tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post272040526173477300..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Atheists' Problem with MoralityAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63549313180869278042008-03-31T10:45:00.000-06:002008-03-31T10:45:00.000-06:00Prof, not only is D'Souza (and others like him) wr...Prof, not only is D'Souza (and others like him) wrong, he is absurdly wrong. His argument of "any atheist who acted fully consistently with his beliefs would be a mass murderer" is so grossly and obviously incorrect that it's nearly inconceivable that anyone, even without any level of education, could make such a mistake. It is the equivilent of claiming "if H2O acted consistent with it's chemical nature, all the world's oceans would be made of hot steam."<BR/><BR/>When someone makes such a gross error of reasoning it is fair to ask "how could an otherwise intelligent person have made such an error?" And it is consistent with past observations that such a mistake reveals that this person has intentionally blinded himself to his own errors to fuel his own bigotted hatred of the target group, and to spread that hatred as far and wide as he can. The fact that he continues to cling to his error even after being shown it's flaws is further evidence that this is his motivation. As such, it IS bigotry and not flawed logic that drives his sorts of argument. We can point to his words and say to others "This is exactly the same sort of speach used by the Nazi's in the 30's to demonize the "dirty Jews". Is this who you want representing you?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28667432427534018912008-03-29T10:27:00.000-06:002008-03-29T10:27:00.000-06:00Hi again Alonzo. I hope you are still reading the...Hi again Alonzo. I hope you are still reading these comments.<BR/><BR/>You replied:<BR/><BR/>--------<BR/><BR/>This adjustment, from "all atheists are evil" to "all consistent atheists would be evil" in the above argument would not be a substantial change to the posting.<BR/><BR/>---------<BR/><BR/>Yes it would be a substantial change, which is exactly what I'm trying to say.<BR/><BR/>In the passage I've cited, you lobbed the charge of "moral failing" and "bigotry" at some theists, based upon your misrepresentation of their argument. As you are an ethicist I know you would want to be careful and consistent when making such charges, which is why I'm bothering to pursue this point.<BR/><BR/>“Some atheists have done bad things; therefore, all atheists are evil.” is indeed THE FORM OF ARGUMENT that leads to bigotry. And more importantly it is by nature an invalid argument (so far as one is aware of instances to the contrary).<BR/><BR/>"all consistent atheists would be evil" is not THE FORM OF ARGUMENT that necessarily implies bigotry, nor is it the argument of a bigot. And it is not by nature an invalid argument. The particular argument may be wrong, but it's not by nature invalid and it's not the type of argument exclusive to bigotry.<BR/><BR/>For instance, I might look at certain tenets of Christianity and say "If the person really held to this tenet, we would expect X." E.g. if a Christian really believed his tenet that there is an All Powerful, All Seeing, All Present God who cares about what you do and who frowns upon certain activities, let alone will end up judging the fate of your eternal soul, then we would expect someone acting consistently<BR/>with this tenet not to engage in proscribed behavior. Not when it is their very tenet that such proscribe behavior is being watched by this judging God.<BR/><BR/>And yet, of course, plenty of Christians act in church like there is a God present, and seem to put that belief on the shelf when necessary to act as if God isn't present (e.g. to engage in illicit behaviors, as many Christians do).<BR/><BR/>It is not "Bigoted" or a "moral failing" to point out that a Christian acting consistently with his tenet that God is ever present would not engage in immoral behavior. Nor for that matter would it be "bigoted" to point out that a Christian acting consistently with other tenets of his faith (e.g. 10 Commandments/ Jesus' philosophy) would act in "x" manner and not in "Y" manner. Christians often act<BR/>inconsistently with the tenets of their faith.<BR/><BR/>Now, any of the above arguments I make about Christian behavior may be WRONG when we get into the details (I may have missed mitigating tenets or whatever). But the FORM of the argument is not by nature invalid, nor is it by nature a bigoted form of reasoning.<BR/><BR/>Likewise with Dinesh D'Souza's. His argument: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history, relies on the same form of reasoning I've given about Christianity. "If atheists acted consistently with their other beliefs, they would act like X." <BR/><BR/>His argument may very well be wrong (we know it is). But it is not of the same FORM of the bigoted, invalid argument as "“Some atheists have done bad things; therefore, all atheists are evil.” <BR/><BR/>Therefore you shouldn't lob the charge of "moral failing" and "bigoted" at that argument on the basis it is essentially the same as "Some atheists have done bad things; therefore, all atheists are evil.” <BR/><BR/>It isn't the same form of argument at all.