God and Morality: Separate Issues

[Ryft]

You're harping on a point already conceded and corrected.

It is almost embarrassing that I have to explain something so blatantly obvious, but this utter falsehood DeistPaladin is trying to hide behind requires it, for he did not concede or correct anything. (Those of you who already agree may skip past this part. Also, I have provided links to the posts in question so that anyone can easily verify the cited material.)

I had asked him (Msg. 11) to cite his sources and show evidentially that any Christian apologists have argued "God is morality." He said (Msg.12) that he got it from a YouTube vidiot named Theologica37 with whom he had debates, but then he added, "I'll see if I can dig up some more academic sources." To this I replied (Msg. 24), "Please do, because I have no idea who Theologica37 is and seriously doubt he constitutes what you and I would consider an apologist," and added that with my library I will likely be familiar with whatever academic sources he digs up. DeistPaladin followed that up (Msg. 30) with gratuitous invective describing his dim view of Christian apologists in general (e.g., Habermas, Craig, and McDowell) since, he says, they use logical fallacies, mental sleight of hand, and philosophical terms to spew ancient canned arguments. Please notice that he neither conceded nor corrected anything here.

So I explained (Msg. 32), notwithstanding his own unsolicited attempt at poisoning the well, that I prefer to let the readers draw their own conclusions about "the skill, knowledge, and fallacies exhibited in our conversation" rather than spoon-feeding them such vituperative prejudice like he did. DeistPaladin responded to this (Msg. 33) by trying to justify that it was "hardly unsolicited" because we were "discussing the qualifications of different apologists, amateur and professional"—apparently unaware of what unsolicited means (i.e., he volunteered something nobody requested of him) and that my poisoning-the-well point was left unaffected. (But then we were not discussing qualifications in the first place, either. He mentioned digging up "some more academic sources" so I simply assumed there existed some criteria for what constitutes a Christian apologist as distinguished from a YouTube vidiot. That was an erroneous assumption on my part, apparently, and leaves me wondering how he can dig up "more academic sources" if he cannot tell the difference.) And notice that he still neither conceded nor corrected anything here.

And I ignored that nonsense entirely, of course, and our conversation carried on. But then I did finally wish to remind him (Msg. 49) that he had said he was going to "dig up some more academic sources" that showed Christian apologists making the argument that "God is morality," that I had not forgotten and was still waiting for them; it had been a few days and I thought surely by now he should have something. Again, in the very same post he referenced the YouTube vidiot he said, "I'll see if I can dig up some more academic sources." Nowhere and at no time had DeistPaladin ever conceded or corrected anything. At no point did he concede that he has never read an academic source from Christian apologists making that argument, nor did he correct it with what he has read from those academic sources. What he conceded to was the points I had been making and what he corrected it with was the Christian meta-ethic that I had described. Ergo, not a single thing was said or done about those academic sources he said he would cite from, as I had requested. So I simply reminded him about the matter because I want to know what those sources said; that is, I want people to be absolutely clear about where he got the argument "God is morality" from—or more importantly, where he did NOT get it from.

DeistPaladin can accuse me of lies and logical fallacies all he likes (as I am one of those amateur Christian apologists) but neither logic nor evidence will come to his support. And the fact that he can accuse me of being insecure in my own position is absolutely laughable to the people here who know me.

God has made no such commands.

I said that morality is grounded in the very nature of God and revealed prescriptively in his commands. When DeistPaladin indicated he would change Option #3 to reflect this Christian meta-ethic I have been describing, I reminded him to include that prescriptive will of God because that is a vital component of it. Thus it should read succinctly, "Morality is grounded in the very nature and will of God." And how does DeistPaladin respond to this? "God has made no such commands," he asserts—and that's it. Just an assertion, as if my point should crumple under the weight of mere ipse dixit. That may work in discourse where brains are supposed to be checked at the door, like the cess pool of YouTube vidiocy, but it utterly fails in the arena of reason and skepticism. So what he asserts without reason I summarily dismiss without reason, leaving my point untouched.

And it simply does not matter what he means when he says "God" as a Deist, because he has been offering a critique of the arguments made by Christian apologists regarding meta-ethics. In other words, it matters what THEY mean when they say God. Remember, he not only referenced Christians in his opening post but he has also spilled a lot of ink (so to speak) about Christian apologists throughout this discussion with me (and Stempy). If he wants to critique arguments that Christian apologists do not make or if he wants to describe his own Deist views, so be it—but that leaves the Christian position untouched, which does not bother me at all. When he is finally finished quixotically tilting at windmills, perhaps he can try lancing holes in what Christianity argues. And there is no need to use the term "Yahweh" when discussing things with me; most people here know that the God of the Bible is the ONLY thing I ever mean when I say "God." DeistPaladin needs to give the members here a little more credit; I doubt any of them get confused when I say God. (For the record, I do not care if he wants to use the term Yahweh, but I will continue to use the word God because I know the members reading this are not stupid.)

If you wish to speak of the Christian God specifically, you can explain how your source of morality can endorse rape, genocide and the keeping of slaves.

