhology seems to expect from secular ethical systems.

    Not looking for perfection, looking for OBJECTIVITY. Can we stick to the topic, please?

    While that mostly holds true in the Christian tradition, that does not say anything about the rest of the world.

    God, Who was there at the time, said that Adam and Eve were the 1st couple. And the first humans.
    I’m just saying that I don’t grant what you said, so it’s not a valid point for your position.

    What makes monogamy right? Just divine command/fiat?

    I still don’t think you read my hyperlinked blogpost. Did you? I answer that question there.

    Which is the right set of divine commands to follow, and more importantly, how can we – fallible, but hopefully also reasonable people – tell?

    There are many tests, the best of which is the internal consistency test. LDS theology fails that one, so we reject it quickly.

    For one, the bible has been translated multiple times.

    Sorry, but that’s a foolish thing to say.
    The OT has a Hebrew text (and a Septuagint Greek copy to help in many cases), which is translated -once- into English.
    The NT has a Greek text that is translated -once- into English. You’d best leave this topic alone before you look sillier.

    We do not even have an example of the original language version anymore, and (correct me if I’m wrong) the King James version is descended from a Greek translation, for instance.

    You’re wrong.
    The Nestle-Aland27 Greek text is >99% faithful to the original, which is known by the numerous manuscript copies that exist.
    And the KJV doesn’t use the most up-to-date manuscripts. The NASB, though, for example, does.

    Look at the Council of Nicea – that was a couple hundred years after Jesus lived, and they had to argue about such (imo) basic tenets as the Holy Trinity.

    In your opinion? Please permit my guffaw – why don’t YOU go back in time and educate them? Please.
    And this right after you talked about the canon of Scripture. Nicea didn’t even discuss the canon of the Bible. Just being straight with you – you know not whereof you speak.

    the sheer number of Christian faiths, churches and “heresies” does not speak well of the idea of One Law\

    That’s a non sequitur.
    I call it the fallacy of the perfect computer manual. If the perfect computer manual existed, it wouldn’t follow that it’s imperfect just b/c imperfect and non-omniscient humans neglect part of it, neglect ALL of it, refuse to follow it b/c they like their way better, forget part or most of it, misunderstand it, etc.

    Even if I grant that one of those interpretations gets it totally right, how am I supposed to judge which one does?

    Analyse the competing claims and see which one gets it right.
    Sheesh, how do you judge between blog comments? Come on, think a little.

    God does not seem to be available for clarifications or errata.

    I don’t grant that either. Jesus Christ taught in John 10 that His sheep will hear His voice, and elsewhere that His communication is clear enough. This is just an excuse on your part – how much have you put into finding out which one is true?

    History shows us that this is a very instable and inefficient way of doing things.

    So what? I’m not concerned about what “works”; I’ve been talking about what is subjective and objective. The fact that you’re running away from that argument says alot.

    Hobbes…still argued that the ruler of a society had certain obligations towards his subjects.

    What was his argument for that? Social contract? But *WHY* cooperate? What is the objective reason to do so?
    And what of societies that go awry?

    Situation: You are traveling in a foreign land and go to an out-of-the-way picturesque temple. There you meet a native, there to offer religious piety. He finishes lighting his candle and then greets you, speaking serviceable English. Edit: He introduces himself as Tkalim.
    He offers to tell you a little about his religion. You, being the courteous gentleman/lady you are, invite him to proceed. He tells you that he and his whole society worship 5 gods of the fish, air, earth, fire, and tree. He then tells you that part of his worship devotion is to go with all the men of his society to steal girls between the ages of 3-8 years from their families in the nearby large city, take them into the jungle, and rape them.
    Once raped, the tribesmen leave the girls in the jungle as an offering to the tree god. He says he knows of no girl that has ever returned to the city to her family.
    Once he finishes his story with calm voice and clear eyes, he falls silent.
    I have something to say to him about this practice. What would YOU say? How would you try to explain that what he is doing is wrong? *Is* what he is doing wrong? On what basis?

    playing nice with others is in his own best interest, lest they gang up and crush him.

    But maybe he relishes that.
    I think the admission on your part is clear – you have nothing more than a SUBjective basis for morality.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  49. Robert Mueller Said:

    March 3, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

    Rhology,

    thank you for clarifying that you consider yourself bound by the New Testament.

    Your question as to “Why do we prefer the highest happiness?” can be answered by basic human nature. Ask yourself this: Is the impulse towards pleasure (and avoiding pain) something subjective, or would you say that it is an universal part of the human experience? (One might argue that, f’rex, Masochists seek pain, but only because it gives them greater pleasure in reward.) Are we not, as humans, fundamentally concerned with actualizing our desires and preferences?

    Regarding the link: I’m sorry, I seem to be unable to locate it. Could you post it again so I can read it?

    Re: Adam & Eve. I think the evidence favors my position, quite frankly. While we at least have archaeological evidence that a few biblical figures may have been actual persons, we have nothing of the sort for Adam & Eve.

    Just for clarification, I take it that your interpretation of Christianity is internally consistent?

    Re: Bible translations. So we are moving closer to a “true” translation of the Bible, then? I’m also interested in how the accuracy of these translations is determined.

    Re: Council of Nicea. Illuminate me, please: if the Council was not about assembling the texts that would make up the Bible, what exactly was the discussion about? I’m not trying to be snippy here – that was my interpretation of the events there. Perhaps you could offer a better explanation?

    Re: Following the Bible. Forgive me if I *am* trying to be snippy here, but you yourself do not follow the Bible in its entirety – you stated that you consider yourself bound by the New Testament. How is that different from any other interpretation / selective use of the Bible? And if the inconsistency in other interpretations is easily detected, how come so many people follow them?

    Re: Judging the right interpretation. Well, that would be the problem, hm? If I compare blog posts, I can look for independent verification of any facts mentioned therein and form an opinion based on that. With the Bible, I have little, if any, secondary sources available.

    Re: God’s voice. Would you say that anyone following a different interpretation of the Bible has not “put in the work”, so to speak?

    Re: What works. I’m sorry, then. I am concerned with what works. Societal norms that work are, I would argue, a quite useful standard. You may disagree, of course.

    Re: Your Story. Of course he’s wrong, and so are his cultural norms. I do not subscribe to cultural relativism. How would you like me to argue against the practice? Both Kant and Utilitarian reasoning have things to say about that.

