Kenneth Hensley's talk with the author of Godless Delusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bobber90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bobber90

Guest
Hi all,

I caught this show and was engaged with the idea that atheist notions accidentally presuppose God, just as a scientist claiming gravity did not exist would presuppose gravity when he assumed he could walk from a to b without floating off the ground.

However, when it came to talking about the main areas in which these presuppositions are demonstrated, I do not think that God is actually required. I think we can adequately describe our experience of life atheistically, if you will. To put it another way, how can we say authoritatively that relativism and subjectivism are false, and shown to be false in everyday life?

For example, we all observe moral language, moral feelings, moral actions - but we never see anything that makes moral right or wrong certainly a real, objective thing. I would say moral objectivity is not necessary to the functioning of morality as we know it. Murder is wrong to us in our culture because it is horrible and disgusting (subjectively); we wouldn’t want to suffer it (empathy); and we fear it. We hope that everyone else agrees, and we condemn it. When it happens we punish the perpetrator. All of this is commonplace stuff, but I think it describes the reality of moral experience, in its totality. Where is God presupposed? I would say that claiming God as the source of the reason we condemn bad acts is a way to bolster our subjective opposition to them. At least, it is logically and empirically possible to claim this from an atheistic perspective.

Claiming that morality is just consensus is not morally wrong and subversive either, nor does it make us somehow too cynical and dangerous. Consensus, emotion and empathy are real; our shared culture is real. To break a cultural/subjective rule is no light thing, just because it is not objectively existent.

So I would put the issue back to the faithful, and ask how anyone can argue from any perspective whatsoever that there is an objective set of morals, and that this, rather than evolved, cultural and subjective factors best describes the morality that we live in?

Thanks for your thoughts.
 
Correction - Kenneth Hensley is one of the authors of The Godless Delusion, I don’t know the presenter’s name. He wasn’t talking to himself about his book…
 
thanks! I’ll have a look. Does it dig into the meat of the issue?
 
It may.

I’m not agnostic and never have been so it’s difficult for me to judge whether or not the video will be of help to you.
 
Well we can add a few other contentious issues as well as morality, but I don’t think there is anything in that discussion which confirms that the morality we experience is definitely objective morality. The Godless Delusion sets out to show that atheism is self-contradictory, or unable to stand on its own feet, but actually the points to support this seem inadequate.

‘The ethics of atheism always lead to the gates of auschwitz’ one author claims, in order to show that we cannot talk both morally and atheistically. However, we can say subjectively that killing and bigotry are wrong - with the Holocaust being related to this in the extreme. I don’t think real life bears out the notion that when we say killing is wrong, we grasp something objective. What does it mean? It means that we hate, fear and are disgusted by something, and don’t want it to happen. What extra thing would be present in real life if morality was objective? If anything, we would never have moral disagreements and morality would be totally uncontentious. The opposite is true, I think, which supports the idea that morality is subjective.
 
What are your views concerning the Person of Christ?

In your opinion, did He exist and was He God?
 
I think Jesus did exist, but I find it very difficult to believe that He was the Son of God. In any case, the Godless Delusion aims to show that life as we live it cannot be understood logically from the perspective of atheism. I think that is untrue, so I find it a poor or, at worst, insincere lead into theism.
 
Bobber90 said:
I think Jesus did exist, but I find it very difficult to believe that He was the Son of God. In any case, the Godless Delusion aims to show that life as we live it cannot be understood logically from the perspective of atheism. I think that is untrue, so I find it a poor or, at worst, insincere lead into theism.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the various programs available now, where astronomers explain how intricately designed our universe is - in order that intelligent life can be supported here.

The physical constants that apply are quite magnificent. Very fine tuned for life to exist here.
 
Barbkw said:
Have you seen the various programs available now, where astronomers explain how intricately designed our universe is - in order that intelligent life can be supported here.

The physical constants that apply are quite magnificent. Very fine tuned for life to exist here.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the fineness of the tolerances, but even with that the sun will expand and consume the earth, an asteroid will hit us and vaporize the oceans, viruses will out-evolve our defenses, or a dozen other things will make earth uninhabitable for us! As with the issue of morality, I think it is clear that the present state of humanity can be understood with or without a God.
 
Bobber90 said:
I appreciate the fineness of the tolerances, but even with that the sun will expand and consume the earth, an asteroid will hit us and vaporize the oceans, viruses will out-evolve our defenses, or a dozen other things will make earth uninhabitable for us! As with the issue of morality, I think it is clear that the present state of humanity can be understood with or without a God.
Click to expand...
Entropy is not a suitable reason to reject the existence of God. In fact, it indicates the existence of a Higher Power.

