Watch the Richard Dawkins v. John Lennox debate

[articulett]

How about we just assume that anybody who is getting messages from invisible entities is delusional? That seems the best premise to go on to me. Secular laws don't count to people who imagine they are answering to a higher authority.

That is the logical thing to do--no special rights for people because of what they believe-- no tax breaks, no worship, no praise, no freedom from scrutiny. If you want a tax break--prove efficacy... prove public good the way other non-profit organizations have to. To me, all those claiming divine knowledge are equally delusional--no matter what divine knowledge they believe in... They are all equally delusional and equally responsible for the idiotic idea that faith can lead to any useful or true knowledge.

Religion should have the privileges of astrology or rain dancing or any other superstition--

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

How do you objectively determine what is good? As near as I can tell, what is "good" can only be evaluated subjectively.

Utilitarianism.

 

[Beth]

Utilitarianism.

That's a subjective criteria.

 

[RandFan]

How do you objectively determine what is good? As near as I can tell, what is "good" can only be evaluated subjectively.

Me: Do you like it when I stick you with this hot poker?
You: Owwww..... hell no! ****, don't do that.

Me: I don't like it either..
You: No kidding, that really hurts.

Me: Ok, so would you accept as a premise that you and I don't like to be stuck with a hot poker.
You: Yes.

Me: Would you then accept that it is good for me not to stick you with the hot poker and it is good for you not to stick me with the hot poker?

 

[Beth]

Me: Do you like it when I stick you with this hot poker?
You: Owwww..... hell no! ****, don't do that.

Me: I don't like it either..
You: No kidding, that really hurts.

Me: Ok, so would you accept as a premise that you and I don't like to be stuck with a hot poker.
You: Yes.

Me: Would you then accept that it is good for me not to stick you with the hot poker and it is good for you not to stick me with the hot poker?

Sure, but that's still a subjective judgement. It's just one we happen to be agreement on. It's not the only opinion that people might have.


Sadist: Do you like it when I stick you with this hot poker?
Masochist: Yes, yes, yes. Oh god. Yes!

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

That's a subjective criteria.

It's actually a non-sequitur. It should be obvious from the exchange that both Egg and myself are operating under the idea of objective morality, since we both agree that extremist religion is bad.

ETA: Also, the claim that all ethics are subjective is itself a subjective claim.

 

[RandFan]

Sure, but that's still a subjective judgment. It's just one we happen to be agreement on. It's not the only opinion that people might have.

You are missing the point. We can objectively look at any number of premises. To simply state that it is purely subjective is misleading. We can look at probability distribution to formulate morals.

If you don't like to be stuck with a hot poker and I don't like to be stuck with a hot poker then it is reasonable based on the premises that it is good that you and I not be stuck with a hot poker.

I make this point to ward off the notion that morality is entirely arbitrary, subjective or relative. No.

On the other hand it's worthy to note that it's not absolute either but we can objectively analyze a distribution curve and we can, from an evolutionary POV, understand why we as humans, typically, have a sense of morality, have certain predispositions toward morality, what that sense is likely to be and that we are likely to have empathy and a sense of reciprocal altruism (see Dawkins The Selfish Gene and game theory).

Declaring morality to be simply subjective is misleading at best.

 

[articulett]

You're the one who turned to the dictionary first . When an argument is largely based on the meaning of a word, you can't really avoid the discussion turning to semantics.


I accept that "proof" is commonly used to mean "evidence enough to make a confident conclusion", that's still not the same as "evidence". I also said that I accept that "faith" is sometimes used in the way Dawkins suggests.

Actually, listening to Dawkins in the debate, he uses "faith" at various points with at least three different meanings and he's surely knowledgeable enough to be aware of different definitions. When he defines faith in The God Delusion (and in the debate) it's pretty clear he is claiming to be defining religious faith in general.



