The Courtier's Reply, v.2
by MikeGeneOver at his official website, Richard Dawkins praises his #1 Fan, PZ Myers.
Congratulations to P Z Myers on this brilliant piece of satire. It applies not just to Allen Orr's review in NYRB, but to all those many reviews of TGD that complain of my lack of reading in theology. My own stock reply ("How many learned books of fairyology and hobgoblinology have you read?") is far less witty.
Richard
The "brilliant piece of satire" is Myers' "The Courtier's Reply."
What is Dawkins to do when several people independently notice that he has written a book that postures against Straw Men? Wait on his fans. Some fans might argue that Dawkins had to "dumb down" his message to facilitate his evangelism. Remember, Dawkins' book has an agenda to Save the World. Others, such as his #1 Fan, simply turn up the volume to boast of Dawkins' splendid ignorance. After all, religion is both evil and stupid, so why should Dawkins dirty his brain - that brain, oh that brain, oh, god, that brain "“ by actually engaging such an evil and stupid idea? It would actually give religion respect to have such a Mighty Brain seriously entertain it. It's more sciencey to cherry pick sensational news stories as "evidence" that just happens to support the agenda.
Anyway, note how the #1 Fan tries to spin things:
this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Substance? Dawkins? Let me guess. Religion is evil. Religious parents are child abusers. God has not performed any miracles for Dawkins to personally witness. And Science has not uncovered any reproducible gap that could never, ever possibly be filled by Science over the next 100,000 years. So this must mean that Science has shown it is highly, highly, highly unlikely that God does not exist.
Yawn.
Anyway, the fun thing about the Coutier's Reply is that it means it is permissible to base your position around attacks on straw men. If Richard Dawkins can dismiss views without bothering to engage them, what makes him so special? That means anyone can now review Dawkins' book without ever bothering to read it! If the Dawkins' Fan complains, simply note it is the Coutier's Reply:
I have considered the impudent accusations of the Dawkins Skeptic with exasperation at his lack of intelligence. He has apparently not read the detailed chapter on the dirty and smelly leisure suits of the teleevangelist, nor does he give a moment's consideration to the chapter, Why Religious Parents Should be in Jail. Sir Richard has entire chapters dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of his own mind, and every atheist website runs a section dedicated to his brain; the Dawkins' Skeptic cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of Dawkins, who famously pointed out that if God exists, Dr. Dawkins would have seen him by now.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Mike wrote:
The issue is one of relevance. Unless hobgoblins actually exist, the minutiae of hobgoblinology are irrelevant. In the meantime, we can safely confine ourselves to arguments for and against their existence.
If Russell's Teapot doesn't exist, why spend our time arguing over its paint scheme?
Dawkins devotes an entire chapter to the arguments for God's existence, so he is hardly dismissing views "without bothering to engage them".
Comment by keiths — December 26, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Dawkins is frequently accused of arguing against straw men, which is quite possible — he is, after all, human — but the folks levelling the accusation rarely provide details.
I'd be grateful if anyone reading this thread who is aware of such straw man arguments could point them out, with a reference to the source, and an explanation of how exactly Dawkins is failing to do justice to the theistic position.
Comment by keiths — December 26, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
I think that's part of the problem.
I'd be skeptical of a book in favor of theism that devoted a single chapter to all of the arguments in favor of atheism.
Comment by Doug — December 26, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Personally, I'd be more inclined to base my skepticism on the actual content of the book, rather than the number of chapters devoted to any particular topic.
After all, chapters can be long or short, detailed or sparse, and it is quite common for the subject matter of one chapter to surface in the context of another.
Comment by keiths — December 26, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
I agree with you there, keiths. But I think that is also the problem: reviewers have read the section (chapter) of the book addressing the arguments for the existence of God and found it lacking.
Comment by Doug — December 26, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
[...] Dawkins, Myers, and Orr's GD review. I fear that Darwinists are living in a cocoon, where their worst enemy is their own 'success'. Orr's essay, from a Darwinist, attempts to point out the severe limits of Dawkins thinking on religion. A lot of people wouldn't bother, the more so since they can see that such naivete and self-induced ignorance will sink itself in the end. Over at his official website, Richard Dawkins praises his #1 Fan, PZ Myers. [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Dawkins, Myers, Orr — December 26, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
The existence of Rusell's teapot doesn't have implications for epistemology, but the existence of God does.
I believe Dawkins has said something along the lines of 'a Universe made by a god is a fundamentally different place to a universe not made by a god' and he is right. Theisms are not simply commitments to the existence of a god, but interpretations of the entire universe; if Dawkins et al are interested in actually convincing any theists that an alternate interpretation is superior they need to speak to many aspects of the universe, not just zoology. And that means actually engaging with theology.
To wit, if positivism and postmodernism are the best the atheists can send against Aquinas and Chesterton then Christianity is quite safe for the moment.
Comment by BenK — December 26, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Doug wrote:
Which is why I asked my followup question:
BenK wrote:
Agreed, assuming that besides its strange orbit, the teapot is in all other respects normal.
However, the question is not so much whether God's existence has implications for epistemology, but rather whether Dawkins has neglected epistemological considerations which support the existence of God. Are you aware of any?
Dawkins is certainly aware of the epistemic impossibility of proving God's non-existence, which is why he entitles a chapter "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God."
Could you be more specific about which theological considerations Dawkins is failing to address which are crucial to the issue of God's existence?
Comment by keiths — December 26, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Well, okay, how about this. Does Dawkins interact with Plantinga's short book, "God, freedom and evil" Which is a nice, short book discussing whether theodicy represents a problem for theism?