Astronomers know that in order for Earth like planets to exist, a universe must contain an enormous protective planet like Jupiter to survive.
 
Bobber90 said:
As with the issue of morality, I think it is clear that the present state of humanity can be understood with or without a God.
Click to expand...
Morality has many variables. From evil to holy, and multiple layers in between. If you wish to live in an evil morality that can be created.

If you wish to live otherwise, that also can be created.

In that “Bookmark” video the author talked about how society can be negatively changed through osmosis.

This happened full scale to many of us during the '60s. It continues today.

Abortion has killed over 50 million children in the womb and our government sanctions those killings. It is an on going human holocaust.
 
We can understand abortion in Christian and non-Christian ethics though, and I think Christopher Hitchens has offered arguments on the immorality of abortion based on evidence of the developmental states of the fetus. The real question is whether we can deduce that morality is an objective matter, and how. I think that deduction is impossible, although I may be wrong.
 
Bobber90 said:
Claiming that morality is just consensus is not morally wrong and subversive either, nor does it make us somehow too cynical and dangerous. Consensus, emotion and empathy are real; our shared culture is real. To break a cultural/subjective rule is no light thing, just because it is not objectively existent.
Click to expand...
There was a lot in your argument, but I’m just going to hone in on the above point.

If morality is nothing more than consensus, what happens when the consensus changes? What happens when a group of people suddenly decide that what they once thought was moral is no longer moral? What then of “morality”? Some may chide me for using this example, but it proves my point: In the 1930s and 1940s, Nazi Germany turned into a regime whereby the mass population of Germans assented, either silently or deliberately, to the systematic devaluing, dehumanization, torture, and killing of millions of Jews. If the people of Germany were so easily swayed by the demagogue that was Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, what prevents anyone in modern society from doing the same?

Consider:

Definitions:
  • Morality: (from Mirriam-Webster Dictionary) 2a: “system of moral conduct” which is either objective (existing outside of anyone’s opinions, thoughts, or feelings), or subjective (subject to human thoughts, feelings, or opinions); it cannot be both objective and subjective (obviously).
  • Common consensus: the ability of a group of people to generally agree on something, in this case, a morality or “system of moral conduct”
Assumptions:
  • Assumption 1: In order for a society to function, people have to agree to a “system of moral conduct”, which you stated as “common consensus”. I’m sure 99.9% of people would agree with this, and so would you.
  • Assumption 2: In order for the “common consensus” to work, it must generally remain the same for a relatively long period of time. Example: The U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest forms of these consensuses. A group of people and states came together to form a new nation, consenting to a set of governing rules and laws (“We the people…”). Despite being in effect for over 200 years, it has only been amended 27 times (and the first 10 were put in right after it was ratified to ensure equal rights to everyone: more common consensus"). So, in reality, it has only been changed 17 times in over 200 years. Pretty regular, wouldn’t you say?
  • Assumption 3: The “common consensus” can contain morals which are objective or subjective, but not both.
From here, the argument is rather clear.
  • Argument 1: If the morality contained in a common consensus is subjective (assumption 3), meaning, subject to the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of people, then morality is subject to change, since people’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions change.
  • Argument 2: Sometimes this change can be quite radical and quick (see: example of Nazi Germany above, plus countless examples of revolutions, coups, and genocides)
  • Argument 3: If the common consensus morality changes quickly, then it cannot work (assumption 2).
  • Argument 4: If the common consensus cannot work, then society cannot work (assumption 1).
  • Argument 5: Therefore, the only way for a common consensus, and therefore society, to work, is to contain objective morals, those that exist outside of people’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions.
Now, granted, I’m not saying that every common consensus morality that is objective is going to actually conform to those morals which are objectively right. I am simply making the argument that in order for a common consensus morality to work, it must acknowledge, or be built on the concept of objectivity, that is, it must assume that morals are objective.

Wow, that was alot! If I messed up anywhere in my argument, or you have an objections, or if someone would like to add something to my argument, feel free to! 😃
 
History is full of people & groups who have felt “moral” in their actions so long as they’ve continued to view themselves from inside their own “fish bowl” world.

The president of Iran, has this difficulty. Even to the point of denying that Nazi Germany killed 10 million people.
 