    Re: Playing Nice. Oh, yes, people like being at the the receiving end of violence designed to disable them as a threat to others. Is this some aspect of human nature that is new to me, or would you argue that this is a very “subjective” POV?

    Here’s one more question, re: your objective moral system. Does God do things because they are right, or are things right because God does them?

    Gatac

  50. Rhology Said:

    March 6, 2008 @ 8:31 am

    Hi gatac,

    No problem – anytime you need clarification, just ask.

    Is the impulse towards pleasure (and avoiding pain) something subjective, or would you say that it is an universal part of the human experience?

    It’s subjective. Some people like pain inflicted on them. Some people like inflicting it on others. We all know these people exist – I think we should just get on with your explanation of them.
    And why base it on what people want to experience for themselves? Why not make this morality dependent on how much harm we inflict on others? How much we ignore others? How much we have sex with animals? How many Cheerios we eat in our lifetime? What is your argument for basing it all on what you do?

    Here is the link to which I referred, and so I’m gonna make it a really long link so no one will miss it this time. It will clear up any confusion about how I define “objective” and “subjective” in this discussion.

    Re: Adam & Eve. I think the evidence favors my position, quite frankly.

    Of course you do. And I don’t grant that. We’ll just have to agree to disagree for now.

    I take it that your interpretation of Christianity is internally consistent?

    Absent an argument otherwise, yes it is. I’m always up for self-examination, though! If you do decide to go that route, I’d just ask you to make sure you examine your methods of biblical exegesis and make sure not to impose naturalistic presuppositions onto my worldview.

    So we are moving closer to a “true” translation of the Bible, then?

    With respect to biblical texts, there are 3 issues:
    1) Transmission of the text from ancient times and thru copies
    2) Translation of the text we have transmitted to us into a language I can read (English)
    3) Interpretation of the Hebrew/Greek/English text (with preferential weight given to the original language for more complex questions)

    You’re using the word for 2) but seem to mean 1) and 2) both.
    The textual quality of the manuscript copies in the possession of the modern world is very excellent.
    As far as translation goes, no one I know of argues that we don’t understand Hebrew or Koine Greek.

    what exactly was the discussion about?

    Whether Christians would worship on Saturday (Jewish Sabbath) or Sunday.
    Which calendar to use.
    And most of all, whether Christ was homoiousios with the Father or homoousios.
    Here is a link to an account of the proceedings by eminent historian Philip Schaff, in case you’re interested.

    Honestly, you’re just a victim of the times on this one and I don’t blame you one bit. Pop history and the Da Vinci Code have spread the falsehood that Nicæa dealt with the Canon of Scripture, but it’s just not true.

    you stated that you consider yourself bound by the New Testament. How is that different from any other interpretation / selective use of the Bible?

    B/c I’m able to offer a consistent explanation of why, and competing explanations fall apart upon examination.
    It’s a lot like parsing variant explanations of how the diversity of life that exists came to be (here I’m trying to use a topic that might be more familiar to you). Creation? Evolution via mutation and natural selection? Punctuated equilibrium? Gradual? You go thru the arguments and see which one stands up to scrutiny.

    And if the inconsistency in other interpretations is easily detected, how come so many people follow them?

    People are sinful and have ulterior motives.
    I can only speak for me and my friends, church, and compatriots in the faith. I don’t just give credence to whomever comes along; we examine the argumentation. I’ve been around liberal Methodists, charismatics, and atheists for significant portions of my life and I’ve never seen nearly as much of that done as where I am now (among Reformed Babdists).

    With the Bible, I have little, if any, secondary sources available.

    I’m sorry, that’s just not the case either. Vast archæological projects have been performed, and they consistently verify incidental people, places, and gov’tal positions described in the Bible.
    Plus there are various historical accounts (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, etc) that corroborate certain biblical statements.
    But, fundamentally, no one comes to a historical document like the Bible with the attitude that it is guilty until proven innocent. You must apply the same standards to the Bible as to other docs of antiquity to be fair.

    Would you say that anyone following a different interpretation of the Bible has not “put in the work”, so to speak?

    There are a few possibilities.
    1) They’re not listening.
    2) they didn’t put in the work, like you said, so their thinking is shallow.
    3) They don’t care to listen, ie they’re in sin or they don’t even know Jesus.
    4) I’m not listening.
    5) It’s not quite clear enough to make a for-sure, final decision.

    I make sure 4 and 5 aren’t the case by carefully examining arguments for and against, prayerfully and soberly.
    Sometimes 5 is the case, in which case I don’t hold dogmatically to it. An example of this would be to what extent it is permissible for a Christian to engage in warfare.

    You said this in regards to “God’s law” in your first mention of it. We’re talking in generalities here, so if you’re asking for clarification, cool.
    But if you want to make your statement stick, you’d need to produce an argument on a specific issue as to why my position on it is wrong or why it’s unclear as you were claiming above. As it stands, your statement has been shown to be hot air.

    Societal norms that work are, I would argue, a quite useful standard.

    Fine, but it disables you from judging (and this is the most obvious example, so I’m throwing it out there again) the 3rd Reich as immoral.
    Seriously, we can’t live like that!

    Your story: Of course he’s wrong, and so are his cultural norms.

    Why? I didn’t ask you WHETHER he’s wrong so much as WHY.

    Both Kant and Utilitarian reasoning have things to say about that.

    What would YOU say?

    people like being at the the receiving end of violence designed to disable them as a threat to others.

    Hold on – again I have to ask WHY we should make “what people like” into the foundation for our morality. You keep ASSERTING it. I’m looking for an ARGUMENT.

    Does God do things because they are right, or are things right because God does them?

    That’s covered in the blogpost I linked to above.
    Things are proscribed? Why?
    Because they violate the command of God, Who has given a law of behavior by which His creation has a responsibility to abide.
    WHY did He give this law this way?
    Because these laws are how He is. The law He gives flows out of Who and how He is. He is holy; His law demands holiness (and describes how to be holy). He is good; His law demands goodness (and describes how to be good). He loves truth; His law demands truthfulness (and describes how to be truthful). Etc.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  51. Robert Mueller Said:

    March 6, 2008 @ 10:43 am

    Re: Pleasure. You state that “some people like pain inflicted on them, some like inflicting pain”. Yes, because it gives them *pleasure*. Which would be what I have been arguing for. As a rule, we don’t do things that make us feel bad. We may do things that give us no pleasure for the purpose of, say, earning money, which we then spend on things that give us pleasure, but a maximization of our own (let me use a different word here) happiness is in our rational self-interest. How we achieve that happiness is a different question altogether.