Comment by Exile From Groggs — December 26, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Keiths:
The major points in that chapter were simply that if we believe in a designer, then who designed him? He then states that evolution renders design an illusion, but that is not necessarily true, ask Mike and Collins. He points to multiuniverse theory with respect to the beginning of the universe but admits this is not as powerful a counter argument as biological evolution. Interesting to note that the director for the Discovery Institute's Science & Culture has used the theory to argue for a designer.
Perhaps he would have even enjoyed, what theologians have to say about these subjects, with respect to evolution, the kalam argument and arguments like it, God's existence with respect to temporality, omniscience, free will, predestination, multiple dimensions, consciousness, why a really close look at the anthropic coincidences and biological complexity have converted even the most ardent of atheists, etc. etc. etc. There are whole books written on these subjects.
Comment by Guts — December 26, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Hi Keiths,
One man's hobglobin is another's reality. I'm sure that as we speak, somewhere out there a creationist is making the same basic argument for not dealing with the primary literature.
But yes, relevance is the issue. Is there any evidence that would indicate Dawkins' arguments are relevant to whether or not God exists? We know that Dawkins does not believe God exists (he figured that out with his 15-year-old brain) and apparently, the purpose of the book is to convert people into Dawkins' atheism. But why is this relevant to the existence of God?
But Dawkins admits that he hasn't bothered to read theologians when they discuss the existence of God. So who is he engaging? His own personal views about the way God should be? Are his arguments any better than this?
I have not read Dawkins' book nor I am well read when it comes to theologians. But he seems to be under the impression that if God exists, science would have demonstrated this by empirically detecting God. From watching the ID debates over the years (remember, most critics hear "God" when "ID" is spoken/written), I know that this is not a position many theologians take. Tell me, does Dawkins basically agree with Philip Johnson about science and its ability to detect God?
I'll check in later. Apart from my pink bunny suit, I got FF XII for Christmas. Time to fire it up.
Comment by MikeGene — December 26, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Race you to the end
Comment by Guts — December 26, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 12:51 am
Exile from Groggs suggests:
The problem is that you haven't pointed out a strawman position that Dawkins is arguing against.
And you're barking up the wrong tree with theodicy, since Dawkins' objections to theism do not involve the problem of evil. As he writes of the problem, "it is an argument only against the existence of a good God. Goodness is no part of the definition of the God Hypothesis, merely a desirable add-on."
Comment by keiths — December 27, 2006 @ 12:51 am
December 27th, 2006 at 12:58 am
Guts wrote:
Indeed there are. Unfortunately, that doesn't answer the question, which I'll repeat here:
Comment by keiths — December 27, 2006 @ 12:58 am
December 27th, 2006 at 1:01 am
Keiths:
Actually I did (it's the part you deleted). He can argue for evolution until the cows come home and he still won't touch the subject of the existence of God. Same with multiunverse theory, same with who designed the designer, etc etc. In other words, straw men — and issues that have been discussed before.
Comment by Guts — December 27, 2006 @ 1:01 am
December 27th, 2006 at 1:24 am
Mike wrote:
Actually, Dawkins is quite aware that God, if he exists, reveals himself at his own discretion:
Comment by keiths — December 27, 2006 @ 1:24 am
December 27th, 2006 at 1:38 am
Guts wrote:
Guts,
Judging from your reply, it appears that you don't understand the meaning of the phrase "straw man". A "straw man" position is an easily refutable position that you falsely attribute to your opponent. You then refute the straw man and claim victory, when in fact you haven't refuted your opponent's actual position at all.
The things you cited are arguments against theism, not straw man arguments for it.
Comment by keiths — December 27, 2006 @ 1:38 am
December 27th, 2006 at 1:50 am
Keiths:
Thats precisely what Dawkins does. He sets up the argument that if God exists, evolution isn't true and the design we think we see is real. Not even Behe believes that. So he goes on to argue against creationism and intelligent design , and then he argues that since evolution is true, God doesn't exist.
Thats a straw man, he set up a false position, and he tore it down. Many , many people believe evolution is true and yet are devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims (there are many that even believe in the slimy,sloppy version of Darwinian evolution, they have no problem whatsoever with it). Orr puts it this way:
There are more actually that go before and after this chapter, but this is enough.
Comment by Guts — December 27, 2006 @ 1:50 am
December 27th, 2006 at 2:11 am
Guts wrote:
Great! Now if you can just point me to where Dawkins makes this claim, we've got an actual example of a Dawkinsian straw man!
Does anyone else have any examples of religious straw men that Dawkins sets up? Mike, you used the phrase twice in your post. Surely you have an example or two?
Comment by keiths — December 27, 2006 @ 2:11 am
December 27th, 2006 at 2:15 am
I think that the biggest question here is: Why should one bag of chemicals give two holy snorts about what another group of bags of chemicals "believes," especially when both bags' beliefs are determined by a complex array of natural laws that accidentally popped into existence?
Seriously, why "disprove" theism or anti-materialism? If all of our thoughts are products of a vast cascade of determined natural laws sifted through natural selection, then the atheist is no more responsible for his thoughts of atheism than the theist is for his thoughts of theism. In other words, don't be so hard on Dawkins … it's not his fault that he thinks the way he does. Nor is it my "fault" for writing this. An obviously "bad" twist in natural selection and natural laws is to blame.
Furthermore, if all that is needed is a little bit of re-programming, to "properly balance" a bag of chemicals, which bag gets to decide what the balance is and who gets re-programmed and why even bother? We are all equal bags of chemicals with equal rights, correct?
Sorry for blabbering on a bit, but this does seriously confuse me.
Comment by CJYman — December 27, 2006 @ 2:15 am
December 27th, 2006 at 2:25 am
Keiths:
It's the basis of the first half of chapter 4 and point 1, 2, 3, and 4 on pages 157-158 for which he concludes:
But many regard the evolutionary process as design itself. From Mike, to Collins, to Jews to Muslims to Christians. His only mention of this is some obscure quote about "God being an underacheiver" but whatever.
