It really bugs me when people hate on religion

14th February 2012

Post reblogged from Philosopher's Dog with 81 notes

It really bugs me when people hate on religion

liberalchristian:

philosophersdog:

I’m not sure what they would disagree with me about. The fact of the matter is that nothing about atheism would lead someone to reject moral objectivity. It would have to be a different philosophical theory that would lead one to rejecting moral objectivity. This is the point I’ve been making this whole time. I, personally, have chosen to reject objectivity about morality. Some atheists, however, have accepted various moral theories which allow them to hold on to moral objectivity. I’ve described several of those theories.

You have blurred the lines between moral naturalism and moral non-naturalism I think. ‘Proving’ morality by means of science is a naturalistic and physicalistic theory. It assumes that there are moral properties which can be studied. It is not the same as ‘proving’ God, because God is, by definition, super-natural. Science also did not invent cells or atoms, but it postulated that they were there and created a means of studying them. It took time, and before it was sufficiently proven, it would have made sense to be skeptical about their existence. The idea is the same with moral naturalism. I am not the best person to be describing the naturalisic theory because I have rejected it (which is why I suggest you read some of the real literature on the matter), but my only point was that it is entirely possible for an atheist to accept moral objectivity by means of any of the moral realist’s theories. I illustrated this by offering you statistics which showed that the majority of philosophers are atheists and a majority of philosophers are moral realists (proving that at least some which accept both).

The problem that I’ve had through this entire debate is that you do not explain why/what it is about atheism that requires that it reject moral objectivity. The only point that you have made is that atheists can’t reasonably accept moral objectivity and I have certainly proven otherwise. And, if you think I haven’t, you need to explain to me how that is. I’m afraid that you have created a dangerous strawman.

I have tried to explain why atheism isn’t compatible with moral objectivity. Sorry if I’m not doing a great job of it, but I can make one more attempt: Cells and atoms are the building blocks to form living creatures and elements found in nature. The physical laws have an explicit function to allow for motion, gravity, chemical processes, etc. What I don’t see is how morality has any essential function in the universe, outside of it’s non-obvious effects on human behavior. I think it’s an extraordinary claim to say that morals are a free-standing force in the world, independent of human thought and yet wholly affecting human thought, originating out of a presumably material world with no supernatural agents. It’s even more extraordinary to believe that we can categorize and define it without providing justification for how or even if it exists. Psychology and sociology don’t make those claims.

There are theories in physics about particles that no one has ever seen- but enough mathematical and theoretical evidence can be provided to give justification that they make logical sense, and are likely there. Now, scientifically speaking, I might accept the premise that we could identify preferable moral traits that lead to happier societies, but there would need more justification for why they exist in the first place to call it clearly objective as opposed to evolutionary or fortunate coincidence. The fact that they exist is not a problem- for me. I find it far easier to believe in God than believe that certain morals have always been floating about in the universe, waiting for humans to evolve a need for them.

Source: settingmycoldheartfree

Shades of Gray

It really bugs me when people hate on religion