    As for your alternative bases for morality:

    How much we harm others: consequentionalist.
    How much we ignore others: consequentionalist.

    If you can construct a working moral system on the basis of how many animals you have sex with or how many cheetos you eat, I would be significantly impressed.

    My argument for basing it on pleasure? It’s an essential characteristic of human beings. Lift your head from your books and go outside. Human beings pursue pleasure in almost everything they do. Even animals would rather be happy and comfortable than in pain. A streak that runs so fundamentally through all of life is, in my opinion, an excellent basis for a moral system in that it allows us to potentially maximize everyone’s pleasure.

    Your blog post requires a separate deconstruction; I will attempt to do so tomorrow.

    Re: The Council. Fair enough, though I consider the discussion of trinitarian and antitrinitarian positions a rather important little distinction which influences the basic beliefs of many strands of Christianity still. Also, granting that the Council of Nicea didn’t assemble the texts that would make up the Bible, which one did? Given the existence of “apocrypha”, there clearly was some sort of deciding mechanism in place here.

    “People are sinful and have ulterior motives.”

    People violate the tenets of one moral code (that they may not even be following) and consider their self-interest.

    “But, fundamentally, no one comes to a historical document like the Bible with the attitude that it is guilty until proven innocent. You must apply the same standards to the Bible as to other docs of antiquity to be fair.”

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If your historical document asserts the existence of an all-powerful being, it had better be the best-documented, lines-up-perfectly-with-other-evidence historical document ever.

    “But if you want to make your statement stick, you’d need to produce an argument on a specific issue as to why my position on it is wrong or why it’s unclear as you were claiming above.”

    It’s not unclear, it’s just not convincing. You yourself raise the issue of Christians in warfare – why is there a lack of clarity on this? And if it’s open to interpretation, is it still objective? You seem to say that this part is exactly what makes Utilitarianism subjective, in your view.

    “Fine, but it disables you from judging (and this is the most obvious example, so I’m throwing it out there again) the 3rd Reich as immoral.
    Seriously, we can’t live like that!”

    As a citizen of the German Federal Republic, you’d better believe that I can judge the 3d Reich as immoral.

    Aside from that, their societal norms did not work. They spent tons of money on enforcing their rule, the economy was only able to keep going through plundering other states. The 3rd Reich was not sustainable in the least, and we all know what happened to them.

    Do you seriously want to discuss this with me?

    Re: Your savage.

    Let’s drop Kant on him. “If rape is moral for you, than rape would be moral for everyone. But if it was moral for everyone, then this would lead to a breakdown of human relationships and your tribe would be destroyed. This is a practical inconsistency, and therefore morally wrong. If it is moral for you to kidnap, then it is moral for everyone. This would destroy your tribe, too – practical inconsistency. If it is moral for you to kill, then it is moral for everyone. This would lead to your entire tribe and all neighboring tribes dying out – practical inconsistency. Your behavior is therefore wrong on all counts.”

    Or let’s go Utilitarian. “When you kidnap, rape and murder women, you introduce a large amount of negative utility. The women have been violated and killed, their families grieve, the tribe you kidnapped them from will hate you and retaliate against you. In contrast, you have gained little positive utility from this act. In balance, this course of action is therefore worse at producing utility than simply refraining from this practice. Morality demands that you refrain from it.”

    Re: What People Like. Strangely enough, when you make people happy, that means they work better and their society is more successful, too. If I were to believe in God, I’d surely say “Wow, that is an elegant mechanism to reinforce the right behavior!” Why would God design a world in a way so that the things that work are those that he finds wrong? For his own amusement as we condemn ourselves to hell for simply following what our gut tells us is right? That’s an image I can’t reconcile with the idea of a Good God. (But then, there’s a lot more in this world that I can’t believe a Good God would do. Probably too long a list to spread out here, though.)

    Re: The Why of God’s law. Your argument is weak. If God based his law on some sort of universal right, then we can access that universal right without him. If things are right because God Said So, by what standard are we calling him good? This is a paradox that has been around since the Old Dead Greeks. The best solution I’ve seen so far has been to ignore that it exists, but maybe you can buck a 2000 years of philosophical thought and figure it out.

    Gatac

  52. Rhology Said:

    March 7, 2008 @ 9:15 pm

    Gatac,

    Howdy.

    But in my thought experiment, this person prefers pain. Not b/c it’s pleasurable but b/c it’s painful.
    Besides, this constant coming back to pleasure just answers an IS question, not an OUGHT question. Why OUGHT we give pleasure to others and ourselves? I know that people usually prefer pleasure, but that’s not what I’ve been asking.
    I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to make this your big last attempt. Give me a reason WHY these things are. Show me how these alternative moral systems answer WHY OUGHT WE in a way that is objective, universal and normative or just hold your peace. Or don’t, but I’ll stop responding to that if you can’t fulfill this simple request to answer the question I’ve been posing since the beginning of this thread. I can’t keep wasting my time, and this is the 4th time at least to ask this.

    If you can construct a working moral system on the basis of how many animals you have sex with or how many cheetos you eat, I would be significantly impressed.

    Easy.
    That which facilitates my having sex with the most animals while eating the most Cheetos is good. That which militates against such is bad.
    How is that any different than what you’ve proposed? How is it any less arbitrary?

    For the assembling of the canon of Scripture, I refer you to Bruce Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance for the NT and Roger Beckwith’s The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church for the OT.
    There was no one council that collated it all and made a big fat final decision. Unless you count the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1546), and that’s only for the Roman Catholic Church, and they didn’t even finalise the issue for Rome. And I’m not Roman Catholic.

    You said:
    If your historical document asserts the existence of an all-powerful being, it had better be the best-documented, lines-up-perfectly-with-other-evidence historical document ever.

    It is.

    You yourself raise the issue of Christians in warfare – why is there a lack of clarity on this?

