My Response to an Atheist who tried to argue that the “happiness” principle is just as good a basis for morality as is God:
I will try to list several reasons why God is a superior basis for morality than your notion of “happiness”:
1. AUTHORITATIVE: For morality to function as morality, it has to be authoritative. There is nothing authoritative about “happiness.” Regarding this, the secular humanist, Max Hocutt, stated, “To me {the non-existence of God} means that there is no absolute morality, that moralities are sets of social conventions devised by humans to satisfy their needs…If there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no good reason why anyone should pay it any heed.” (Understanding the Times)
2. PERFECTION IN WISDOM AND LOVE: There is little reason to follow moral dictates if we’re not convinced that they represent the highest form of wisdom and love. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to follow a morality based upon someone else’s conception of “happiness.” However, if we are convinced that the omniscient God loves us, we gratefully want to follow the dictates He’s placed on our heart.
3. IMMUTABILITY: If morality is always changing, there’s no reason to adhere to it. It might just be different tomorrow? “Happiness” depends upon our moods and culture, which are always in flux.
4. UNIVERSALITY: Morality needs to be applied consistently and uniformly. “Happiness” does not provide an adequate basis. It is capricious and differs from person to person. Besides, doing the things that make us happy isn’t always the same thing as doing the moral thing. “Happiness” can be appealed to to justify racial cleansing and sadism, depending upon whose “happiness” we’re referring to. “Happiness” is also myopic. It inevitably looks for immediate payoffs.
5. TRANSCENDENCE: Morality must be able to transcend our individual whims, wills and cultures and provide a standard by which we can assess all conduct and a standard for our legal codes. If it fails to transcend all of these claims and concerns, then each one of us represents our own ultimate supreme court – hardly any basis for morality. This will leave us with no basis to adjudicate disputes and to promote justice. It will fracture whatever cohesiveness a society might have had.
6. EXPLANATORY POWER: God can not only explain and provide a rational basis for morality, but He can also account for the balance of reality – consciousness, freewill, meaning/purpose, the origins of life, DNA, the cell, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the physical laws. “Happiness” lacks explanatory power.
I think that a powerful historical case can be made that when morality lacks an adequate rational basis, it’s inevitable that the ruling powers resort to physical coercion. Just look at the experience of communistic/atheistic nations!
Meanwhile, you have elected to choose the moral basis of “happiness” over God. However, there’s no escaping God. Even your paradigm points unmistakably back to Him:
1. The very fact that there is such a strong correspondence between what satisfies (happiness) us and what is virtuous points to an Intelligent Designer. I thank God that he didn’t design virtue as something painful (although sometimes it does require sacrifice.)
2. If “happiness” is your governing principle, then you must believe in Christ to maximize your happiness!
Even when atheism tries to flee God into the darkness of its mental contrivances, it inevitably runs into Him. There is no escape! This is because He is the creator of not only the physical world, but also all truth, wisdom, and morality. But why does atheism hide from God? Here’s Jesus’ answer:
• “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” (John 3:19-20)
I wish I could show you how Christ has unified my life and has given me such intellectual satisfaction. The way I treat my neighbor, the awesome sunset, the touching play, the edifying concert, and even raising children all fit together into a harmonious mosaic, a completed puzzle. I rise to serve my Savior. I shed tears, knowing He’s with me. I go to sleep singing His praises.
What is it with Americans? Bunch of weirdo fantasists.
ReplyDeleteIt would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions?
ReplyDeleteif God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.
ReplyDeleteConsider, then, the hypothesis that God exists. First, if God exists, objective moral values exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science from the University of Guelph, writes,
ReplyDeleteThe position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says 'Love they neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . .Michael Ruse, "Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics," in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-9.
Andrey,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your position and also the quotation you've provided of Michael Ruse, who is transparent about the emptiness of life -- no meaning, purpose or truth -- without God.
Daniel, you still give no goor reason to follow the dictates of your God, should it exist. In fact, some of the points you (try to) make undermine your position.
ReplyDelete" However, if we are convinced that the omniscient God loves us, we gratefully want to follow the dictates He’s placed on our heart."
Simply demonstrates the subjective nature of morality as you see it. Also, without justification for the claim that the "dictates He's placed on our hearts" are real and of your God.