I don't think it's the criticism of unquestioning belief that is the problem. It's the arguments that Dawkins goes on to make based on his definition of faith. It sort of assumes that, by definition, all religious people (because they all have "faith") are blind, obedient, unquestioning followers and all of them think that such qualities are a good thing and if you defend "faith", that is what you are defending. It's the generalisation (based on his definition) that makes it a straw man.

If someone came to these forums and claimed that "moderate" atheists provided a climate which supported the Communist atrocities, based on a definition of "atheist" as "one who wishes to abolish religion", I don't suppose it would be long before someone levelled "straw man" at them. I don't think it would be much of a defence to find some people who define "atheist" in such a way (probably mostly religious fundies, but you never know) or to point out that some atheists do indeed wish to abolish religion.

Here's where you assume. See the bold? You're welcome. And you are making a straw man while accusing Dawkins of such with your assumption. We all know that not everyone is a blind follower, but to those who really aim to prove their faith to god, the moderates are slackers-- and to the non believers, they are cheerleaders for "faith as a means of knowledge". Religion is the primary institution where people cause immense suffering of others while doing imagined good for an imaginary entity imagined rewards in an imagined eternity.

 

[articulett]

Moreover, you cannot compare the the stuff people don't believe in with the things you do?

When was the last time your disbelief in thetans caused you to pillage? How does your disbelief in fairies affect your behavior. It's, yet another, vapid straw man so that you can hear what you want to hear and imagine that faith makes sense or is good.

You can't hear what Dawkins is actually saying because you are too damn busy "defending faith". Why? What's so great about faith--other than it makes you feel super duper about yourself for being "open" to it.

 

[Beth]

Let's review this conversation:

How do you objectively determine what is good?

Utilitarianism.

That's a subjective criteria.

It's actually a non-sequitur. It should be obvious from the exchange that both Egg and myself are operating under the idea of objective morality, since we both agree that extremist religion is bad.

Actually, no, it's not at all obvious. Just because you agree on something being bad, that doesn't make it an objective morality.

ETA: Also, the claim that all ethics are subjective is itself a subjective claim.

Okay. It's a subjective claim. Do you disagree and feel that some moralities are objective? I know people do, but they generally site something like the Bible or Koran as the 'objective' standard. What is your objective morality based on?

You are missing the point. We can objectively look at any number of premises. To simply state that it is purely subjective is misleading. We can look at probability distribution to formulate morals.

Well, I didn't say it was purely subjective. I just said it was subjective as opposed to objective. Do you disagree?

I make this point to ward off the notion that morality is entirely arbitrary, subjective or relative. No.

I agree with you. I don't think that morality is generally arbitrary. While I do think it is subjective and relative, there are certainly points of consensus among various human societies. Murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. But even then, there are subjective and circumstantial judgement criteria regarding specific instances. For example, murder in self-defense is usually acceptable.

Declaring morality to be simply subjective is misleading at best.

I didn't declare it to be simply subjective. I was objecting to the idea that utilitarism is an objective way to evaluate morality. It isn't.

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

Actually, no, it's not at all obvious. Just because you agree on something being bad, that doesn't make it an objective morality.

I was referring to the exchange between myself and Egg, from which you pulled the quote.

And your disagreement doesn't make it subjective, either.

Okay. It's a subjective claim. Do you disagree and feel that some moralities are objective? I know people do, but they generally site something like the Bible or Koran as the 'objective' standard. What is your objective morality based on?

Pragmatism.

 

[Beth]

I was referring to the exchange between myself and Egg, from which you pulled the quote.

And your disagreement doesn't make it subjective, either.

True enough. It's not my disagreement that makes it subjective.

Pragmatism.

Not what I'd call an objective standard.

 

[RandFan]

What is your objective morality based on?

I think that is the wrong question. A better question would be, is morality a priori. The answer is no.

That said we can use logic, reason and an understanding of neuropsychology, evolutionary psychology and disciplines such as history and philosophy to objectively formulate our ethics.