    B/c God did not reveal it with a great deal of clarity. Why? Probably b/c He’s less concerned about it than with, say, the redemption of mankind. Only He knows all the reasons exhaustively.

    And if it’s open to interpretation, is it still objective?

    This is a sideshow.
    1) EVERYthing is open to interpretation.
    2) The question is: What are valid means of interpreting?
    3) Even if we grant that this one issue is not objective, it’s one small facet of my moral system whereas the entirety of yours is subjective.

    you’d better believe that I can judge the 3d Reich as immoral.

    On. What. Basis? Not trying to be mean, but how many times do I have to ask the same question w/o getting question-begging responses? Just tell me HOW YOU KNOW.

    their societal norms did not work.

    Based on what standard? Who made societal cohesion the Ultimate Good?

    Kantian – If rape is moral for you, than rape would be moral for everyone. But if it was moral for everyone, then this would lead to a breakdown of human relationships and your tribe would be destroyed.

    So what? Again, who made societal cohesion the Ultimate Good?
    God, right? Ooops, that option’s not available to you!

    If it is moral for you to kill, then it is moral for everyone.

    Fine, but perhaps it IS moral for me to kill. And therefore moral for everyone to kill. So what?

    Utilitarian – The women have been violated and killed, their families grieve, the tribe you kidnapped them from will hate you and retaliate against you.

    So what? Again, who made societal cohesion the Ultimate Good? Who made everyone’s happiness the Ultimate Good?

    By the way, you refuse to give your own position, and that’s not commendable. Why are you hiding behind these academic third-person hypotheticals?

    For his own amusement as we condemn ourselves to hell for simply following what our gut tells us is right?

    We’ve seen over and over and over again your complete inability to answer even the simplest OUGHT questions, and now you’d presume to lecture on the morality of God’s sending people to hell, as if you know better than an omniscient being, as if you can see inside the minds and hearts of mankind to tell us that everyone is really following “their gut feeling” about what’s good, as if they’re not doing one thing and telling lies to hide their true behavior? How could you possibly know that? Do you make a habit of judging big moral questions like this based on woefully inadequate knowledge of the situation?

    If God based his law on some sort of universal right, then we can access that universal right without him.

    Agreed, but that’s not the way it is. Nor is it my position.

    If things are right because God Said So, by what standard are we calling him good?

    You call my argument weak and then don’t even interact with it. You’re interacting with Divine Command Theory as if that had much of anythg to do with my position.

    The best solution I’ve seen so far has been to ignore that it exists

    If one measure the “best solution” by the opponent’s ability to disprove it, the best solution has been presented and ignored all at the same time.

    Peace (for maybe the last time, depending on the substance of your next answer),
    Rhology

  53. Robert Mueller Said:

    March 7, 2008 @ 10:15 pm

    I’m tired of playing nice. If you want to keep playing “NA NA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”, I suggest you discuss with Mr. Wall. Saves you the trouble of quoting all my darn atheist backtalk.

    Since you seem to be incapable of grasping the idea that humans can, in fact, come up with a moral code on the basis of an idea and not somebody else revealing it to them, I’m going to stop bothering here. Words literally fail me. Your incessant blathering about the whys and the cry for some sort of total perspective are like that of a child pestering her father with nothing but one why after another. Eventually, you must either recognize that there are certain basic concepts in philosophy without which we cannot have a discussion, or exit said discussion. Much like a father might be tempted to shout a mocking “God did it!” in a fit of anger, the only thing that can answer your inane questions is the concept that, ultimately, there’s some Guy Who Said So. You seem to be happy with this view, but do not mistake your incomprehension of Philosophy 101 for a victory.

    That takes care of the first half of your writings, such as they are.

    As it happens, my own personal morality is not as clear-cut and simple as either Kantian or Utilitarian reasoning. I thought that perhaps this would be helpful to showcase them for people interested in their functioning. In this specific example I sympathize more with Kant – certain things are always wrong -, but I’d be lying if I did not judge many of my actions by their consequences. Enumerating precisely which principle I apply in every situation would fill a book, and for reasons of brevity I presented a simplified (but still coherent) view of possible answers. Apparently, this does not satisfy you.

    Too bad.

    God’s judgment does not concern me in the slightest. Even given the off-chance that I might actually be subject to it (Do I need to wade into the pile of horse manure that is Pascal’s Wager?), a God who refuses to give me a clear and concise explanation of what he expects me to do with my life – and prove to me that, yes, he’s there and not kidding about that – is not worthy of my attention. He’s just a bully with a sick rhyming scheme to determine which ants get burnt. I sincerely hope that, should I against all probability face your God, I will have the strength to tell him just how much he can get bent.

    Divine Command Theory has everything to do with your position. “God Said So” *is* your position, necessarily. That I can’t disprove God’s existence doesn’t say anything – Arguments from Ignorance just don’t work. There’s exactly as much proof for God as against him – zilch. Same goes for Zeus, Ares or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Ramen.

    Gatac

  54. Brian G. Said:

    March 8, 2008 @ 12:29 am

    Rhology:

    If you can construct a working moral system on the basis of how many animals you have sex with or how many cheetos you eat, I would be significantly impressed.

    Easy.
    That which facilitates my having sex with the most animals while eating the most Cheetos is good. That which militates against such is bad.

    I believe I see the issue here. You see, the moral system that Gatac lines out is based on the idea that what we call “morals” are simply mechanisms derived through, if you will, social evolution that supports the survival of the species. If you, as a Christian, do not accept evolution then I can see why you would perceive that as a flawed argument. However, if you do not have a problem with it, then an evolutionary perspective on morality has both merit and evidence.

    If your historical document asserts the existence of an all-powerful being, it had better be the best-documented, lines-up-perfectly-with-other-evidence historical document ever.

    It is.

    I hope you can see why this is hardly convincing. To prove what the Bible says is true, that Christianity is really the way “it is”, then you need extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Nobody has seen this evidence so far, and the only evidence I’ve ever seen, including what you’ve given have been based on the Bible. Saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true is a circular argument.

    You yourself raise the issue of Christians in warfare – why is there a lack of clarity on this?

    B/c God did not reveal it with a great deal of clarity. Why? Probably b/c He’s less concerned about it than with, say, the redemption of mankind. Only He knows all the reasons exhaustively.