"If morality is always changing, there’s no reason to adhere to it."
Since you believe the bible is innerant, then I guess you'll be happy claiming that slavery is morally acceptable, since your God wholeheartedly endorses is within that collection.
If not, then you'll have to admit that your supposed unchanging God given morality has, well, changed. Whoops!
"God can not only explain and provide a rational basis for morality, but He can also account for the balance of reality – consciousness, freewill, meaning/purpose, the origins of life, DNA, the cell, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the physical laws."
More claims without justification. I've written before, when you've made these claims, that there are either alternative explanations for these phenomena which are more thorough than the "God Hypothesis", or we simply do not know enough to say one way or another and should simply admit "We don't know".
But it seems you're more than happy to continue on with these claims, without bothering to interact with these points.
"I think that a powerful historical case can be made that when morality lacks an adequate rational basis, it’s inevitable that the ruling powers resort to physical coercion. Just look at the experience of communistic/atheistic nations!"
I think you'll find that it is ideology which is the problem, as religious nations (Christian and other) have often had terrible track records.
Your further points regarding things pointing back to God fail miserably as well.
A naturalistic explanation of our "moralilty" covers point 1, and does so better than your god hypothesis - it's actually testable (and has stood up to some testing). I doubt there would be any sort of test or evidence which could falsify your God Hypothesis, making it useless.
Your point 2 is just ridiculous - another claim with no justification.
I thought this little essay was going to provide you an opportunity to clarify your position, and perhaps justify some of your claims, and all you seem to have done is to make more assertions, and once again fall back on your own personal experience.
Your strawman understanding of utilitarianism, re happiness, is seriously flawed from what I can tell, and you seem to understand nothing much about moral philosophy in general. You may want to read up on how proponents of that moral philosophy present it, instead of relying upon what seem to be poor points put forward by detractors.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI'd love you to explain/justify this one: "A naturalistic explanation of our "moralilty" covers point 1, and does so better than your god hypothesis - it's actually testable!"
Ok, for a start, you're claiming that because what satisfies us has strong correspondence to what we find virtuous points to a designer, but you don't justify why. It seems to me to be similar to claiming that we like sugar because it is sweet, when the actual explanation is closer to saying that sugar is sweet because we like it (sugar is a rich source of energy, therefore a being who found it pleasing would likely thrive more than a being that did not).
ReplyDeleteWhat satisfies us (moraly) would broadly seem to be that which has been (relatively) successful behaviours, socially. Things like reciprocal altruism, favouring kin, etc all have evolutionary/naturalistic explanations, and generally form the base of our sense of morality. These things are, however, somewhat malleable. Kin and in-group favouring can be extended to ever larger in-groups (all of my race, all of humanity, all sentient life, etc), but does not seem to have begun as such, nor is it something which has happened in isolation (acceptance of large in-groups came about as humans formed larger and larger collectives - urbanisation).
Now, if your claims of morality being unchangingly written "on our hearts", would seem to require that these sorts of "moral" behaviours or traits were not malleable in this fashion, were always applied as broadly as possible (or at least as broadly as they are today) etc. This is obviously false, as human history amply attests.
The above is a rough explanation, obviously, but I would hope one could see that it could be developed (and I believe has been - see Matt Ridley's "The Origins Of Virtue" for example).
Care try justify even some of your own claims, Daniel? :-)
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteYou only tried to explain how moral feelings might arise. However, there is a tremendous impassible gulf between what is (our feelings) and what SHOULD BE (morality). Therefore, our “evolutionary” inheritance fails to provide any basis for morality.
Returning to the issue of the holy correspondence between feelings and virtuous behaviors -- A spin of the dice might match a few virtues with what feels right. However, we find that all virtuous acts have a right feel about them. This smacks of ID as does everything else we look at!!! This is God’s world!
I guess it depends on what you mean by "ought", Daniel. It seems to me that, when discussing the is-ought gap (thanks Hume), and morality generally, there are unspoken assumptions smuggled in.
ReplyDeleteFor example, moral principles (ought statements) are usually stated in the form "We ought to do/not do X", but the reason for this is left unspoken - perhaps it's assumed that 'X' is reason enough on it's own (something you don't agree with, as it would imply intrinsic moral value to something).