 

[Beth]

I think that is the wrong question.

DeusPhasmatis is claiming he possesses an objective morality. Thus I don't think I have posed the wrong question to him.

A better question would be, is morality a priori. The answer is no.

That said we can use logic, reason and an understanding of neuropsychology, evolutionary psychology and disciplines such as history and philosophy to objectively formulate our ethics.

All of those things could be used and be useful in bringing some objectivity to our ethics. The same could be applied to humor and music. Still, I think these things remain inherently subjective despite a consensus among humans on certain aspects of those things.

 

[RandFan]

DeusPhasmatis is claiming he possesses an objective morality. Thus I don't think I have posed the wrong question to him.

Yeah, I think you need to take that up with him.

All of those things could be used and be useful in bringing some objectivity to our ethics.

I don't accept your charichterization but that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree.

The same could be applied to humor and music.

There is some value to the comparison but humor and music and very, very different things from morality.

Still, I think these things remain inherently subjective despite a consensus among humans on certain aspects of those things.

I think this grossly mistates what morality is. Apreciation of art is a far cry from an evolved sense of reciprocal altrusism that can be modeled by game theory and has mathmatical predictive power.

You are focused on the wrong thing "objective" as it relates to morality. Doing so doesn't really clarify the subject or advance the discussion.

The question, is morality objective? Is the wrong question. One that I can't answer with a yes or no.

 

[Egg]

It's critical to the OP. Lennox is wrong and Dawkins is right. You are entitled to your beliefs and I'm sorry that these discussions put you in a position to have your beliefs belittled. In all sincerity, I respect you and I promise you that it's not my intent to denigrate your beliefs simply for the purpose of belittling you. If at the end of the day you have trust in something that is without any basis other than your own personal feelings then that is fine. But to state that Lennox is right is a fundamental error. He is not right. Being committed to something that you have a reasonable basis for the commitment (one's wife) is very different from being committed to something that has no such basis. Regardless of what you mean by "faith". It's irrational.

I was once a true believer. One who made the arguments that you are making right now. Mormons don't have a different slant. I'm not confused and have not been from the beginning I assure you. I know you think we are talking past each other but we are not. When I was on my mission I was asked, "what is faith" at least a hundred times and I say that without exaggeration.

Of what value is it to have confidence in something that we don't know whether it exists? There are people that are confident that the number 13 is unlucky. How should we evaluate such world views?

My faith or lack of it have very little bearing on the discussion (unless you want to try for some arti-style ad homs). I didn't really consider that you were belittling my beliefs since I've not really been speaking about them.

Did I state that Lennox is right? About what?

I don't know about the OP, but Lennox's question about having faith in a spouse was in response to Dawkins saying "we only need to use the word faith when there isn't any evidence". He was showing with an example that the word "faith" does not, by definition, necessarily require an absence of evidence. Sure, it's a semantic point, but one worth mentioning if Dawkins was assuming that's what the religious (or even just Lennox) meant by "faith".

From the biblical point of view, the disciples (according to the gospels) had plenty of evidence and yet still had faith. Lennox says he has plenty of evidence, but since he didn't discuss that evidence in this debate, we can't really examine what he believes is his evidence. What we can say is that he believes he has evidence and that his faith is at least in part based on that evidence, and by his definition, he would still call it "faith".

I don't really buy your point that if Lennox had evidence, you would believe it too. There are plenty of things which have some supporting evidence that people disagree over, and there are plenty of things only some people have evidence for that others have not been a party to.

 

[Beth]

Yeah, I think you need to take that up with him.

Er, that was who the question was posed to.

I don't accept your charichterization but that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree.

Indeed. I think I'll leave it at that. We disagree on this matter.

 

[RandFan]

My faith or lack of it have very little bearing on the discussion (unless you want to try for some arti-style ad homs). I didn't really consider that you were belittling my beliefs since I've not really been speaking about them.

