I agree, morality is a human creation, which isn’t to say that atheists don’t have morals. You’re using a straw man whenever you attempt to claim that atheists don’t have a standard of morality. I’m sure you wouldn’t say the same thing when referring to AP.

Nonfactor on September 16, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Morality is a human creation???

I do agree that many atheists do subscribe to that view. I think there are many philosophical problems with that position though.

Is rape intrinsically wrong, or is it wrong because humans merely SAID it was wrong?

If you answered, “rape is intrinsically wrong,” then that entails that morality is not a human creation, but rather you believe that morality is independent and that it stands outside of humans.

Is child molestation intrinsically wrong, or does the alleged “wrongness” of child molestation stem from only mere verbal human agreement?

Of course all of us already know that child molestation is inherently wrong even if there hypothetically was a community in which the majority of humans voiced their verbal agreement, “we now decide child molestation is a good thing.” All of us would counter, “but it is still wrong even if humans decide that child molestation should be ok.” The reason why all of us counter that is because all of us already believe and know that morality is independent of mere verbal human agreement.

Morality is independent of humans. Human convention can never establish the normative prescriptions that are grounded in reality and in which we all know that both rape and child molestation are inherently and intrinsically wrong and immoral. Humans discover, via intuition, via natural law, via reason, via divine commands, or via philosophy or theology, that these horrible actions are wrong. But they are wrong precisely because humans never established they are wrong. Rather, they are wrong even if humans have a hyothetical majority agreement that these moral atrocities should be morally commendable and morally approved by society.

ColtsFan on September 18, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Please. You believe in God. To believe in God you must suspend logic. You must take a leap of faith in believing in said God. Don’t even attempt to lecture anyone about logic, especially when you can’t even differentiate the concept of God from your personal God.

Nonfactor on September 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM

You write, “to believe in God you must suspend logic.”

Nonfactor,

I appreciate our discussions in the past.

But I wanted to point out here that we both already know the history of philosophy reveals that atheists try very, very hard to “reduce” or “eliminate” logic to something else because atheism is at “odds with” the immaterial laws of logic. This is because the immaterial laws of logic are contrary to Naturalism.

When atheists try to “reduce” something (here for our example: immaterial laws of logic) to “something else” (physics, energy, psychology, biology, or human invention, or linguistic, heuristic device), they are showing by their very actions that they themselves are using “logic” differently in two opposing senses.

The “word” logic may be the same, but you and fellow atheists (due to your worldview of atheism) use “logic” differently with opposite meanings.

Your system of atheism cannot even justify your very usage of the word, “logic,” because you incorporate two different meanings at the very same time.

ColtsFan on September 18, 2007 at 2:09 AM

I don’t care about “arguments” I care whether or not you can prove a certain thing to be right or wrong.
Nonfactor on September 18, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Okay.

Yes, there are multiple “reasons” why most philosophers reject your view that morality is a human convention or human invention.

I admit it is a trick question because to be able to prove a certain absolute moral guideline that applies to humans you must prove the existence of God (your God or anyone else’s), and the Transcendental Argument isn’t a proof it’s basically another “God of the gaps” theory or a “How could we be having this conversation if God didn’t exist” theory: it’s not there to prove anything, it’s there to argue around the issue that faith denies logic.
Nonfactor on September 18, 2007 at 1:49 PM

1.) Some atheists do believe that moral absolutes do exist independently of humans. They are in the minority, however, but some atheists do indeed admit that objective moral absolutes do exist, and that your view that morality is a human convention is false.

To accomplish this, these atheists describe themselves as “pluralistic naturalists,” and not “scientific naturalists.” Basically, “to open the door wide open to the existence of moral absolutes,” these atheistic pluralistic naturalists readily admit that our world is ***semi-enchanted***, and not unenchanted, like the full-blown scientific naturalists hold. The theists hold to the opposite view, and teach that the universe is “enchanted.” (to use the language of the pluralistic naturalists).

The Transcendental Argument is not, properly speaking, a “God of the gaps” theory. The “God of the gaps” theory, just like the naturalistic move of “Naturalism of the gaps” theory, attempts to move from the ***Unknown*** to arrive at a conclusion.

The Transcendental Argument, instead, moves from the ***Known*** to arrive at a conclusion.

It moves from the known fact of the ontological uniqueness of rationality, immaterial laws of logic, and attempts to “make sense” of that known premise. Even pluralistic naturalists admit this same fact. Even pluralistic naturalists, because they are honest, even admit the ontological uniqueness of the immaterial laws of logic, and they agree with the theist that rationality and the laws of logic can never be “reduced” or “eliminated” to something else.

So the Transcendental Argument is not at all similar or identical to the “God of the gaps” theory in medieval times or the more recent “Naturalism of the gaps” theory so commonly seen nowadays.

Faith in Jesus Christ does not deny logic.

ColtsFan on September 18, 2007 at 5:14 PM