Comment by Guts — December 27, 2006 @ 2:25 am
December 27th, 2006 at 3:19 am
Nacho Libre knows more about theology than Richard Dawkins.
Proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Comment by Jehu — December 27, 2006 @ 3:19 am
December 27th, 2006 at 3:31 am
CJYman,
Your skepticism seems to be based on the idea that what one "bag of chemicals" believes is no more or less valid than what any other "bag of chemicals" believes. After all, both bags' beliefs are simply the result of the playing out of natural law.
But look at a computer. Wire it up correctly, and it can do your taxes for you or predict the next lunar eclipse. Wire it up incorrectly, and you get garbage out of it. Both processes are simply the unfolding of natural law, but one yields correct results while the other yields nonsense.
From a entirely different angle, suppose that your thinking is done not by your brain, but by an immaterial soul. How do you know that your soul's thinking is not simply the unfolding of some supernatural law? How can we determine that one soul's thinking is correct, while another's is not? The answers turn out to be exactly the same as before.
In both cases, whether the substrate is material or immaterial, the validity of our thinking is not a given, but rather is something that we provisionally accept based on the results it yields.
Comment by keiths — December 27, 2006 @ 3:31 am
December 27th, 2006 at 3:57 am
Guts wrote:
Guts,
Could you be more specific? I read that chapter and I don't remember seeing Dawkins claim, as you said, that "if God exists, evolution isn't true and the design we think we see is real."
Could you point me to the exact quote(s)?
Thanks,
Keith S.
Comment by keiths — December 27, 2006 @ 3:57 am
December 27th, 2006 at 4:17 am
To be honest it amazes me that people think Dawkins offers either original or insightful thoughts on matters concerning God's existence and religion. Leaving religion out of the picture for a second, questions about God are really questions about the nature of absolute reality and even the true nature of human beings. This is serious territory and I'm not sure Dawkins is cut out to live in this world. His world is not the world of serious scholarly discussions but popular books that appeal to the masses.
For example, take his "Dangerous Idea Quote" to it's logical conclusion. To me it's obviously stupid and irrational because if it's true, I can't know it's true in any real meanginful sense. I was determined at every stage to accept it. Game over! Morality? Gone. Of course if morality is gone, then so is any meaning behind his quest for justice in helping remove children from the abuse of a religious up-bringing.
I think Mike Gene has done a pretty good job of showing up Dawkins and the sort of person he is on this blog.
Comment by Plump-DJ — December 27, 2006 @ 4:17 am
December 27th, 2006 at 4:19 am
Sorry , not sure how to get more specific other than to quote the entire first half of the chapter and point 1,2,3 and 4 where he shows that Darwinian evolution renders design an illusion and concludes God doesn't exist, which is pointless if you have the book. Look at this also, for example:
If you actually read the chapter, you will see how he goes on to argue against creationist gaps and irreducible complexity. Except theists like Collins et. al. (and myself, and even Behe!) do not see such arguments as being against the existence of God. Indeed, most mainstream theists (i.e. Ken Miller, Conway Morris, et. al.) see no conflict with probable life being God's creation. In fact, some theologians see the exact opposite, that life is so probable under Darwinian natural selection is evidence for God's existence. Major denominations under Christianity, Judaism, and Islam hold to this kind of theistic evolution. The only theists that would actually agree with Dawkins's points are young earth and some old earth creationists, a very small piece of the academic theist's pie.
Comment by Guts — December 27, 2006 @ 4:19 am
December 27th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Michael Lynch has the same criticism of Dawkins.
PS. I got the first Ratchet & Clank for Christmas. That should hopefully explain my lackluster posting here.
Comment by Krauze — December 27, 2006 @ 8:35 am
December 27th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Krauze,
Only since Christmas.
Comment by Douglas — December 27, 2006 @ 9:04 am
December 27th, 2006 at 9:44 am
The first part of your dichotomy renders the second part deeply problematic: to assert that 'epistemelogical considerations' support or do not support a particular metaphysic when at the same time that metaphysic has deep implications for epistemology is simply to beg the question. Our answer the the question 'how ought I to go about discovering truth?' cannot be independent of our answer to the question 'does God exist?'
To expand on the point raised by CJYman: If the universe, as Dawkins adovocates, is to be understood in terms of that which is simplest and most basic, if all things are reduceable to matter and motion, then 'truth' and 'knowledge' seem to be unescessary categories. Everything that happens in the human brain and nervous system can in principle be described purely in impersonal terms; personal categories are therefore superfluous and to be removed from discourse by Ockham's Razor.
If, on the other hand, the universe is to be understood in terms of a creator who is personal, then we may grant personal concepts like knowledge a real and unique ontological status; in this case 'knowledge' refers to a relationship between the thoughts of a person and the universe that is a different relationship to that of cause and effect, a relationship described by the extensive common-sense language of knowledge (words like 'truth' and 'reasonableness') human beings seem pressed to use.
This is one example amongst many. If Dawkins is to assert that it is in some sense better for people to be atheistic than theistic I want an account of his concept of betterness, and I want him to show that his concept of betterness is preferable to me than a theological concept of betterness; this again requires him to engage with the theologians. If Dawkins wants to undermine informed Christian belief he must deal with Christianity as a whole: Christianity vs Materialism is not simply one proposition ('God is') vs its' negation ('God is not') but rather the clash of two interpretations of the universe, in practice a clash between an extensively considered and developed philosophy of everything possessed of a remarkable internal consistency against a handful of hasty ad-hoc metaphysical 'spin' on developments in the physical sciences.