    I fail to see how a supposedly perfect being could be either unclear or obtuse in explaining anything, especially something as important as Christians in warfare which technically breaks one of your most important laws…commandments, I think they’re called? “God didn’t clear that up for some reason and only he knows” doesn’t wash.

    And if it’s open to interpretation, is it still objective?

    This is a sideshow.
    1) EVERYthing is open to interpretation.
    2) The question is: What are valid means of interpreting?
    3) Even if we grant that this one issue is not objective, it’s one small facet of my moral system whereas the entirety of yours is subjective.

    So…the Bible can be interpreted in different ways. We’ve settled that. What makes yours more correct than any other person’s?

    Also, the real sideshow here is you saying “who gets to interpret? Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Who determined how we interpret?!” is needlessly confusing and, obviously, recursive. If you really followed that, your thinking would go something like “I read X in the Bible, and I know it’s true because of Y. What makes Y true? Z does! But what makes Z true? A does! And B makes A true!” and so on and so forth into infinity.

    you’d better believe that I can judge the 3d Reich as immoral.

    On. What. Basis? Not trying to be mean, but how many times do I have to ask the same question w/o getting question-begging responses? Just tell me HOW YOU KNOW.

    As he said before, the Kantian system works because an individual (in this case, Germany) may believe what they’re doing is moral, but it does not apply to all of society and society stopped them. You could say that World War 2 was, partly, society self-policing.

    Kantian – If rape is moral for you, than rape would be moral for everyone. But if it was moral for everyone, then this would lead to a breakdown of human relationships and your tribe would be destroyed.

    So what? Again, who made societal cohesion the Ultimate Good?
    God, right? Ooops, that option’s not available to you!

    Societal cohesion could be one of many reasons. People could have a moral reason to opposing rape other than that one, and they might have more than one reason at the same time. The world is not so concrete that one answer has to be the best one or it fails.

    Also, you seem to imply that moral systems have to have one central reason, or that systems with different reasonings are incompatible. That isn’t the case. For instance, I’m an atheist and I think killing is immoral. As a Christian, I’m pretty sure you do, too. We reached the same position using entirely different reasoning, which obviously would also negate your later argument that we cannot reach “universal” laws without God; I did.

  55. Brian G. Said:

    March 8, 2008 @ 12:33 am

    Also, Rhology, the divine command thing is germane to the argument of divine/Biblical authority. If your position is not that God commands because he’s God, then where does his authority come from? If it comes from something else, why do we worship God and not the other thing? This goes back to what you said before: there’s a universal truth beyond God, but we can’t access it because of God. What? That doesn’t make any sense; if that were the case, then God is a superfluous being that’s changing the system to make himself important, like a spiritual middleman.

  56. Rhology Said:

    March 10, 2008 @ 2:58 pm

    Gatac,

    Of course it’s up to the reader to judge, but you have consistently made naked assertions about what a morality should be. But naked assertions have no cash value – I ask WHY b/c it’s a necessary question. It has to do with the authority of the claim, its normativity, the extent to which it applies to others.

    I hold the conclusion I do partly b/c I’ve seen the utter failure of other proposals to answer the big WHY questions on morality. If I want to know WHY raping little girls is wrong, you apparently can’t provide me an answer, but the God of the Bible can and does.

    You seem to be happy with this view, but do not mistake your incomprehension of Philosophy 101 for a victory.

    From the guy who refuses to answer the why questions, I’d say this comes off fairly weak. I thought philosophy was concerned at least partly with answering such things. But I could have been mistaken. So much the worse for your understanding of philosophy in that case.

    I presented a simplified (but still coherent) view of possible answers.

    B/c ANYONE can do that.
    “I don’t like vanilla ice cream.”
    “I don’t like raping little girls.”
    Your answer came down to your personal preference against the latter. Why? Just because! Just because Gatac said so! How is that better than God Said So? In the case of the latter, at least it’s always wrong in all places at all times for all people to rape little girls; in the former, it’s just wrong for YOU. Whoopie.

    (Do I need to wade into the pile of horse manure that is Pascal’s Wager?

    The only value that P’s W has is to illustrate the importance of investing significant time and effort to find the truth about such matters.
    So yes, and no… you seem already partly to be fulfilling it, so…

    God who refuses to give me a clear and concise explanation of what he expects me to do with my life

    “Serve Jesus Christ” is unclear?

    I will have the strength to tell him just how much he can get bent.

    Of course, with an attitude like that, there might be a reason why you find it unclear…

    Brian G,
    Welcome back!

    what we call “morals” are simply mechanisms derived through, if you will, social evolution that supports the survival of the species.

    Yeah, I’d say that’s fair.

    If you, as a Christian, do not accept evolution

    Well, I don’t accept evolution, that’s true.
    Let’s see how to explain…I’ve been asking that IF it is the case that these moralities we hold to are a result of evolution and contribute to the survival of the species (which is tautological, like so much in evolution is, but I digress), then they hold no weight for answering the questions of OUGHT. They describe how people HAVE ACTED in the past. They’re descriptive, not prescriptive. They tell me that most people in history have refrained from raping little girls, but don’t say why *I* should refrain (well, not ME personally, but you get the point).

    then you need extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim

    One good place to start is the inability of any moral theory presented here so far to answer any of the fairly simple questions I’ve asked.
    I’m serious – 4 yr old kids ask “Why?” all the time, I know that. If you can’t answer those questions, maybe you should shop around for a better worldview. One that actually explains something beyond yourself. Your answers end with YOU, and you ain’t much. Mine end too, but they end with One Who is much greater.

    Saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true is a circular argument.

    I haven’t said that, for one thing. I’ve described what my position is.
    See here for more thoughts on the Bible’s truth.

    how a supposedly perfect being could be either unclear or obtuse in explaining anything

    Maybe He wanted to be, and being 100% clear would be against the better plan He has in mind.

    “God didn’t clear that up for some reason and only he knows” doesn’t wash.

    I doubt God’s heart is broken b/c you don’t approve of the way He does things.

    What makes yours more correct than any other person’s?

    I’m going just to take your implications and apply them to your statements here, so you can answer your own question.
    What I’m taking from your 2 comments here is that you are falling on the mercy of Jesus Christ and want to give Him your eternal soul and life. Did I get that right? Why or why not?
    (I’m being 100% serious here.)

