Here's some passages I plucked out that I found interesting:
No one - or no one I know - thinks that atheists can behave [morally]. Atheists can love their spouses, care for the poor, desire world peace, and enjoy long walks on the beach. Atheists can behave in accord with traditional moral standards, regardless of whether naturalism can ground these standards. We've all seen it done. The real question is whether naturalism can support or account for the moral standards themselves.
We have such a powerful sense of objective right and wrong that we often can't imagine alternatives....And therefore many people - philosophers included - mistake the strength and universality of our moral beliefs for an argument that these beliefs are true. Atheist philosopher Kai Neilsen claims that morality needs not be justified by religion. Why does he think this? He explains:
"Torturing human beings is vile; exploiting and degrading human beings is through and through evil; cruelty to human beings and animals is, morally speaking, unacceptable; and treating one's promises lightly or being careless about the truth is wrong. If we know anything to be wrong we know these things to be wrong and they would be wrong and just as wrong in a Godless world and in a world in which personal annihilation is inevitable as in a world with God and in which there is eternal life."
[Yes, but to say that] "we all know these things are wrong, and that they would be wrong even if there were no God, is to beg the question. After all, this is what we're questioning. At this point...this is a conclusion that must be argued for, not merely restated." In other words, if we grant that we all know these things are wrong, we have to ask what makes them wrong. That's the goal.Stokes goes on to show how Hume - the great skeptic - concluded that morals are subjective, but they feel like they are not. Yet - according to Hume - this should not be disconcerting because even though morals are subjective, we feel and act as if they are not. That is they seem objective and humans act accordingly. We get the authority of objective morals without having to admit that we are beholden to a supernatural law giver. Most naturalist do not follow Hume to this conclusion that there is nothing more to morals than the strength of our convictions, but if that is the case, what is the naturalists justification for our morals? If they are to hold to their sober skepticism, they'll need to base morals on something more than strong feelings.
For help. let's turn to Darwin.
> "Torturing human beings is vile; exploiting and degrading human beings is through and through evil; cruelty to human beings and animals is, morally speaking, unacceptable; and treating one's promises lightly or being careless about the truth is wrong.
ReplyDeleteOld lawyer's adage: "When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, bang on the table."
Atheist philosopher Kai Neilsen is banging on the table.
> Stokes goes on to show how Hume - the great skeptic - concluded that morals are subjective, but they feel like they are not. Yet - according to Hume - this should not be disconcerting because even though morals are subjective, we feel and act as if they are not."
"We feel and act as if they are not." Congratulations, David Hume. You've just given everybody a rational argument in favor of sociopathy and psychopathy.
Someone who really believes this, from a rational perspective, should never allow subjective whims of morality get in the way of doing whatever it is that makes him happy.
He might feel guilty, but getting over guilt just takes practice. The guilt is irrational.
When you left that gorgeous young thing with a baby, and disappear into the crowd, well, her fault for having a nice body and believing in your lies. You did her a favor; she's sadder but wiser.
When you cheated on exams to get into med school, well, it worked, didn't it? Now you're a doctor, making half a mil every year. Sorry about the dude who didn't get in because you inched him out, but what're you gonna do? Nobody ever needs to know, and whee! You're gonna be rich helping people. Because that's what it's all about, isn't it? Helping people?
The purpose of morality is to control other people. But that crap won't work on me. I'll use it to twist people's minds, but it's a sucker's game and I'm no sucker.
Sincerity is your greatest weapon, and once you can fake that, you've got it made.
Rationally speaking, That's where unbelief would lead us. Lord help us.