Comment by BenK — December 27, 2006 @ 9:44 am
December 27th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Hi Keiths,
I wrote, "But he seems to be under the impression that if God exists, science would have demonstrated this by empirically detecting God. From watching the ID debates over the years (remember, most critics hear "God" when "ID" is spoken/written), I know that this is not a position many theologians take."
You replied that "Dawkins is quite aware that God, if he exists, reveals himself at his own discretion" and provided the following quote:
But again, from my experience with the ID debates, I know there are many theologians who would take issue with the notion that God's existence is "is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice." Does Dawkins engage them? And if clinching the argument is a function of divine choice, then Dawkins needs to engage those books of "fairyology and hobgoblinology," yet admits he does not bother.
Keiths, are you aware that some of us have, for the last six years, watched countless debates where critics of ID have argued that science cannot address the existence of God?
Comment by MikeGene — December 27, 2006 @ 11:28 am
December 27th, 2006 at 11:45 am
When I attended Dawkins' talk in Philadelphia, he described the concept of the Trinity as silliness, althought I remember him not getting the definition correct. One person commented to him about people using light, being both wave and particle at the same time, as being used to describe the Trinity. I don't remember Dawkins exact response, but he was not amused at a corrallary in science being used to describe the Trinity.
Although, this was a good illustration to highlight a certain aspect of Trinitarian doctrine.
He is willing to critique beliefs (except Islam, for some reason he avoids attacking Muslim beliefs). He is unwilling to do the necessary ground work to understand them. That's his choice. But one would hope better examples of the atheistic position would rise to visibility.
Comment by geoffrobinson — December 27, 2006 @ 11:45 am
December 27th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Keiths,
You write, "Does anyone else have any examples of religious straw men that Dawkins sets up? Mike, you used the phrase twice in your post. Surely you have an example or two?"
Actually, I used the term "˜straw man' not "˜religious straw man.'
I already provided one example "“ Dawkins seems to think that all religious people believe that science can settle the existence of God.
Orr provides several others:
[I included the last one because Dawkins views someone like Orr as a cartoon caricature rather than an equal who genuinely disagrees with him.]
Comment by MikeGene — December 27, 2006 @ 11:47 am
December 27th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Keiths:
Yes, and notice that it is the programmers understanding of natural laws rather than the computer itself who determines "correct" or "incorrect" programming. If theism/anti-materialism and atheism/materialism are both programmed into different "bags of chemicals" via the same
natural processes, who is to determine "correct" apart from "incorrect" programming, apart from those natural processes themselves. I understand that natural usefulness of said programs can be determined simply by how useful these thoughts of atheism or theism play out in regard to survivability and reproduction. But, as to correct and incorrect, WHY even judge one bag of chemicals' programming verses another bag of chemicals' programming, according to right and wrong as opposed to merely usefulness? Or is that what Dawkins is doing … promoting the
usefulness of atheism over theism in reference to natural selection, survivability, and reproductive benefit ?
So, my two questions seem to be unanswered. The first is a "why" question: Seriously, why "disprove" theism or anti-materialism? If all of our thoughts are products of a vast cascade of determined natural laws sifted through natural selection, then the atheist is no more responsible for
his thoughts of or arguments for atheism than the theist is for his thoughts of or arguments for theism.
Secondly, if it turns out that atheism is more useful or less harmful than theism, then surely we can mandate reprogramming of theists, or no? But this brings forward my second question: Furthermore, if all that is needed is a little bit of re-programming, to "properly balance" a bag of
chemicals, which bag gets to decide what the balance is and who gets re-programmed and why even bother? We are all equal bags of chemicals with equal rights, correct?
Comment by CJYman — December 27, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Dawkins' training is in biology, not in religious philosophy. So if I want to know what the strongest theistic or atheistic arguments are, I won't be inclined to read Dawkins' book. If anybody has read his book, are you convinced by any of his arguments? Which ones?
Comment by Bilbo — December 27, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Nope.
Comment by Guts — December 27, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Hi Krauze,
You mean John Lynch, of course.
KC
Comment by KC — December 27, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Don't disturb me! I'm trying to win the hoverboard race on Kalebo III.
Comment by Krauze — December 28, 2006 @ 10:38 am
December 28th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
I got Final Fantasy XII for Solstice, too! What are the odds of that happening?
Secondly, if it turns out that atheism is more useful or less harmful than theism, then surely we can mandate reprogramming of theists, or no? But this brings forward my second question: Furthermore, if all that is needed is a little bit of re-programming, to "properly balance" a bag of
chemicals, which bag gets to decide what the balance is and who gets re-programmed and why even bother? We are all equal bags of chemicals with equal rights, correct?
You're looking at things at the wrong level. We can talk about the weather in terms of individual air molecules, but at that level the system is so complicated that we can't hold it in our heads well enough to understand it. We need to talk about higher-level structures like "cold fronts" and "storm clouds". We lose a lot of information in the process, but we gain the ability to understand the information that remains.
So, instead of "bags of chemicals", let's talk say "individual human beings". In general, human beings "want" to avoid "harm" and be "happy". ("Wanting" and "harm" and "happiness" are useful high-level terms for chemical processes that are too complicated for us to understand.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "re-program". There are different ways to do re-programming; some possible high-level terms would be "persuade" or "indoctrinate" or "torture".
So, your questions become: "If people have harmful beliefs, does it matter? Should someone persuade/indoctrinate/torture them to get them to believe differently? Who decides which beliefs are harmful? We're all equal humans with equal rights, aren't we?"
Unfortunately there's no easy way to answer those questions without running the experiment and seeing what gives you the optimal results. Something that seems like a good idea in the short-term might have unforseen consequences in the long-term. The good news is that people have been running the experiments for thousands of years so we've got a good idea of what works and what doesn't. (And the bad news is that people keep doing the stuff that doesn't work anyway.)