    You could say that World War 2 was, partly, society self-policing.

    Society didn’t really stop them. As I recall, society let it happen and Soviet and Western troops stopped them.
    And you’re just telling me IS statements again. Looking for OUGHT, I remind you!

    Societal cohesion could be one of many reasons

    Fine, but it again fails to answer the question.

    For instance, I’m an atheist and I think killing is immoral.

    Yeah? Well, I know an atheist who believes eating vanilla ice cream is wrong.
    Please enlighten him as to why
    1) eating vanilla ice cream is actually not morally wrong (if it in fact is not), and
    2) the question of ice cream flavor is of less weight than the question of killing people without cause.

    If your position is not that God commands because he’s God, then where does his authority come from?

    I honestly refuse to retype everything I’ve typed in the past. If you really want the answer, go read it on the blogpost I’ve linked to twice.

    It looks like the convo with Gatac has degenerated; he has lost his temper and moreover failed to answer the questions I gave him one last chance to. So I’m done with him. Nice talking to you, Gatac.
    Brian G and anyone else, I’ll be happy to continue the convo a bit more with you if you want. Just make sure to answer my questions as I have answered yours. Everyone’s patience has limits; I’m no different.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  57. Brian G. Said:

    March 10, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

    Let’s see how to explain…I’ve been asking that IF it is the case that these moralities we hold to are a result of evolution and contribute to the survival of the species (which is tautological, like so much in evolution is, but I digress), then they hold no weight for answering the questions of OUGHT. They describe how people HAVE ACTED in the past.

    I’m not sure how to make it any clearer that the distinction you’re making isn’t really a distinction. In the instance of WW2, society DID stop the Axis because they were a threat to societal cohesion. Society also OUGHT to have stopped them for the same reason, because they threatened society as it was. They OUGHT to have stopped them since they were a threat, and they DID. Do you see why the distinction you’re trying to make doesn’t matter?

    The only thing you’re trying to say with it is where the moral authority came from that turned the IS into an OUGHT. I would tell you simply that the moral authority came from society itself, from majority rule. You, however, don’t subscribe to the idea that moral authority can originate with people or with non-supernatural causes like social evolution.

    They’re descriptive, not prescriptive. They tell me that most people in history have refrained from raping little girls, but don’t say why *I* should refrain (well, not ME personally, but you get the point).

    Killing, stealing, etc., has been considered both illegal and immoral by most, if not all, societies for thousands of years. You and I have different concepts on why, but it’s obvious that things like killing, stealing, and raping have a negative effect on society. By that description, that rape is immoral because it hurts society so most people haven’t done it, you can also glean from that that you yourself shouldn’t do it.

    To give a real-world example, if I told you that short-circuiting a toaster almost always results in people being shocked, could you not make the logical connection that you too should not do it?

    What makes yours more correct than any other person’s?

    I’m going just to take your implications and apply them to your statements here, so you can answer your own question.
    What I’m taking from your 2 comments here is that you are falling on the mercy of Jesus Christ and want to give Him your eternal soul and life. Did I get that right? Why or why not?

    If your point here is that you can read something and interpret it in a way that is obviously wrong, fine. That doesn’t always apply to the Bible, though. If someone reads the Bible and interprets it as an excuse to bomb abortion clinics or stone adulterers, they aren’t interpreting it in a way that is “obviously wrong” since the Bible, ya know, has that in it. So back to my question: what makes your interpretation more correct than theirs?

    Yeah? Well, I know an atheist who believes eating vanilla ice cream is wrong.
    Please enlighten him as to why
    1) eating vanilla ice cream is actually not morally wrong (if it in fact is not), and
    2) the question of ice cream flavor is of less weight than the question of killing people without cause.

    What does this have to do with my point? My point was that people from different backgrounds and belief or non-belief systems can arrive at the same moral positions, which I think is based on social evolution.

    Just make sure to answer my questions as I have answered yours.

    But you didn’t answer most of my questions. My questions (where does divine/Biblical authority come from, what makes your interpretation better than others) were both either dodged or deferred to a blog post on your own blog. I’m not interested in what you wrote there, or in blogwhoring, I’m interested in what you say here.

    As always, thanks for the response!
    Brian

  58. Robert Mueller Said:

    March 10, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

    Rhology, you do amuse me sometimes.

    As in, on occasion.

    My mistake was, apparently, to think that reducing my argument to an essential axiom of human nature (self-interest) would help you see the similarity to an essential axiom of your belief (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenelovent God). However, you want to deny even that.

    Here’s something you can try.

    I want you to go out on the street and ask 100 people whether they want to be happy, if they have desires and dreams. For each one who does answer in the affirmative, mark down “self-interest” as an essential part of their being human. For everyone who doesn’t…ask yourself what kind of people they are. I can surely conceive of a person who exists only to inflict pain and gain nothing from it, which is a scenario you have proposed. I do not hesitate to call your hypothetical person clinically insane.

    Let me repeat that: People who are not at least partially motivated by what is good for themselves are insane.

    Now, surely there are other motivations, not all of whom apply to every action. I do not deny that. I also do not deny that people do things that are against their self-interest, on occasion. But what remains a deciding factor in their decision-finding, what is common to all of us, what I hope we can all understand, is self-interest.

    If you fail to even grant me that…then I do not see how we can discuss anything, and that is what my what post was about. I suppose I could have been more diplomatic about it, but the crux of the matter is that I do not have the time or inclination to come up with a completely new view of human nature that contradicts more than two millenia of established philosophical thought. I suppose there exists a remote possibility that everyone from the Dead Old Greeks on has been wrong about this, but it is devastatingly unlikely.

    Your repeated clamors for “ought” instead of “is” are ineffectual, insofar as every moral system prescribes “ought”s. I suppose I was putting the cart before the horse by expecting you to be aware of this basic bit and instead delving deeper into the theories, so here we go. What good is a moral system that does not have an “ought”? It would be nothing more than an account of human behavior, of how things are. This is a criticism you want to level at my models, but you fail to acknowledge that both in fact take things as they are and then make prescriptions on how they should be. Utilitarianism takes self-interest and tells us how to apply it correctly so the benefit is maximized. Kantianism takes reason and tells us how we should use it to guide our actions. There’s plenty of “ought”s to go around for everybody. Killing people produces more pain than pleasure, therefore we ought to not kill people – it is wrong. Things that are right ought to be done, things that are wrong ought to be refrained from. Is that proving to be a difficult concept to grasp?

