Is this a good argument against atheists?

[LeonardDeNoblac]

No. What I’m doing is assuming an hypotetical world where determinism is true (it doesn’t matter if determinism is true or false), and then I follow the logical consequences of determinism in ethics.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Where did I compare the process of evolution to a book?

 

[Zaccheus]

Where did I compare the process of evolution to a book?

I was responding to Wojciech.

 

[Magnanimity]

• if atheism is true, there’s no spiritual/supernatural reality;
• if there’s no spiritual/supernatural reality, naturalism is true;
• if naturalism is true, determinism is true (because natural laws are deterministic );
• if determinism is true, no one can really choose what to think or what to do;
• if no one can really choose what to think or what to do, no one can be reasonably blamed for his beliefs and actions;
• if no one can be reasonably blamed for his beliefs and actions, no one has any logical basis at all for morally judging anyone.

I admire the tenacity! I don’t think premise 1 holds, actually. In the West, it will generally be granted. But, perhaps not always. You could revise it to say just no “supernatural reality.” The atheist philosopher Jitendra Mohanty once debated W.L. Craig and R. Zacharias, and he was an atheist in the strict sense–“there is no God.” But, he admitted that moral properties were real, in the Aristotelian sense. As in, they inhere in the very fabric of reality. Moral truths are data, givens, of everyday experience, according to Mohanty. Mohanty also granted the truth that living beings are intrinsically sacred/sanctified/worthy/valuable. All this is to say that, even given an atheistic commitment, it doesn’t follow that there is no “spiritual” (non-physical) reality.

I also have reservations (like others above) about your third premise. Indeterminancy is possible even in an atheistic universe, right? Why wouldn’t it be?

Certain atheists, like Sam Harris, seem to follow the rest of your premises (4-6) and argue similarly.

But your final premise (6) doesn’t seem tight enough. Aren’t power/control over others logical bases for morally judging others? That is, whether or not any individual is morally culpable for their dangerous criminal behavior, it is still in the interest of the wider society to separate these individuals from the society (e.g., prison sentences). Right?

 

[SPBlitz]

I’ve always found emergence to be a bit hand-wavey. The universe is deterministic, our brains are made up of deterministic particles, but something happens and the brain doesn’t act deterministically. That’s quite a jump in logic.

 

[SPBlitz]

I’d fine tune your conclusion a bit. Many atheists would readily admit that there’s no such thing as morality. I’d argue that, if our brains are truly deterministic, then our beliefs are predetermined. So if naturalism is true, then no one believes it’s true because they see that they have logical grounds to believe it. They believe it is true because the atoms in their brains happened to behave in such a way that the belief would be formed, regardless of if they have grounds or not. And if someone’s going to believe something regardless of if they have grounds, why should we believe them? Why should they believe themselves?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The hole I see in the argument is that they can then claim that determinism makes them act the way they do even if it is unreasonable.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

1. I think Mohanty’s position is not exactly atheistic. If living beings are intrinsically sacred/valuable, aren’t they god-like beings (perhaps more similar to an ancient pagan polytheistic notion of god rather than the christian notion )? I also see some problems in Mohanty’s position. Natural living beings are not absolute, especially because they are bound by space and time, so, if they are sacred/valuable, they should have received their value from something else, wich ultimately has to be absolute, that is, among other things, valuable in itself; so, in an atheistic universe, the existence of wich lacks any ultimate purpouse or meaning, why should anything be sacred/valuable? And if nothing intrinsically valuable exists, isn’t the very concept of morality meaningless?
   However, the existence of moral properties is irrelevant to my argument. What matters is the ethical consequences of determinism (or any philosophical view that denies free will ).
2. I know that casual indeterminacy is possibile even in an atheistic universe, but casual indeterminacy is not the same as free will, the existence of wich is taken for granted as a necessary basis for moral responsibility since at least the time of Kant.
3. I’m not talking about penal sentences, I’m talking about moral culpability.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Wich explains, but still doesn’t justify, their behaviour. Indeed, it can be used against them, since, if determinism is true, then they’ll be atheists regardless of if atheism is true of false, just because their brain behave in such a way that their belief is formed, whether of not it has any logical ground, wich means they would’t be intellectualy reliable.