Comment by chaosengineer — December 28, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
geoffrobinson wrote:
The problem is that the wave/particle duality of light is empirical and well-confirmed, but the existence of the Trinity is pure speculation. Dawkins makes the point in this video excerpt from his talk in Lynchburg:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gm...
Comment by keiths — December 28, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
OKay, anyone wanna guess the best part of FF XII?
Comment by MikeGene — December 28, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
keiths:
People have always used their conclusions about phenomenal minutiae to shore up their metaphysical philosophies. I sure don't know how anyone could make that not so, but they can waste a lot of breath and time kvetching about it. Some folks never do think of any better way to spend their lives.
Wave/particle duality is just a description about measurements and/or observations that can be made per the behavior of things we can't directly perceive (and aren't sure what they are) anyway. FAPP, not Absolute Truth [TM]. Physics also describes a reality of more than 3+1 dimensions, though we're never likely to establish more than one or two extras beyond reasonable doubt (and we haven't thought of a way to do even that much yet). Heck, it could be that the entire universe is recreated moment-to-moment at Planck scale through the 'Magic of Movement', or at least the discreteness of measurements taken.
Dawkins and all his friends and acolytes use their conclusions to support their worldviews too, you know. The only time this becomes a problem is when someone goes around insisting that everyone has to reach the same conclusions and buy the same worldview. Such people are a dime a dozen as well, so it's not like humanity hasn't had some experience with this form of egocentricity. Most folks just ignore 'em and go on about their business.
Comment by Joy — December 28, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Joy wrote:
Sure, and the Trinity is a description of something we can't directly perceive (if it exists at all), can't measure, and can't observe.
So on the one hand we have a theory predicting something that is observable and measurable, where theory and experiment agree to the umpteenth decimal place.
On the other hand we have a hypothesis about something that can't be observed or measured, and may not exist at all.
The difference is pretty obvious.
Comment by keiths — December 28, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Why use language so steeped in ideas of 'consciousness' or an 'inner world' seperate from the material world? Traditional, commonsense language is fundamentally dualistic: we have one set of language for objects and another for persons ('I/he/she/it etc). By adopting that language materialists simply reinforce the dichotomy. Why not develop different ways of speaking about persons that do not reinforce dualism? We don't talk seriously about an engine 'wanting' to run when we turn it on or a computer 'wanting to avoid harm' because this or that automated process in its software helps maintain the thing. Rather than saying, 'Alex is in pain' we could say 'That nervous system is in a negative-reinforcement state' or somesuch. Yes, it would be tedious, but over time colloquialisms and abbreviations would develop.
Because what it looks like now is that materialists use an essentially Theistic approach to the universe in their day-to-day lives and then tack a sort of ad hoc materialist rationalisation on at the end of it: 'Well, yes we do use dualist language all the time but what we really mean is…' Sometimes I'm temped to steal from Ghandi and say that I might consider atheism if I ever met one.
Comment by BenK — December 28, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
The coherence or incoherence of a statement is different than the support or lack thereof a belief system.
Incoherent would be Dawkins using morality while being a materialist.
Comment by geoffrobinson — December 28, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
geoffrobinson:
Hi, Geoff. Have to disagree on this. There's no reason materialists cannot be moral/ethical. Many are humanists, and as Lauren Sandler is quoted as saying in the 2006: The Year Dawkins Jumped The Shark thread, there is a strong humanist streak in religions. And law is all about a collectively agreed-upon 'norm' of behavior, with formal judgment on those we deem "wrong," criminally or ethically.
As practiced, morality and ethics is often situational, but most people have a sense of right and wrong and act accordingly. There are also humans in every generation who don't care about such things. There's no firm evidence that any God-given absolutes ever stopped people from committing crimes or being unethical, including those who believe in absolutes.
Just never bought this argument against materialism/atheism. Materialists don't deny the realities of human sociology, political expediency, law or civilizational 'norms'. They just don't believe these things more absolute or eternal than human beings are, and they don't believe human beings are.
However self-limiting and impoverished I may view the materialist metaphysic, I do not view it as a moral issue. YMMV [Your Mileage May Vary].
Comment by Joy — December 28, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Of course, Dawkins isn't saying that religion is against societal norms. In fact, many societal norms are rooted in religion, which Dawkins sees as problematic. Rather, it's the societal norm of harboring religion that he sees as evil, presumably according to some objective standard that he hasn't explained. I agree with geoff that this is incoherent.
Comment by Deuce — December 28, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Deuce:
Well, Richard Dawkins is a different subject from materialism and materialists in general. I'm often not sure whether he's really getting more strident as he ages (the old can get away with more), or if he's just funnin' us because he can. I mean, he can't honestly believe he can rid the world of religion. THAT would be incoherent enough to warrant some concern about cognitive function.
Comment by Joy — December 28, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Hi Joy,
He can 'imagine', can't he?
"Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too…"
Wholesale murder and terror didn't work in the early-mid 20th century, protesting from bed didn't work in the late 20th century, maybe legislating religion away could be Dawkins ticket to success.
Personally, I think it's just a matter of time before someone (perhaps Dawkins) tries to litigate religion away.
Comment by chunkdz — December 28, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
In the "God Delusion" Dawkins himself realizes atheistic morality is problematic. He waves his hands, figuratively speaking, and pretty much passes the buck to philosophers.
I brought this up to him in Philly, along with other inconsistencies he as an atheist faces, but he didn't address it. I raised 3 or 4 things, so it wasn't like he was avoiding it. As I said, Dawkins realizes it is a problem. Morality depends on purpose and meaning. And there is no purpose or meaning in a consistent atheistic worldview. His entire book, his entire talk is testimony to the fact he can't live as a consistent atheist.
Comment by geoffrobinson — December 28, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
People you don't need a god to be moral.