    In this context, your repeated cries of “Why?” become slightly more comprehensible. What you seem to be asking is “So why should I follow this moral system?”

    You continue to resist my “Because it works” answer, but what you seek to avoid constitutes most of the body of the question. Suppose that you are shopping for a car and I am tagging along. We must clearly now discard any comparison that is based on top speed, acceleration, interior space, fuel economy, features etc… – because these are all part of how well the car performs in its intended task. What’s left, then? Styling? Color? Interior design? What we have left to base our decision on is not based on its usefulness as a car, but rather on its looks and personal taste. Clearly, these are important, but I would argue that, in the context of morality, the same sort of decision process boils down essentially to “What you prefer for non-tangible reasons”. Clearly, if you are satisfied with the moral system you hold and are not concerned with its usefulness (say, because it works well enough for you), then you will see little reason to consider switching. But this is ultimately a subjective reason for your decision, isn’t it?

    Here’s another thing: Why did you start believing in the first place? Would you not agree that the first moral system you were taught, the system you grew up with, will always seem more “natural” to you? Choosing what to believe can be a painful process, as it makes us aware of the choices we make as humans. We like to believe that some things are so obvious that we do not need to debate them, yet they are part of our social background and far from universal. For example, take the idea of separation between church and state. Few people in the Western world would even consider debating about it. When we think “theocracy”, we are reminded of such things as Sharia law and intolerance. Yet, in the Islamic world (which has, surprisingly, rather large degrees of variation in how strictly religion plays a role in politics and law), the idea that church and state should be separated is anathema. They did not have a Thomas Hobbes nor a “Leviathan” to spread the idea and argue for it. Many things that are obvious to us are foreign to them, and vice versa.

    They have a whole different set of beliefs, and they seem perfectly rational and obvious to them. Where is the objectivity in that? If, in fact, the vast majority of people (counting other strains of Christianity) does not believe as you do, how can you claim any sort of cosmic objectivity? Is your view of human reason so dire that you do not expect more than a few thousand people out of six billion to understand the truth – which, as you seem to argue for, is straightforward enough to be used as a guide to everyday living?

    Picking up on moral authority again, would you deny that reason and happiness are incapable of justifying a moral system? Because what you seem to be implying is that there is no ultimate justification for morality that does not begin with “G” and end with “od”. Surely you can, however, convince me, that you have issues specifically with reason and happiness. Maybe you can even find a basic concept justifying a moral system of your making that does not reduce to divine authority.

    In the meantime, you can of course gladly be done with me. My heart shall be properly broken, of course.

    Gatac

  59. Rhology Said:

    March 12, 2008 @ 8:33 am

    Gentlemen,

    I haven’t forgotten about you (how could anyone? :-D ) but may have time tomorrow or the next day.

  60. Rhology Said:

    March 14, 2008 @ 10:57 am

    Howdy all,

    Brian G, I’ll start with you.
    WW2 and the distinction – so “society” is the world? How do you define it? How do you know what “society” wants?
    German society didn’t stop the 3rd Reich.
    Basically you seem to be saying majority rules, but that’s not consistently applicable and is easily destructible in thought-experiments. If 60% of the population believes raping little girls is morally obligatory and good, is it therefore good?

    I make the distinction b/c I want to know WHY I should listen to society. In answer, you’re telling me to listen to society. That’s not very helpful.

    Here’s a relevant quote from Dan Barker:

    “Here’s a hypothetical. And I just said it’s hypothetical. Suppose th- you, you know how ah, you know how some species like cats they like to play with mice before they kill them. I mean they have this weird thing about exaggerating the harm before they eat their meal. Suppose there was some advanced, powerful species outside of our solar system that came to earth and it was like that. And it was torturing people. And raping women. And this, and we thought how horrible, this is really bad. And suppose this culture just for the fun of it said, ‘We’re gonna kill the whole species. We’re gonna kill all of you. We’re gonna show how powerful we are.’ We think, ‘Boy, what an amoral group’ right? We’d be afraid of them. But what if they said to you ah, ‘Before we kill everybody off ah, we just wanna have a little more fun here, if you will rape a woman, then we will let the rest of the species go, okay? We’ll let every, we’ll just leave. If you’ll just do that one thing, and let us watch, because we’re sickos, right? Then we will, we’ll sa-, we’ll save the rest of the planet.’ Now, I know that’s not likely to happen but hypothetically something like that could happen. Nature is weird, right? In that weird case, which we, you and I would never see in our life time, you can make an argument that although it wouldn’t be pleasant, and you wouldn’t like it, and you’d would feel really bad about yourself, you would consider that to be the moral choice.”

    Brian G said:
    if I told you that short-circuiting a toaster almost always results in people being shocked, could you not make the logical connection that you too should not do it?

    Sure, IF I wanted the toaster to function. But what if I don’t want it to function? Then it won’t function. So what?

    If someone reads the Bible and interprets it as an excuse to bomb abortion clinics or stone adulterers, they aren’t interpreting it in a way that is “obviously wrong” since the Bible, ya know, has that in it.

    What?
    1) Who’s arguing that we should stone adulterers in today’s society? Please name names.
    2) Where does the Bible support bombing abortuaries?

    what makes your interpretation more correct than theirs?

    Didn’t you just finish telling me that it’s ridiculous to read something and interpret it in a way that is obviously wrong? What makes my above interp of what you said obviously wrong?

    My point was that people from different backgrounds and belief or non-belief systems can arrive at the same moral positions, which I think is based on social evolution.

    Humans also evolved to mostly like the taste of chocolate. I’m looking for the qualitative distinction between liking chocolate and raping little girls.

    I’m not interested in what you wrote there, or in blogwhoring, I’m interested in what you say here.

    I’m not gonna retype it all. You don’t want to read what I’ve already said on the topic, fine; with your permission I’ll just copy paste it here in the combox. I was hoping to avoid that b/c comboxes have such limited formatting options; it’ll be harder to read.
    And thank you!

    Peace,
    Rhology

  61. Rhology Said:

    March 14, 2008 @ 11:00 am

    Gatac,

    OK, b/c my sense of generosity overrides my better judgment, I’ll keep going with you.