Usually, for a theist such as yourself, the unspoken assumption seems to be "...because God commands/wills/desires" or something similar. It also seems that the reasons why this should be the case - that we should do something simply because "God wills it" (again, if your God were to exist) fail, though I'd be interested in your own reasoning on this.
Now, I think this "impassable gulf" is actually easily passable if the reason(s) for the "ought" actually exist :-)
Mann: However, we find that all virtuous acts have a right feel about them.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, this is EXACTLY the "We like sugar because it is sweet" argument again, and I think I sketched how a naturalistic/evolutionary explanation can (and does) work, while you've simply asserted "God did it" once again, without attempting to justify the claim.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteYou ask, “Why obey God?” There are many reasons. I already gave you some of them. We obey because He’s won our heart. The Bible tells us that we love (and obey) God for He first loved us. We also have little rational choice. It’s like not obeying gravity and jumping off a building. Such “disobedience” is self-destructive. Besides, when I obey Him, I’m doing what is most satisfying.
You wrote, “Now, I think this "impassable gulf" is actually easily passable if the reason(s) for the "ought" actually exist :-)” This require MUCH explanation, wouldn’t you say?
Mann: I already gave you some of them.
ReplyDeleteAnd so far they've seemed pretty shallow :-)
Mann: We obey because He’s won our heart.
You're arguing that it is moral to obey a person simply because they've won our heart. Is that really what you meant?
Mann: We also have little rational choice. It’s like not obeying gravity and jumping off a building.
I have no choice about gravity - it's a force of nature. Obeying the commands of your deity, if it existed, seems to be optional. bad analogy. In fact, it seems that according to your own religion EVERYONE disobeys - aren't we all sinners?
Mann: Such “disobedience” is self-destructive.
I don't see your point. How is it "self destructive"?
Mann: Besides, when I obey Him, I’m doing what is most satisfying.
So you're something of a utilitarian after all - you're trying to maximise your own happiness/satisfaction ;-)
Mann: This require MUCH explanation, wouldn’t you say?
ReplyDeleteDesirism (a moral theory which I'm somewhat partial to) makes the claim that desires are the only reasons for action that exist, and builds from there.
From "A Better Place: selected essays on Desire Utilitarianism" - Alonzo Fyfe
"Because ‘ought’ and ‘good’ relate states of affairs to desires, the derivation of ‘ought’ from ‘is’ must take the following form:
(1) ‘Is’ statements about some set of desires
(2) ‘Is’ statements about whether the propositions that are the object of the
desires are true in the state being evaluated.
(3) ‘Is’ statements about whether a possible action will bring about that
state.
----------------------------
(4) Therefore, ‘ought’ statement that says that doing the action in (3) will
create a state described in (2) in which the propositions that are the objects
of the desires in (1) are true.
So, if Archie wants a flat-screen monitor and spend the least amount
of money, and Corner Computers offers a flat-screen monitor at the lowest
price, then he should (ought to) go to Corner Computers to get a monitor. The
‘ought’ in this case means that the act of purchasing the monitor will, in fact,
create a state where Archie’s desire to have the least expensive flat-screen
monitor will be fulfilled."
While the example is not a moral ought, it's not hard to see this can be extended to cover them.
And Daniel, it would seem that the is-ought problem is something that your moral theory would need to overcome too, not just other peoples :-)
ReplyDeleteHavoc,
ReplyDeleteThe "is-ought" problem is no problem for the theist. If God is, then we know intuitively and logically that His existence implies an "ought." The existence of a righteous, loving, omniscient and omnipotent God at the top of the pecking order necessarily implies moral obligation.
Let me tell you a story. My cousin recently admitted to me -- we're Jewish, so Christ represents a major impediment -- that she had been miraculously delivered from a very threatening situation. In a flash, she knew that this deliverance was the result of a God who loves her. Almost immediately, fear drove this insight into the background.
She later admitted to me that the fear was the product of knowing that she was obligated to this God whom she knew loved her.
Mann: The existence of a righteous, loving, omniscient and omnipotent God at the top of the pecking order necessarily implies moral obligation.
ReplyDeleteGiven this existence is in severe doubt, I don't see that the obligation could be justified, even if this being existed.