 

[GordonP]

if naturalism is true, determinism is true (because natural laws are deterministic ); If determinism is true, no one can really choose what to think or what to do;

Here’s where you fail. Not everyone will grant you this. Including most Catholic philosophers.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Here’s where you fail. Not everyone will grant you this. Including most Catholic philosophers.

Casual indeterminacy is possibile even in an atheistic universe, but it still isn’t the same as free will

 

[Magnanimity]

I think Mohanty’s position is not exactly atheistic. If living beings are intrinsically sacred/valuable, aren’t they god-like beings (perhaps more similar to an ancient pagan polytheistic notion of god rather than the christian notion )?

Hmm, I interpret Mohanty to be claiming something like what a Christian would claim—so he means to say that humans (and all living beings) have intrinsic worth/dignity/value. He uses words like “sacred” and “sanctity,” but I understand him to mean something very similar to what we would mean in these regards.

if they are sacred/valuable, they should have received their value from something else, wich ultimately has to be absolute, that is, among other things, valuable in itself;

Sure, I would agree with this criticism of his position. But even so, Mohanty counts ethical norms, aesthetic norms and the inherent value of living beings to be data of human experience. He knows these things to be true simply by living in the world and experiencing them. He needs no sacred book to confirm these truths any more than Aristotle did. They are data of his human experience. But, I agree with you that if pressed to account for their existence, he’d find it difficult on an atheistic framework. But, in fairness to him, he doesn’t have to give an ontological account of the existence of morality in order to know there are moral norms. He knows there are moral norms just from the experience living out a human life in the world.

However, the existence of moral properties is irrelevant to my argument.

You said, “if atheism is true, there’s no spiritual…reality.” So, how would you understand moral norms, aesthetic norms and sanctity of life norms? These are not “spiritual” realities? Could they be said to be “physical” realities? In what way? If not physical or spiritual, then what types of realities are they? As in, if an atheist can grant the existence of these realities (whatever their natures are), then the strict physicalist determinism you’re trying to corner them into seems undermined. They simply don’t have to grant this worldview.

I’m not talking about penal sentences, I’m talking about moral culpability

I understand. But criminal indictments, convictions and ensuing sentences are examples of “morally judging” others. It’s just that representatives of the State (or “the people”) are the ones doing the moral judging. My point was to simply state that it doesn’t much matter how much culpability we want to ascribe to a criminal—that person can still be morally judged and separated from society.
Again, power/control over others for the sake of keeping the masses safe are logical bases for morally judging. Don’t you think?

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Sure, I would agree with this criticism of his position. But even so, Mohanty counts ethical norms, aesthetic norms and the inherent value of living beings to be data of human experience. He knows these things to be true simply by living in the world and experiencing them. He needs no sacred book to confirm these truths any more than Aristotle did. They are data of his human experience. But, I agree with you that if pressed to account for their existence, he’d find it difficult on an atheistic framework. But, in fairness to him, he doesn’t have to give an ontological account of the existence of morality in order to know there are moral norms. He knows there are moral norms just from the experience living out a human life in the world.

That’s the atheists’ problem: even if they recognize the existence of moral norms as an objective fact, they can’t account for their existence, given their worldview.

You said, “if atheism is true, there’s no spiritual…reality.” So, how would you understand moral norms, aesthetic norms and sanctity of life norms? These are not “spiritual” realities? Could they be said to be “physical” realities? In what way? If not physical or spiritual, then what types of realities are they? As in, if an atheist can grant the existence of these realities (whatever their natures are), then the strict physicalist determinism you’re trying to corner them into seems undermined. They simply don’t have to grant this worldview.

As I said before, atheists can’t account for the existence of objective moral norms, given their worldview, even if they believe it. So, unless atheists can provide a basis for objective morality in their worldview, they are inconsistent.

I understand. But criminal indictments, convictions and ensuing sentences are examples of “morally judging” others. It’s just that representatives of the State (or “the people”) are the ones doing the moral judging. My point was to simply state that it doesn’t much matter how much culpability we want to ascribe to a criminal—that person can still be morally judged and separated from society.
Again, power/control over others for the sake of keeping the masses safe are logical bases for morally judging. Don’t you think?

Yes, a legal process is both a penal and a moral judgment. But one thing is to prescribe a penal sanction to someone in order to keep the majority of people safe, another thing is to establish how much moral responsibility someone has for his actions.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Hmm, I interpret Mohanty to be claiming something like what a Christian would claim—so he means to say that humans (and all living beings) have intrinsic worth/dignity/value. He uses words like “sacred” and “sanctity,” but I understand him to mean something very similar to what we would mean in these regards.