    For each one who does answer in the affirmative, mark down “self-interest” as an essential part of their being human.

    I’m betting that >95/100 will answer in the affirmative.

    For everyone who doesn’t…ask yourself what kind of people they are

    If I use atheistic reasoning like you would have me do, I’ll have to conclude that they evolved just like everyone else. Their desires to be happy or unhappy are due to their biological programming and are neither good nor bad. They just are.
    Or I could act like a Christian, like this stuff matters (as you are doing here) and inconsistently argue that they’re freaks. But on atheism, they’re just statistical aberrations. So what?

    I do not hesitate to call your hypothetical person clinically insane.

    The Pope of Morality strikes again. You’ve replaced God with yourself – the desire to be your own little god squirts out from time to time!
    “Insane” here means “out of step with most of society”, but such could easily be applied to an opponent of the 3rd Reich where most of society supported the 3R’s actions.

    I do not have the time or inclination to come up with a completely new view of human nature that contradicts more than two millenia of established philosophical thought.

    A great deal of that thought has been Christian and therefore agreed much more with my worldview than your naturalistic, novel one.

    What good is a moral system that does not have an “ought”?

    That’s exactly the question I’ve been asking YOU. The only “ought”s you have been predicated on IFs like if you want society to cohere, if you want to be a good citizen, if you want to be happy, do this and don’t do that.
    Those break down into nothing more than personal pronouncements of personal preference, which is what I’ve been saying from the beginning. A great many of them degenerate into IS statements, not OUGHT statements.

    Utilitarianism takes self-interest and tells us how to apply it correctly so the benefit is maximized.

    But apparently can’t tell anyone WHY self-interest should be a guiding principle.

    Kantianism takes reason and tells us how we should use it to guide our actions.

    And ends up without any ability to make prescriptive statements. Just descriptive.
    These have been pretty fully discussed above; no need to rehash new ground absent new dvlpmnts from Gatac here.

    Car?

    See my comments on the toaster example above.

    Why did you start believing in the first place?

    I hardly see how this is relevant, to be honest.
    I grew up in a more or less liberal Methodist household, which was less Christian in worldview rather than more Christian. The worldview instilled in me from childhood is a long way from being biblical, though it’s certainly closer than full atheism or polytheism or sthg.
    I’ve come to my positions thru persuasion, not inheritance.

    Choosing what to believe can be a painful process, as it makes us aware of the choices we make as humans.

    It was a painful process, yes. I agree 100%.

    Where is the objectivity in that?

    That’s a decent question. Next time I meet a Muslim I might ask them. ;-)

    If, in fact, the vast majority of people (counting other strains of Christianity) does not believe as you do, how can you claim any sort of cosmic objectivity?

    On the basis of the arguments for it and the basis of the paucity of all the arguments I’ve seen against.

    Is your view of human reason so dire that you do not expect more than a few thousand people out of six billion to understand the truth – which, as you seem to argue for, is straightforward enough to be used as a guide to everyday living?

    1) It’s by the unmerited and unearned grace of God that anyone comes to believe in the truth, in Jesus Christ and His revelation. This is b/c all humans are lost in sin and rebellion against God. We don’t WANT the truth.
    2) I wouldn’t argue that only a few 1000 people have known or will know the truth. The Bible speaks of great multitudes of people to whom God has been pleased to reveal Himself and give salvation.
    3) And yes, it’s straightfwd enough. I know b/c I live by it every day. My life is far, far more fulfilled and purposeful than before I knew God. On top of that, it exposes the pitiful nature of its competitors, as we’re seeing all over again in this combox.

    no ultimate justification for morality that does not begin with “G” and end with “od”.

    Being careful to state my position correctly, I’ll correct you:
    …there is no ultimate justification for objective morality that does not begin with “G” and end with “od”.

    would you deny that reason and happiness are incapable of justifying a moral system?

    Oh, I suppose they could, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty of examining those principles and the whys behind them, and specifically how reason is able to leap from descriptive to prescriptive pronouncements, problems arise.

    Maybe you can even find a basic concept justifying a moral system of your making that does not reduce to divine authority.

    Well, again, the justification for my position is not on divine AUTHORITY, if by that you mean His command, His fiat. It rests on His nature.
    It’s all lined out in that blogpost. Looks like I’m gonna have to just paste it all in this combox…

    Peace,
    Rhology

  62. Brian G. Said:

    March 14, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

    Comment by Rhology — March 14, 2008

    I’m not even going to bother block-quoting any of this – you either misunderstood what I was saying or missed the point.

    I never said that societal majority made things “right”. I said that a way of defining morality is a set of rules of conduct that a group of people agrees on. I know you’re jonesing for a big huge universal law, but there isn’t one. As Richard Dawkins described it, we have a “changing moral zeitgeist” in society, in which we constantly move forward in our understanding. Some examples are that gay people were shunned in society until recently. Women couldn’t work, should stay home to raise their kids, or shouldn’t wear pants, but that changed with feminism. Morality isn’t meant to stay exactly the same, so it doesn’t.

    I think what it comes down to is that you don’t have the conviction to stand on your own feet unsupported. You need the unerrant authority of GAWD behind you. Let me tell you something, Rhology: it takes a hell of a lot more courage and strength in your convictions to say that you believe something is right or wrong for humanistic reasons than it does to invoke God. It didn’t take a lot of courage to support the Iraq War when it was first starting, but it took a lot to resist it like I did. You don’t require courage to take a position when everyone tells you you’re right.

  63. Dwight Said:

    March 14, 2008 @ 2:36 pm

    It’s closing time…

    Okay…I’m getting really bored with this. I would just much, much rather spend 63 comments talking about Alfred Hitchcock, or PT Anderson, or Stanley Kubrick, or the Coen Brothers. That’s just way more interesting to me. And, way more enjoyable. Maybe that means I’ll rot in hell or maybe it makes me a bad atheist. Oh, well…

    I’m just not getting anything out of this anymore. Well, nothing besides extra spam comments/trackbacks. It’s gone as far as it can go…and quite a ways past by now. So, I’m gonna go ahead and close the comments now. For those of you wanting to be futher enlightened by Rhology, go visit his blog. For everybody else, go outside and enjoy the beautiful day. Or, watch a good movie.

    …you don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.