That's what religious folk just don't seem to get. They think, "if there's no God, then there's no reason to act moral". WRONG!
You act moral because you don't want people to respond back to you in a similar manner. You're nice to them, they'll be nice to you. If you're mean to them, they'll be mean to you. That's all you need to make sense of morality.
Sorry folks, hate to rain on this party.
Comment by Sam — December 28, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
So the definition of acting morally is to act in a way that causes other people to give you what you want?
Comment by Deuce — December 28, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Glad to hear you express this as I have often thought the same. We may never understand the origin of our sense of right and wrong, but we have it. Why we have it is a matter of educated guesses and sometimes faith. You can't ban morality in the life of an atheist from such a platform.
And here I have to state a belief that the literalistic adherents of revealed religion are part of the problem in that they define atheism in such a harsh and immoral light. Atheists are god-rejectors and rebellious, thus defective, in nature. I don't see how this helps us develop a diverse and tolerant culture. Then, we get the atheistic counter-reaction. Round and round we go.
Comment by bj — December 28, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
It could be viewed that way. Yes.
It's really not that hard to get. If I wrong someone there's a higher chance that they'll wrong me back.
Comment by Sam — December 28, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Atheists usually misunderstand this at first, so it is worth going over. Atheists display morality. But atheism destroys the foundation for a meaningful morality. Be nice so people are nice to you? Why should I care?
Comment by geoffrobinson — December 28, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
So then, for instance, helping somebody at risk to your own life is immoral, because you're likely to get hurt or killed doing it, correct?
Comment by Deuce — December 28, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
No. If someone's going to die and I could risk my own life to save them I'm sure they would understand if I didn't help them. Who wants to die anyway? But, if I don't help them and they die I really don't have to worry about them coming back to harm me. That's not rude, that's just the fact.
Comment by Sam — December 28, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Like I said, round and round.
Comment by bj — December 28, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
We don't destroy the foundation of morality. We give it its foundation. That foundation being humans. An atheist displays morality because an atheist lives in a society. In order to live in a functioning society you need people behaving. It's called Social Contract theory, and it doesn't pay for me to go over because you'll either say "that's wrong" or "that's not how God intended it".
Comment by Sam — December 28, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Who is this directed to? What side are you arguing for mine or theirs?
Comment by Sam — December 28, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
You answered the wrong question. I asked about the morality of helping them, not the morality of withholding help from them. If being moral is treating people in a way that is likely get you what you what, and being immoral is treating people in a way that is likely to get you what you don't want, then risking your life to help someone is immoral, correct?
Comment by Deuce — December 28, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
We don't destroy the foundation of morality. We give it its foundation. That foundation being humans.
Which humans? Mother Teresa types or the Saddam Husseins? Humans come in all shapes and sizes; hardly a foundation consensus.
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Morality is morality. I don't get what you are asking.
It's immoral in the sense that you shouldn't willfully try to kill yourself. But no, if you risk your life to help someone else that can still be moral. Who would say "that was so wrong of him to risk his own life to save someone".
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think you're looking at this through the eyes of a religious person.
Comment by Sam — December 28, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
But didn't you say that the definition of morality was acting in a way that is likely to get you what you want, and immorality was acting in a way likely to get you what you don't want? If so, then risking your life to help someone must be immoral, regardless of what anyone else thinks, correct? Or is morality not simply a matter of treating others in a way that gets you what you want after all?
How so? I haven't made any assertions. I've only asked you some very simple questions about what is moral or immoral according to your very simple theory of morality, to see if they could be answered coherently and with logical consistency.
Comment by Deuce — December 28, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Of course there's no reason a person can't adopt the label 'materialist' and live ethically, any more than there's any reason a person can't adopt the label 'bannana' and live in a house rather than a tree or a fruitbowl; I take it that you mean the idea of morality is consistent with materialist philosophy. I largely disagree, depending in the strict definitions of 'materialist' and 'morality' being used.
If, as Dawkins would have it, we must explain all things in terms of what is simplest, ie. matter in motion, it seems to me that categories like 'ought' are simply superfluous. Human minds are human neural and nervous systems in action, in their entirety the motion of particles in synapses. In principle, this can be described in the language of physics (that is, of cause and effect). So why persist with a whole language of 'ought' and 'ought not' which has such strong and misleading metaphysical connotations?
Chaosengineer might argue that moral language is simply a sort of shorthand: obviously while in principle we could describe human behavior in purely cause and effect terms in practice it's too complicated. Therefore, we need a language of human behavior with a broader focus than our language about particles. Granted, but we can apply the language of physics, of cause and effect, with a broader focus without using language with misleading metaphysical connotations.
It is quite true that the typical human system, which has many features which promote its' own continued existence, also has features which promote the continued existence of other human systems. Why not call this a 'herd survival instinct', a term which adequately describes the phenomena without any of the metaphysical baggage which go along with 'right' and 'wrong'. Of course, we don't need to talk about any 'obligation' to act on the basis of herd survival any more than we 'ought' to act on our other instincts like huger or sexual desire. We could say: there are many aspects of the complicated human system which influence human behavior, and one of them is the herd survival instinct.
Human beings, by and large, are religious creatures - I read that the overall proportion of Christians, Hindus, and Muslims in the world population continues to increase - and our language is steeped in metaphysical thinking which avow our religious history. Even non-religious westerners outside the universities tend to believe in things like a soul and personal responsibility. If Dawkins and co. really mean to change this, surely they will seek to promote a way of speaking about the world which doesn't reinforce the superstitions.
Comment by BenK — December 28, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
bj:
The atheists I've known well are as moral day to day as anybody else, sometimes even more sensitive to suffering - perhaps because they believe here and now is all you get. The Golden Rule is a humanist sentiment, and most humans come attached to a quality we call "empathy." Empathy does not necessitate or derive from a belief in gods/God. Of course, the atheists I've known weren't haters, they just don't believe in gods/God.