Also, why ought we do what we're obligated? Doesn't that imply an ought which is prior to the moral obligations we owe?
Anecdotes are pretty awful evidence, Daniel.
Should I dig up contradictory anecdotes from people of contradictory beliefs to yours so you can ignore them? :-)
Why must this being who your cousin claimed miraculously helped her be the incoherent trintarian deity of Christianity? ;-)
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteMORAL OBLIGATION:
• “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.” (1 John 4:10-12)
Bible quotes won't do it, Daniel. Shall we dig through competing religions for similar sentiments, explaining perhaps, that you owe Prometheus for his sacrifice for mankind?
ReplyDeleteHow can I owe and obligation to someone whose existence I sincerely doubt?
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI've tried to argue that the paradigm of God is preferable to the alternative -- naturalism. But you'd rather return to the EXISTENCE OF GOD. Fine!
Briefly, it makes far more sense that there is an Intelligent Designer than the alternative -- everything is the result of non-design, non-causation and chance. However, all of the phenomena of this universe seem to smack of design -- the laws of physics, the fine-tuning, life, DNA, the cell, freewill, consciousness, morality... Please name one aspect of this universe that non-existence and non-causation can better account for?
No Daniel, I'm not trying to return to the existence of God - you're the one who referred to biblical quotes to back up your argumentation.
ReplyDeleteBasically what I'm asking is how can I owe an obligation to a being whom I don't recognise the existence of (whether reasonably or unreasonably), and how can that being, which you claim is good and loving, hold me responsible. If you read the chapter by Wielenberg, you'd see he makes a similar argument concerning moral obligation.
And Daniel, your arguments for intelligent design are failures. You're not offering evidence in favour of your position, just your opinion. We've been over DNA and the cell before - you ought to study up on what the scientific evidence shows. As for the others (laws of physics, fine tuning) seem to be made from a position of ignorance - I'm comfortable saying I simply don't know the answer. Surely it's reasonable of you to either admit the same, or detail the evidence and arguments backing up your position (and probably should provide your response on one of the other threads you made the claims in, to avoid cluttering this one up) :-)
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteYou can know for sure. Here’s what Jesus promised:
• "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8)
He also promised that any who come to Him, He will in no way cast them out, but will grant them eternal life (John 6:37).
Daniel, you've presented what some basically unknown authors said about a person they wrote about.
ReplyDeleteFor a start, neither of the works are presented as "histories". Secondly, it was common for historians to put words in the people they wrote about's mouths - things they thought the person might have said, or would have liked the person to say. Thirdly, all your deity would need to do is present me with evidence of it's existence.
No such thing has occurred, the evidence in favour of your deity seems pretty flimsy, and the people who do believe seem to have come to that belief for other than rational, evidential reasons (it seems WLC, for example, had a moment of teen angst. You seem to have always believed in a creator deity).
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteRather than getting into all the evidence for the reliability of Scripture, let me just say this -- that our God is more than willing to give you the evidence, but you must sincerely seek for it.
But it seems that you are unwilling to do so, at least for now.
Daniel, I suspect you believe I'm not sincere in my investigations, and that if I were I would be a Christian.
ReplyDeleteI think this simply highlights how thoroughly you're convinced that you're right (and NEED to be right), and that you're not actually interested in what is true (after all, you already know the answers).
You reject what the majority of experts say about a topic (biology, history, etc) and yet seem happy to remain ignorant of those subjects - You seem so convinced that you're correct that you don't bother studying things for yourself.
I hope that's not what you mean by sincerely seeking :-)
And before we get even more off topic, I'd appreciate some answers and justification for your moral position - there are things in previous comments you're yet to address :-)
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteYou had been doing fairly well for a while – desisting from personal attacks. Perhaps I shouldn’t blame you for returning to them, but let me try to place my remarks into context.
For many years, I had thought that I was searching but really wasn’t. I only wanted a God who would affirm my own ethnicity. I was secretly demanding that God conform to MY specifications. Therefore, I wasn’t finding anything.