Fine. I won't mention it again.

Did I state that Lennox is right? About what?

I think you answer that in the very next paragraph.

I don't know about the OP, but Lennox's question about having faith in a spouse was in response to Dawkins saying "we only need to use the word faith when there isn't any evidence". He was showing with an example that the word "faith" does not, by definition, necessarily require an absence of evidence. Sure, it's a semantic point, but one worth mentioning if Dawkins was assuming that's what the religious (or even just Lennox) meant by "faith".

It's not simply a semantical point, though that is very important to this discussion. It's that the point is used to obscure rather than clarify.

Does god exist? Until this question is answered all other forms of "faith" are superfluous.

From the biblical point of view, the disciples (according to the gospels) had plenty of evidence and yet still had faith.

If we accept as a premise that the disciples had this "faith" then they had something you don't. Evidence that Jesus, like Dawkins' wife, existed. So, what the disciples had is irrelevant to the discussion. And again, it serves more to obscure than clarify. One should ask why god gives the disciples evidence that he won't give the average person but nonetheless expects faith.

What we can say is that he believes he [Lennox] has evidence and that his faith is at least in part based on that evidence, and by his definition, he would still call it "faith".

It is irrelevant. We must first ascertain the existence of god.

When I was a child I was certain that our house was haunted. I slept beneath the kitchen. A popular meeting place for my family. I would at times go to bed before everyone else and I could hear them moving about above my ceiling. One night I awoke and I could hear someone above me and so I scampered upstairs to see who it was. The kitchen was empty and everyone was asleep. Over the years this happened many times and I was able to show other family members. It wasn't until years later that I learned that our heating and cooling ducts ran between the joists of my ceiling and that the heating and cooling caused the joists to expand and contract and they would sound like someone walking on the floor above. I verified that by turning on the heater one day and waited for it to go off and predicted the floor would make the noise after some time and it did.

Now, before I figured out the true source of the noice, I had my evidence of a ghost. I could have had faith in that ghost that it was a kind and gentle ghost who meant me no harm but that faith was nonsensical given that I didn't really know if the ghost existed.

I don't really buy your point that if Lennox had evidence, you would believe it too.

If the evidence was compelling I would.

There are plenty of things which have some supporting evidence that people disagree over...

Is the evidence compelling?

...and there are plenty of things only some people have evidence for that others have not been a party to.

Why does god give different evidence to different people? It sounds like special pleading.

 

[articulett]

But there is no supporting evidence for the existence of any invisible immeasurable entities or divine knowledge.

Why would Lennox or anyone presume they have access to these immeasurable divine things, when they aren't measurable or accessible through normal scientific testing? Why would he presume his knowledge is more likely to be real or right than all those people who believe in invisible entities he doesn't believe in? It's just such specious reasoning. It always sounds like a semantic dance to make belief in some brands of woo more rational or "good" than others.

But no matter how you slice it, it's arrogant to claim to "know" things that no one CAN know. If you can't measure it in any way, there's nothing to distinguish a belief from a delusion. Making god unfalsifiable and hiding behind semantics and imagining yourself humble or noble for believing doesn't make faith in god any more "rational" than faith in astrology or demon possession or "synchronicity or Scientology. It just doesn't. But every believer learns to spin their own woo so that they can pretend their "faith" is logical or based on actual evidence rather than confirmation bias and spin.

 

[westprog]

Sure, but that's still a subjective judgement. It's just one we happen to be agreement on. It's not the only opinion that people might have.


Sadist: Do you like it when I stick you with this hot poker?
Masochist: Yes, yes, yes. Oh god. Yes!

I don't like being stuck with the red hot poker. But I have a poker and you don't, so it is right for you to be stuck with the poker, and wrong for you to try to grab the poker off me.

There are all kinds of possible moral codes. The Golden Rule works when the two have similar circumstances. When one is weaker, or more brutal than the other, it fails.