Atheist on theistic morality

[Omyo12]

So outspoken atheist Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) made a YouTube video talking about agnosticism vs atheism.

You can watch it if you want, but I’ll give you the gist of it:

He basically said:

The question of agnosticism vs atheism should not be, “is there a god?” because the only answer is “I don’t know.” The question should be, “do you believe in a god?” I think the question could be even simpler than that: “If your god, whomever it may be, came to you one day and said: ‘Sacrifice your child,’ would you do it?” If you answered “no,” you’re an atheist; if you answered “yes,” you’re dangerous and stay away from me.

So what would your answers be? Do you think Penn is oversimplifying the question; manipulating it to get a bad answer from a theist either way?

 

[Oreoracle]

So what would your answers be? Do you think Penn is oversimplifying the question; manipulating it to get a bad answer from a theist either way?

No. I think he’s delving into another topic entirely; he’s jumping from metaphysical beliefs to ethical beliefs. However, depending on how one defines their god, they could be related questions. Christians, for example, claim that God is goodness, and therefore all of his actions are good and all of his preferences should be satisfied. In short, morality is whatever God wants it to be. Thus, if you believe it is immoral to sacrifice your child, and you don’t think God’s preference for your child to be killed by you is worthy of being satisfied, you must not believe in the Christian god if he asks you to kill your child.

 

[Sair]

So what would your answers be? Do you think Penn is oversimplifying the question; manipulating it to get a bad answer from a theist either way?

To me it looks like a gross oversimplification of the issues surrounding atheism/agnosticism. Firstly, every atheist is an agnostic - the word ‘agnostic’ means an absence of knowing, and most atheists who take the time to think about their beliefs will certainly admit to not knowing any gods. No-one, based on the available evidence, could answer with certainty that there is or is not a god. Atheists simply live their lives without reference or recourse to any divine presence who may or may not exist, and may or may not have the power to decide our ultimate fate.

The question posed by Penn is rather manipulative, actually. It’s playing upon the notion that theists, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise, claim to base their moral decisions upon the word of their God. Surely there would be Christian sceptics out there who, if an entity claiming to be God did suddenly appear and demand the sacrifice of a child, would be seriously inclined to question whether this really was their God or not! As such, there really is no good answer a theist could give here, that would not invite a cheap shot either at their bovine devotion or their inclination to make their own moral choices. So, yes, in short, I think Penn’s question is just a set-up.

 

[Langdell]

So outspoken atheist Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) made a YouTube video talking about agnosticism vs atheism.

You can watch it if you want, but I’ll give you the gist of it:

He basically said:

So what would your answers be? Do you think Penn is oversimplifying the question; manipulating it to get a bad answer from a theist either way?

I would say he’s using the appearance of reasoning for rhetorical effect. (Not in itself a bad thing.) If we want to look at it as a piece of reasoning, it seems fatally confused. He asks this question: “If your god, whomever it may be, came to you one day and said: ‘Sacrifice your child,’ would you do it?” As phrased, the question assumes that God does come to you, and that you know it is God. Then he concludes that if you say No, you’re an atheist, and if you say Yes, you’re a criminal / insane person.

But, if God really came to you, then God exists, and it would clearly be factually wrong to be an atheist. On the other hand, if God didn’t really come to you, and instead you only suspect that God might have come to you, then saying No would not equate to your being an atheist. It could simply mean that you have a healthy distrust of your senses when they purport to tell you something that doesn’t otherwise make sense.

Thus, his argument doesn’t do what it at first appears to do. It doesn’t put us in the position of being either an atheist or a criminal / insane person. When you try to work back from his conclusion, his argument falls apart.
.

UPDATE: I see that Sair said basically the same thing!

 

[Catholic1954]

I will be happy to stay away from Penn Jillette.

 

[Drawmack]

So outspoken atheist Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) made a YouTube video talking about agnosticism vs atheism.

You can watch it if you want, but I’ll give you the gist of it:

He basically said:

So what would your answers be? Do you think Penn is oversimplifying the question; manipulating it to get a bad answer from a theist either way?

I would turn the question back around on Penn. I would say, if my God appeared to you, and by doing such proved himself to exist and be God, then asked you to sacrifice your child what would you do – after you finished crapping yourself? If you answer that you would not then you are claiming that even in the face a proof God exists you would continue to disbelieve and therefore are not a skeptic. If you answer that you would then you are dangerous and need to get away from yourself.

When observing a trap it is often useful to pay close attention to the bait.