For some reason that I cannot quite put my finger on, DeistPaladin simply does not understand how that is a categorical error and thus a fallacy. No matter how often I might stress the point that this discussion involves the category of meta-ethics (what morality is), he persistently attempts to engage the issue on the level of ethics (what is moral). I can only hope that the reader understands that one cannot discuss the latter without allowing the former to establish the context; in other words, it is impossible to discuss what is moral and immoral without assuming arguendo a specific meta-ethic to define what those are. Is rape wrong? Is genocide and human trafficking wrong? Let us answer with a "yes" so we can proceed to what naturally follows: "According to... ?" If the answer to that question is anything OTHER than God, then a non-Christian meta-ethic is being employed and begging the very question (which is meta-ethics). And that is fine, of course, but begging the question leaves the Christian meta-ethic untouched. If after all is said and done DeistPaladin has left the Christian position untouched, what has he really accomplished? I do not mind if he knocks down every proposed theory of meta-ethics out there if, in the end, the one I actually stand upon was left alone. I shall make popcorn and watch him.

Let's go to the tape again ...

Could anyone else out there successfully explain to DeistPaladin that identifying an argument is not the same as making the argument?

And you still haven't explained how I was begging the question.

Although I have explained in various ways how he begged the question, each time a little more specifically until I was being incredibly precise, he still wishes to stand there and pretend that I have not. There is nothing more I can do. You can lead a man to reason but you cannot make him think. It simply does not matter what his position is, nor why he accepts it, because that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether the Christian position stands or falls. To think it does is to commit that fallacy. If all he is doing is sharing with myself and others what his position happens to be, then that is fine—and irrelevant beyond getting to know him better. It has no bearing on the Christian view I have identified.

If my views are wrong, I'm inviting you to correct them with reasoned, well-supported counter-arguments. Pompous, dismissive hand-waving is not a substitute.

Well he is right about that—it is not a substitute. It is an alternative. I have no interest in exploring his views so I simply dismiss them. He is supposing to attack the Christian argument for meta-ethics (which the first two options are not, and the third one misrepresented); that is what I am interested in engaging, knocking aside the brainfarted twaddle poorly masquarading as intelligent criticisms of it, showing that it has been left unscathed so far.

It is interesting though, isn't it? He calls for "reasoned, well-supported counter arguments" in favour of "pompous, dismissive hand-waving"—

—but says things like "not the spoiled, tantrum-throwing, blood-thirsty, genocidal, emotionally-unstable, brutal, scientifically-ignorant, narcissist found in your ancient superstitious badly-written rabbinic scribblings that you call a God."

Compare that to the nature of my posts to him and, well, draw your own conclusions, as always.

---

---

Would the sentence "Christmas cheer is grounded in the nature and will of Santa" at least not tell us Santa has a sunny disposition?

Certainly. But that is not analogous. We are not grounding this or that moral good in God so much as morality in and of itself, the very thing by which we understand moral terms in the first place. In order to say that this or that moral good tells us something about God we have to know what a 'moral good' is and means—which is meta-ethical information. Is compassion a moral good? According to what or who? If not God, then we are not dealing with the Christian meta-ethic and cannot reliably ascertain anything about God. In order for something ethical to inform us about God, we have to know what is ethical. In order to know what is ethical we have to have a meta-ethic. So then what happens when meta-ethics is grounded in God?

What happens is that moral statements don't tell us about God, but rather that God tells us about moral statements. That means to understand morality rightly we must first understand God rightly. Ergo, the statement "morality is grounded in the very nature and will of God" says something about morality, and nothing about God. This is internal logical consistency at work.

If you want to go for these arguments, then feel free to demonstrate the existence of objective moral values (which must be present if God is the source, locus, etc. of morality) and a rough sketch of the method of transmission into the universe.

You want me to write an entire book, here on Atheist Forums? How about scaling things back just a tad and being more realistic. Look at how people, yourself included, select this and that statement of mine to respond or object to it (which is simply how forums operate). Now multiply that by a book-length factor and imagine what we would end up with. If you want a book-length treatment like that, then I will be happy to recommend some to you. If you want to discuss this issue with me, then take more realistic bite sizes.

Would you not claim God is good—omnibenevolent or maximally good? Or would you claim something else? If something else, how can this entity be a source [of morality]?

What I claim is that God is eternally and immutably consistent in his nature, whose attributes include holiness, justice, mercy, patience, etc. In Christian theology, to say that God is omnibenevolent is to say that he does not possess any malevolence. That is not something we conclude morally about God—that would be viciously circular reasoning—that is something God tells us about himself, who is the ground of moral order. Under Christian meta-ethics, moral terms do not indicate ontological properties but relational properties; something is a moral good insofar as it conforms to the nature and will of God, and something is a moral evil insofar as it fails to do so. (This is why it is impossible for God to be evil; it is a meaningless contradiction to suggest that the nature or will of God could fail to conform to the nature and will of God—that is, A cannot be ~A at the same time and in the same respect.)

Perhaps you should offer your syllogistic reasoning and supporting arguments so we can understand your position better?

(1) If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
(2) Morality exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

The argument itself is a valid modus tollens. The soundness of the first premise is defended logically using a TAG form of reasoning; namely, that morality neither obtains nor is intelligible under anything other than biblical presuppositions (as necessary for any conclusion to be reached whatsoever).

How do you get from the morality arguments presented by Christian apologists to [God] without speculation? An axiomatic presupposition in a field like science would be something like existence exists. In theology it would seem that it is the book you happen to read?

The latter half of your comment answered the first half; God as revealed in Scripture is the axiomatic presupposition upon which everything else is built, and he is argued as the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of anything, including morality (e.g., metaphysics, epistemology, etc.).