Have you read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. Here’s a quote germaine to the topic…perhaps it will pique your interest:

"Human beings, after all, have some sense; they see that you cannot have real safety or happiness except in a society where every one plays fair, and it is because they see this that they try to behave decently. Now, of course, it is perfectly true that safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes, and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other. It is one of the most important truths in the world. But as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong it just misses the point If we ask: “Why ought I to be unselfish?” and you reply “Because it is good for society,” we may then ask, “Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?” and then you will have to
say, “Because you ought to be unselfish”-which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true, but you are not getting any further. If a man asked what was the point of playing football, it would not be much good saying “in order to score goals,” for trying to score goals is the game itself, not the reason for the game, and you would really only be saying that football was football-which is true, but not worth saying. In the same way, if a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, “in order to benefit society,” for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for “society” after all only means “other people”), is one of the things decent behaviour consists in; all you are really saying is that decent behaviour is decent behaviour. You would have said just as much if you had stopped at the statement, “Men ought to be unselfish.”
 
Thanks for the long post Catholic Trekkie, it deserves more consideration than I can give it right now, but I will say one thing that springs to mind.

If we look at our experience of life and roughly agree that morality is a collection of things evidenced in feelings of guilt, empathy, conscience etc, and agree that it is related to suffering or damage, then would it necessarily matter to the concept of morality if morals changed over time or between cultures? I say that with reference to the view that an immoral act in one culture does not depend upon its definition or classification in another, but upon whether it is harmful/hateful/horrible within that culture and to those people’s subjectivity.

I think the Nazis would have agreed that persecuting people like they did is wrong, but they didn’t notice that so much because they were the ones doing it. I think many of them were moral people (as against being amoral, without notions of empathy, the suffering of others, etc), but they were willfully ignorant about the nature of the people they scapegoated as the enemy, contributing to the immorality of their actions.

If we take the principles to another context, we can see that there is nothing intrinsically self-contradictory or absurd about this notion of morality. The picture we get of the human condition seems accurate, though potentially rather sad. Imagine two groups who live together - one group who is composed of people who genuinely feel rather hurt by the activities of another group. The second group profits by these activities, and consists of people who are not harmed in the process, but who would be rather harmed if they stopped. To be crude, we could say that group 1 are Pro-life, and group 2 are female rape victims. If we are group 1, it is right for us that group 2 abates, and if we are group 2, it is right that group 1 takes no action against us. In that context, would we expect the other to give up their categorisation of our desires as wrong? If we understood that the other was genuinely hurt by our desires, could we say anything else but that they were responding morally?

The Nazi case seems starkly different, in at least the respect that the ‘harm’ felt was insincere and the response massively out of proportion.

All things considered, doesn’t this make relative/subjective morality comprehensible and acceptable, even in the face of cultural difference?
 
Morality is whatever you or a group wishes it to be - until someone or another group with another idea - comes along and is either more forceful or more persuasive and they change the status quo.

If there is no standard of truth developed from an eternal wisdom, morality will change across each generation - blown along by each person’s wants, desires and needs.
 
CatholicTrekkie said:
Definitions:
  • Morality: (from Mirriam-Webster Dictionary) 2a: “system of moral conduct” which is either objective (existing outside of anyone’s opinions, thoughts, or feelings), or subjective (subject to human thoughts, feelings, or opinions); it cannot be both objective and subjective (obviously).
Click to expand...
Still going through, but noticed this point (which gets to the heart of something) and couldn’t help jumping in.

Morality cannot be both objective and subjective, it says. Contrast that with the notion in Mere Christianity that there is a universal moral sense that man ought to be unselfish. I think that theistic discussions of morality often seem to treat objective morality as if it were subjectively obvious, or subjectively supported in everyday life, whereas I think there is much more of a divide between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ morality. We also have to watch the ways that the words appear to intersect in morality, but in fact treat different aspects. It is plausible, but not necessarily the Christian way, that objective moral rules contain within them clauses about the need to pay attention to the subjective feelings of others. That would seem to combine the objective and subjective.

I have a different way of thinking about this. Yes I do almost ‘presuppose’ the universality of the basis of morality, as C. S. Lewis talks about it, but I see it more as an inert fact of life and social engagements. I see no reason why we would have to rationally or objectively defend the idea that behaving unselfishly is good. My view is not that this value is necessarily anchored by a deity, but by the need for societal survival; it a mechanism produced through evolution. At least, it could be seen that way, and atheism doesn’t collapse into absurdity?
 
Isn’t atheism - at its base - a disbelief in a good and holy God who provides for His family?

All good human fathers sent rules for the conduct of each member and they sent the morality of their group.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top