When my son was in the 6th grade where he got caught with a friend shoplifting candy bars - twice. The first time we grounded him, talked ourselves blue in the face about why it's wrong to steal, etc., etc. The second time I sat him down and told him that I expected him to grow up to be a very successful person at whatever he chose to do in life. Then I told him in all honesty that he wasn't any good at thievery, so he should probably think about doing something else if he valued his freedom. Because society won't tolerate thieves (unless they're really, spectacularly good at it). He gave it up then and there.
Parents are the responsible primary teachers, and those who care tend to do the best they can. One need not be religious to love his/her children either. I don't think impuning the morality of an entire metaphysic just because there's haters among the believers is any more valid for religious believers than it is for religion-haters. We are all human.
The problem of evil - which we see a lot from critics - is a human issue entirely. Evil is a problem because we humans know the difference between good and evil. Even in the Abrahamic tradition that came as our inheritance from our progenitors. Not just Jews, not just Christians. All of us, unless there's something wrong.
And there's a lot of "best intentioned" mistakes made too. It was never black and white, or there wouldn't have been an immediate Hebraic institution of Judges, and whole books of commentary on The [Absolute] Law.
Comment by Joy — December 28, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
When my son was in the 6th grade where he got caught with a friend shoplifting candy bars - twice. The first time we grounded him, talked ourselves blue in the face about why it's wrong to steal, etc., etc. The second time I sat him down and told him that I expected him to grow up to be a very successful person at whatever he chose to do in life. Then I told him in all honesty that he wasn't any good at thievery, so he should probably think about doing something else if he valued his freedom. Because society won't tolerate thieves (unless they're really, spectacularly good at it). He gave it up then and there.
Creative parenting! That was a productive switch of gears. A few more anecdotes like this and you'll have the makings of a book.
The problem of evil - which we see a lot from critics - is a human issue entirely. Evil is a problem because we humans know the difference between good and evil. Even in the Abrahamic tradition that came as our inheritance from our progenitors. Not just Jews, not just Christians. All of us, unless there's something wrong.
There is a macro problem with an inability to ground a moral theory. Individuals may display a moral compass in their own lives but if they cannot convey a convincing reason why others should do the same, according to some general principle, then a societal norm fails. This is a weakness of moral codes that proceed from an atheist basis.
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2006 @ 10:37 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Joy,
I always appreciate your comments and find a sense of kindred spiritness in them. I think your are bit (really a lot) ahead of me in knowledge and experience. I finally got around tonight to ordering a few of the books (Huxley and Schuon) that you recommended awhile back. I will usher in the new year with them.
take care,
bj
Comment by bj — December 28, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
BenK:
Hi, Ben. Truth is, I don't believe Dawkins is really meaning to change anything other than the tone of the debate. Why, he couldn't have subdivided the critics more cleanly if he'd been a DI plant! He's just getting older, and more strident.
I'm American, so what he petitions 10 Downing Street to do in Britain isn't all that big a deal. The best result would be for them to as a society determine to affirm the UN Charter on Human Rights (they have no Constitution). Which is explicit about freedom of religion just like the US Constitution is. He doesn't scare me on that level at all.
What he does is foment direct confrontation and some thinking on all sides. Sometimes it takes some pretty outrageous assertions to do that these days.
As for 'oughts', you'd have to break this down to individual psychology if you wanted to establish anything concrete. As I told bj, I know and have known some atheists. Were they not good and worthy people, they wouldn't be welcome in my home. I also know some Pagans. And some Jews, and a Sikh, and a few Hindus and one Muslim, plus some Quakers, Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists. Oh yeah, three Nativists and a handful of New Agers too. The annual Thanksgiving prayer is pretty inclusive around here.
They're all good people. No, I don't spend time trying to convert them, and they're not converting me. We share enough metaphysical breadth and amazement at life and the world that it works out fine. If God knows His Own, it'll all work out. My apostate opinion only, but I don't think there's ever going to be a divine revelation from on high that explains It All more clearly than "Love one another."
Doing it is the hard part. That's true for believers as much as it's true for everybody else. God can't - or won't - do it for us, we have to figure it out. Law - Divine or human - is all about defining boundaries and punishing trespass. If we all did the right thing, no law or moral code would be necessary.
One of the more amazing things about life and the world (for me) is that a majority of humans do the right thing, whatever their metaphysics may be.
Comment by Joy — December 28, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Mike Gene: OKay, anyone wanna guess the best part of FF XII?
Fran, of course!
(We can argue about whether evolution is directed or undirected, but I think that everyone can agree that it's moving in the direction of anime-style catgirls, which are the perfect beings. CGI bunny-girls will be an important transitional form.)
Benk: Why use language so steeped in ideas of 'consciousness' or an 'inner world' seperate from the material world?
Why not? I'm conscious and this has a big effect on my existence…it's so important that it's worth having a specialized vocabulary to talk about it.
I don't know if consciousness has a fully-material cause or if it has supernatural components. (I lean towards thinking that it's fully-material, but that's more a gut feeling than anything else.) But we don't need to know the causes of consciousness to talk about the day-to-day practicalities of conscious existance.
Bradford: There is a macro problem with an inability to ground a moral theory. Individuals may display a moral compass in their own lives but if they cannot convey a convincing reason why others should do the same, according to some general principle, then a societal norm fails. This is a weakness of moral codes that proceed from an atheist basis.
But theistic moral codes have the same problem. They make two assumptions: (1) That fallible human beings can figure out what God wants, and (2) that God possesses moral authority.
On a practical level, it's worth looking at an issue like slavery. This was considered business-as-usual for thousands of years, but today we see it as absolutely abhorrent. Did God change his mind about it and modify the collective human conscience?