I have come to believe in the Bible’s characterization of humanity:
• Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
There are deeply deceptive elements in all of our hearts. The closer I get to God, the more I see this about myself, and so I believe it’s true for everyone, as the Bible states in so many ways. I also believe that the evidence is adequate to support the knowledge of God:
• Romans 1:18-21 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
We are products of our cultures. We are also products of the choices we make, especially our contempt for God. I can understand how you find this offensive, but please understand that Christians also apply this to themselves.
Daniel, I fail to see a personal attack in my comments - simply an observation of what seems obvious from you comments.
ReplyDeleteI don't find it offensive, I find it irrational and without justification. And I find your touchiness when anything about yourself and the personality you project on this blog to be rather interesting ;-)
1. AUTHORITATIVE
ReplyDeleteWhen you think of "happiness" you think of showing pleasure or contentment and even Satan can make you feel good and happy. I too agree that morality should be authoritative which is being recognized as true and dependable and who better to put your faith and trust in to give you true happiness but God.
2. PERFECTION IN WISDOM AND LOVE
When you know that you are following a faultless/perfect, knowledgable/experience God who has deep affection for you proving that through the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ, of course you want to follow His morals. They are true and dependable.
3. IMMUTABILITY
Imagine serving a God who changes His mind about our salvation whenever He wanted. No one would go to heaven. God's morals are unchanging. His Word in the Bible days are the same now. They haven't changed because times have changed. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
4. UNIVERSALITY
Morality needs to be applied to the whole world because it deals with making the choices between right and wrong and with God in your life there is no problem with that. People do many thing in the form of happiness which also deals with the choice between right and wrong but if you have no morals your wrong choice will seem right to you but they are not godly but it makes you feel good and so your're happy. God has to be in your decision and with that you won't go wrong in deciding.
5. TRANSCENDENCE
When we have God in our lives what we want to do as far as being moral will be on the plane of God's laws. Our desire will be no more because God is surpreme in our lives and we are going to follow His will. We know that God will be our judge and therefore we would not do anything to
displease Him.
6. EXPLANATORY POWER
As we know God is omniscient. His knowledge is unlimited. He's the creator of the universe. He's the creator of man. He gives us free will to make the choices we want and when we allow His Holy Spirit to dwell in us we will make the right moral choices. Happiness only deals with showing pleasure or contentment but you get complete joy and contentment from God because He freely gives it to you if you accept Him in your life. It's a gift and what better gift than to be happy with God in your life.
I'm leaving you with this Scripture:
James 1:21
Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planed in you, which can save you (NIV).
FLORENCE
DO WE NEED GOD TO BE GOOD?
ReplyDelete1. AUTHORITATIVE
When you think of "happiness" you think of showing pleasure or contentment and even Satan can make you feel good and happy. I too agree that morality should be authoritative which is being recognized as true and dependable and who better to put your faith and trust in to give you true happiness but God.
2. PERFECTION IN WISDOM AND LOVE
When you know that you are following a faultless/perfect, knowledgeable/experience God who has deep affection for you proving that through the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ, of course you want to follow His morals. They are true and dependable.
3. IMMUTABILITY
Imagine serving a God who changes His mind about our salvation whenever He wanted. No one would go to heaven. God's morals are unchanging. His Word in the Bible days are the same now. They haven't changed because times have changed. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
4. UNIVERSALITY
Morality needs to be applied to the whole world because it deals with making the choices between right and wrong and with God in your life there is no problem with that. People do many things in the form of happiness which also deals with the choice between right and wrong but if you have no morals your wrong choice will seem right to you but they are not godly but it makes you feel good and so you're happy. God has to be in your decision and with that you won't go wrong in deciding.
5. TRANSCENDENCE
When we have God in our lives what we want to do as far as being moral will be on the plane of God's laws. Our desire will be no more because God is supreme in our lives and we are going to follow His will. We know that God will be our judge and therefore we would not do anything to
displeases Him.
6. EXPLANATORY POWER
As we know God is omniscient. His knowledge is unlimited. He's the creator of the universe. He's the creator of man. He gives us free will to make the choices we want and when we allow His Holy Spirit to dwell in us we will make the right moral choices. Happiness only deals with showing pleasure or contentment but you get complete joy and contentment from God because He freely gives it to you if you accept Him in your life. It's a gift and what better gift than to be happy with God in your life.
I'm leaving you with this Scripture:
James 1:21
Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planed in you, which can save you (NIV).
FLORENCE