RE: God and Morality: Separate Issues
January 15, 2011 at 2:04 am
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2011 at 6:46 am by Captain Scarlet.)
Whatever version of Option 3 or 4 you want to put forward, there are some real big holes:
1) what does it mean to be "good by nature". I ,for example, am human by nature based on my genetic heritage, but not good bad or anything else; which are emergent properties and are clearly subjective based on the observer.
2) anyone going in for this argument owes a rough sketch of the method of transmitting "goodness" into the universe. Is it an incantation, radiation, instantiation at t0 of the universe.
3) the ontological arguments put forward by apologists for the existence of a god are not convincing, mostly becuase no-one has demonstrated the existence of objective moral values.
4) Even if the argument was to be carried you then have the problem of which god, as a culmulative case cannot be made, there could be a god of morality, a god of creation, a god of design, a Jesus, a god of prayers etc.
5) You can equally argue that god is all evil, is evil by nature, is the locus of evil values, is the source of evil, wills us to do evil (but freely allows us to do good) etc. It better explains the god of the OT and the problem of evil if you are set on convincing people of the Abrahmaic religions.
I have never heard a convincing and thorough answer on these points leaving it (for me at least) a very weak argument. Where does it leave the theist going in for this type of argument - nowhere. The atheist can merely point to the evolution of natural ethical systems and appeal to occams razer.
1) what does it mean to be "good by nature". I ,for example, am human by nature based on my genetic heritage, but not good bad or anything else; which are emergent properties and are clearly subjective based on the observer.
2) anyone going in for this argument owes a rough sketch of the method of transmitting "goodness" into the universe. Is it an incantation, radiation, instantiation at t0 of the universe.
3) the ontological arguments put forward by apologists for the existence of a god are not convincing, mostly becuase no-one has demonstrated the existence of objective moral values.
4) Even if the argument was to be carried you then have the problem of which god, as a culmulative case cannot be made, there could be a god of morality, a god of creation, a god of design, a Jesus, a god of prayers etc.
5) You can equally argue that god is all evil, is evil by nature, is the locus of evil values, is the source of evil, wills us to do evil (but freely allows us to do good) etc. It better explains the god of the OT and the problem of evil if you are set on convincing people of the Abrahmaic religions.
I have never heard a convincing and thorough answer on these points leaving it (for me at least) a very weak argument. Where does it leave the theist going in for this type of argument - nowhere. The atheist can merely point to the evolution of natural ethical systems and appeal to occams razer.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
