Richard Dawkins: A Gift From God

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Of course they make the case but it is not coherent. For instance with reincarnation - what created these moral rules that we are governed by? Matter and energy? Do mater and energy care about how we treat each other? As far as moral abstracts, how do they exist? Ethics are about interpersonal interaction, without minds I just don't see it - they might as well go the next step and invoke God. And even if Platonic realism was true, what authority would these moral abstracts have over us. Why would we be obligated to follow them.

I'm not a Humanist, a spiritualist, or a Platonist, so I won't attempt to defend their position. I'm simply noting that such people do exist.

[seer]

...they all do this. Platonists argue that abstracts are actual, extant entities. Humanists and spiritualists argue that actions have objective consequences which can be evaluated.

Of course they make the case but it is not coherent. For instance with reincarnation - what created these moral rules that we are governed by? Matter and energy? Do mater and energy care about how we treat each other? As far as moral abstracts, how do they exist? Ethics are about interpersonal interaction, without minds I just don't see it - they might as well go the next step and invoke God. And even if Platonic realism was true, what authority would these moral abstracts have over us. Why would we be obligated to follow them.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well no, until they can show how moral truths can exist objectively apart from a mind the claims are not coherent.

...they all do this. Platonists argue that abstracts are actual, extant entities. Humanists and spiritualists argue that actions have objective consequences which can be evaluated.

[Sparko]

For anyone interested, I will be interviewing R. Scott Smith of BIOLA on his book "In Search of Moral Knowledge" this Saturday on this very topic.

With these discussions, I think it's important to start with a simple question.

Does objective goodness exist and what is it?

Bacon?

[Apologiaphoenix]

For anyone interested, I will be interviewing R. Scott Smith of BIOLA on his book "In Search of Moral Knowledge" this Saturday on this very topic.

With these discussions, I think it's important to start with a simple question.

Does objective goodness exist and what is it?

[seer]

On the Platonist, spiritualist, and humanist views, objective morality would actually exist, as well, even if we sometimes misunderstood it.

Well no, until they can show how moral truths can exist objectively apart from a mind the claims are not coherent.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I was referring to your comment that atheists are all over the place as to why something is moral or not (Society, Plato, Evolution, etc) and basically it just boils down to different atheists have different opinions on why something is moral. They might all agree that murder is immoral, but one might say because it hurts society, one might say because we evolved to believe it is immoral, another might say it is not immoral. That all boils down to a subjective standard of morality.

You are conflating an individual's understanding of morality with the existence of objective morality. Ironically, this is exactly the same fallacy to which a number of atheists fall prey when they assert that theists can't actually believe in objective morality because they have different views on what is intrinsic to that morality.

Atheists are no more a single, monolithic whole than are theists.

[Sparko]

I understand precisely what is meant by the phrase. I don't understand why you would think the assertion that objective morality exists "boils down to opinion" for an atheist but not for a theist.

I was referring to your comment that atheists are all over the place as to why something is moral or not (Society, Plato, Evolution, etc) and basically it just boils down to different atheists have different opinions on why something is moral. They might all agree that murder is immoral, but one might say because it hurts society, one might say because we evolved to believe it is immoral, another might say it is not immoral. That all boils down to a subjective standard of morality.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I don't think you understand what "objective morality" means.

I understand precisely what is meant by the phrase. I don't understand why you would think the assertion that objective morality exists "boils down to opinion" for an atheist but not for a theist.

[Sparko]

No more than a Christian's ideas about moral objectivity would.

I don't think you understand what "objective morality" means.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Except in our world objective moral law would actually exist, even if we sometimes misunderstood it. And the universe would be, in the end, a just place.

On the Platonist, spiritualist, and humanist views, objective morality would actually exist, as well, even if we sometimes misunderstood it.

[seer]

No more than a Christian's ideas about moral objectivity would.

Except in our world objective moral law would actually exist, even if we sometimes misunderstood it. And the universe would be, in the end, a just place.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

so basically it just boils down to opinion, like seer said.

No more than a Christian's ideas about moral objectivity would.

[seer]

It depends on the atheist. Some are Platonic realists who believe that objective morality is extant in the form of abstracts. Some are humanists who define morality on the basis of societal health. Some are spiritualists who believe that there exists some objective set of rules which can elevate or lower the state of the soul (for example, ending a reincarnation cycle). Some wholly reject the idea of objective morality.

I think today most atheists, at least the high profile ones, would reject the idea of objective morality. I personally never got the Platonic thing, or reincarnation. How moral ideas could exists apart from a mind.

[Sparko]

It depends on the atheist. Some are Platonic realists who believe that objective morality is extant in the form of abstracts. Some are humanists who define morality on the basis of societal health. Some are spiritualists who believe that there exists some objective set of rules which can elevate or lower the state of the soul (for example, ending a reincarnation cycle). Some wholly reject the idea of objective morality.

so basically it just boils down to opinion, like seer said.