If living beings have an intrinsic value, wich non-living beings have not (and, as long as we know, there is no “middle condition” between living beings and non-living beings, and thus the law of the excluded middle applies ), doesn’t this make them superior - even supreme - beings, and thus god-like beings, similar to the ancient pagan gods of greek of northern mithology, just less powerful?

 

[Magnanimity]

So, unless atheists can provide a basis for objective morality in their worldview, they are inconsistent.

Well, I would grant that you have a more complete picture of reality, at any rate. Anyone who has the God of St Thomas Aquinas (ipsum esse subsistens) on their side has a much fuller account of things than really anyone else. I’m not sure this pushes them into inconsistency, but it’s definitely an incomplete (inadequate?) picture of reality that the atheist is working with.

But one thing is to prescribe a penal sanction to someone in order to keep the majority of people safe, another thing is to establish how much moral responsibility someone has for his action

It’s a good point you make here, at least in terms of having a more holistic picture of reality. But the cash-value of this point may be low. As in, as long as the atheist is safe because the dangerous criminal has been separated from society, does she really care whether or not that criminal had free will and is therefore culpable? She just wants him away from her and her loved ones.

 

[Magnanimity]

If living beings have an intrinsic value, wich non-living beings have not (and, as long as we know, there is no “middle condition” between living beings and non-living beings, and thus the law of the excluded middle applies ), doesn’t this make them superior - even supreme - beings, and thus god-like beings, similar to the ancient pagan gods of greek of northern mithology, just less powerful?

For me it does, but I agree with the medieval “great chain of being” philosophy wherein higher order creatures are of more intrinsic worth than lower order creatures.

For Mohanty, he could argue that all living beings are equally sacred and therefore deserving of respect, protection, honor, etc.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Well, I would grant that you have a more complete picture of reality, at any rate. Anyone who has the God of St Thomas Aquinas ( ipsum esse subsistens ) on their side has a much fuller account of things than really anyone else. I’m not sure this pushes them into inconsistency, but it’s definitely an incomplete (inadequate?) picture of reality that the atheist is working with.

That’s what I love the most about Christian (and especially Catholic - since this argument can also work against Calvinists and generally anyone who holds a philosophical view that denies free will ) philosophy and theology: it gives the most complete explanation of reality that man can have.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

For me it does, but I agree with the medieval “great chain of being” philosophy wherein higher order creatures are of more intrinsic worth than lower order creatures.

For Mohanty, he could argue that all living beings are equally sacred and therefore deserving of respect, protection, honor, etc.

You’re right that some creatures have more value than others in God’s plan of creation (any man is more valuable than any bird, for example, as Jesus himself puts it in the Gospel ). But, eventually, the intrinsic importance of all of them is due to them being part of God’s creation.

 

[IWantGod]

• if atheism is true, there’s no spiritual/supernatural reality;

This is true, logically speaking, but it needs further clarification. It’s not impossible for an atheist not to believe in God but also believe in some kind of reality that transcends physical definitions.

• if there’s no spiritual/supernatural reality, naturalism is true;

This is correct.

• if naturalism is true, determinism is true (because natural laws are deterministic );

This follows necessarily. But this needs further clarification. Not all physical outcomes are deterministic. It would be better to say that every physical event is the result of blind natural processes, because there are only natural processes in existence. There are no purpose driven events.

• if determinism is true, no one can really choose what to think or what to do;

Again, forget determinism. If naturalism is true, there are no goal directed or purpose driven events. There is no teleology in nature, and thus it is meaningless that some thing is choosing or thinking or willing anything. Things are just happening.

• if no one can really choose what to think or what to do, no one can be reasonably blamed for his beliefs and actions;

Correct.

*if no one can be reasonably blamed for his beliefs and actions, no one has any logical basis at all for morally judging anyone.

True. And neither does anything have the capacity to reason and know that some idea is logical, since that would require a goal directed “will” to reason to a logical end, without which there can be no knowledge of that end or a way to determine the reasonableness of a proposition or idea.

 

[BartholomewB]

That’s the atheists’ problem: even if they recognize the existence of moral norms as an objective fact, they can’t account for their existence, given their worldview.

Try telling that to an atheist!