I'd see it as a matter of social evolution…in a pre-industrial society, there's only a need for a small number of skilled/talented workers and it's easy enough to find them. But in an industrial society, skilled/talented workers are more important. A tolerant, egalitarian nation can recruit them from the whole population, but an intolerant or slave-owning nation can only recruit them from the favored groups. So "good" societies tend to outcompete and overwhelm "evil" ones.
(This raises the question of why free men are more productive than slaves. A theist might see the hand of Divine Providence in it. An atheist would say that it's just random luck; if our brains were wired differently then slave-owning nations would prosper and slavery would be seen as self-evidently "good".)
As to individual ethics…it's hard for people to come up with their own moral codes. Generally they adopt the morality of whatever society they're in; if they're truly exceptional they can come up with one or two new ideas. Right now, the happiest and most productive societies seem to be the ones that have adopted the most Humanistic ethics. ("Moral acts are those that benefit humanity-as-a-whole.") Obviously that rule can stand on its own, or it can be incorporated into any religion.
Comment by chaosengineer — December 29, 2006 @ 11:31 am
December 29th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
joy,
Thank Darwin he wasn't any good at it, then. You'd have really been in a pickle if he had turned out to be quite proficient, I suppose.
Comment by Douglas — December 29, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
I have read the 3rd (and some of the 4th) chapter of The God Delusion [sic] and I would characterize Dawkins' attempts at refutation as pedestrian at best. Resorting to a horse laugh (e.g., "infantile argument" p. 80) or appealing to analogy (e.g., "peerless stinker" p. 79), do not constitute legitimate counter arguments.
Comment by obrienr — December 29, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
[...] What madness is this. It is insane. It is pure fear mongering. At 2 mins 15 seconds the camera pans around the audience and you see the suitably concerned woman (with assumptions she is a mother) sitting in the audience looking worried. In the back of my head I can hear the voice from the Simpson's "Wont anyone think of the children." It really is shameful that this is presented as a reasoned argument. If you want to see more, but want to avoid the telicthoughts website, then you can watch the video on YouTube. The site appears to have a bit of Richard Dawkin's fixation which is interesting on many levels. (As examples: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=11... or more generally http://telicthoughts.com/?cat=...) [...]
Pingback by Why Dont You…Blog? » More on Atheism vs Religion — December 29, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Besides there being no "oughts", atheists have the problem of wanting moral laws without any law giver. Any source for laws (society, etc.) which is relative and can and will be set aside by clear-thinking people.
So the best atheists can give you is relative morality. But when we speak about something being wrong, we don't think "society views this as wrong." We mean "this is wrong."
Comment by geoffrobinson — December 29, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
We just had this same debate over on UD - slavery in the ANE was not the same thing as slavery in the Americas in quite a few relevant ways, such as ANE slavery generally being neither forced nor racial (that's a big one right there) and providing ways for gaining social mobility and for the poor to make a living for themselves (even though God commanded the Hebrews to take care of the poor in quite a ways, e.g. laws about dropping food when harvesting for the poor and the alien). This undercuts your 'practical' case quite a bit.
Add'tl. edit: I should like to add that God doesn't have to "modify the collective human conscience"; Christian thinkers since Augustine have affirmed that God can deal differently with peoples of different times, and indeed, one strong example of this can be demonstrated in the Trinity and more specifically in Jesus Himself.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 29, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
I never said it like that. Also, morality isn't just if I do you good you'll do good to me. It's also living in a manner that keeps order in a society. Again, you don't need to be a Christian to act that way or to even figure that out.
Which I succeeded with: How you treat others is how you'll be treated & living in a way that promotes the stability of a society.
Comment by Sam — December 29, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
But theistic moral codes have the same problem. They make two assumptions: (1) That fallible human beings can figure out what God wants, and (2) that God possesses moral authority.
Point two would be conceded to a being with infinite wisdom but if that is not enough, God's power would suffice for the prudent. Concerning your first point most biblical admonitions are plain. That is true of the Ten Commandments.
On a practical level, it's worth looking at an issue like slavery. This was considered business-as-usual for thousands of years, but today we see it as absolutely abhorrent. Did God change his mind about it and modify the collective human conscience?
Slavery had been around for thousands of years and was only abolished in Europe at a point in history when Christianity's influence peaked. Ironically, slavery made a comeback during the "Enlightenment" before it was once again discarded.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
RIGHT ON! Bradford, why don't you try to address his question instead of dancing around the topic.
Keep em' coming! Stick with these points and you'll get them on the run.
Comment by Sam — December 29, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Did God change his mind about it and modify the collective human conscience?
RIGHT ON! Bradford, why don't you try to address his question instead of dancing around the topic.
Why would the reversal of human behavoir indicate inconsistency on God's part? People have free will and history shows there are knaves and fools as well as heroic figures. In some historic eras the former control a country or culture. Other times it is the latter. His question made no sense.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Douglas:
There are prisons in every state chock full of Christians who lie, cheat, steal and commit murder. Obviously belief in absolute morality or hell didn't stop them from being criminals, so after preaching absolute morality and hell didn't work, informing him that society will take his freedom away did work.
Comment by Joy — December 29, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
December 30th, 2006 at 2:25 am
So this is where all my favorite posters now reside
Stalin did a pretty good job of keeping order in a society. One of his ways to keep order was to starve 50 millions of his people. If what is moral is to live in a manner that keeps order in a society then the starvation of 50 million was a moral act.
Nope
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — December 30, 2006 @ 2:25 am
December 30th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Regarding God being the source of moral authority. If God is the ground of all being, where else would it come from? Morality would flow from God's nature.
Comment by geoffrobinson — December 30, 2006 @ 6:17 pm