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>Prof.Vaalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14896147903257500224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-5321782438711346802008-03-28T13:58:00.000-06:002008-03-28T13:58:00.000-06:00Technically, the objections raised above are corre...Technically, the objections raised above are correct. The argument that I am criticizing does not say, "All atheists are evil." The more accurate conclusion of the arguments I am criticizing is, "No atheist has any reason to be good." Or, "Any fully consistent atheist who has not made a mistake in applying his own philosophy to his actions would be evil."<BR/><BR/>While admitting to the possibility of some atheists being good, these are atheists who have made a mistake - typically by internalizing Christian morality and failing to see how this is in conflict with their (other) atheist beliefs.<BR/><BR/>See, for example, Dinesh D'Souza's <A HREF="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html" REL="nofollow">Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history</A>.<BR/><BR/>This adjustment, from "all atheists are evil" to "all consistent atheists would be evil" in the above argument would not be a substantial change to the posting.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-10688359228335743112008-03-28T10:15:00.000-06:002008-03-28T10:15:00.000-06:00Alonzo,I'm an atheist who enjoys your blog. I've...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>I'm an atheist who enjoys your blog. I've been interested in your DU theory for quite a while. I think it does a compelling job of explaining a lot of things about morality. <BR/><BR/>You are a careful thinker in general, which makes it somewhat disappointing to see you get a little sloppy with this:<BR/><BR/>"Another area in which these people show their moral failings is in their use of hasty generalizations. Their argument follows the pattern, “Some atheists have done bad things; therefore, all atheists are evil.” This is the paradigm example of bigotry."<BR/><BR/>None of the authors you've cited made that argument. In fact Dinesh D'Souza and Mark Milke specifically deny this. Their argument doesn't even "follow that pattern." They acknowledge atheists often act morally. In fact, aside from truly fringe nut-jobs, I'd be hard pressed to think of ANY christian writers or debaters that have made such an argument. Rather, they are talking about what they argue is the logic of atheism, and it's implications for morality (e.g. that it can not provide a basis for morality without a God, and that some of the crimes committed by atheists are logical extensions of this problem). <BR/><BR/>Their argument against atheist morality is much the same type of argument you and I make against Christian morality. We say that Christian theism does not provide the basis for morality, and to the extent we point to "evil" done by Christians it isn't to say Christians are evil: it's to point out instances which demonstrate the <BR/>liability of deriving morality from<BR/>Christian tenets.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, those believers don't say the crimes of some atheists mean that atheists are evil: they point to the crimes of some atheists as indications of the liabilities of non-belief in God.<BR/><BR/>The argument made by those believers may be wrong, but it isn't of the straw-man type you are using as an example.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Of course, I side with you regarding the bogus claim that morality is derived from the Christian God. But let us be fair: our theistic opponents in the vast majority of cases, and in the specific cases you've cited here, are NOT making the argument you've accused them of making, which concludes "all atheists are evil."<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>Prof.Vaalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14896147903257500224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-33562947844009753122008-03-28T02:27:00.000-06:002008-03-28T02:27:00.000-06:00Anonymous"Naming the title of a book isn't evidenc...Anonymous<BR/><BR/>"Naming the title of a book isn't evidence."<BR/><BR/>Now you are being dubiously and questionably misleading. I would say that the anyone who <B>assumes or presupposes</B> their moral superiority is evidence of their moral inferiority. Of course, one needs to check, if possible, if they do have any arguments to support their case before arriving at an informed conclusion. The scenarios that Alonzo is talking about exhibit an old repeated pattern and there is nothing new to indicate they have any innovative arguments to support their case.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29153758156061434582008-03-27T15:56:00.000-06:002008-03-27T15:56:00.000-06:00"For example, since I can show that these authors ..."For example, since I can show that these authors presume the moral inferiority of others, I have the evidence I need to morally condemn them for their arrogance and bigotry."<BR/><BR/>Naming the title of a book isn't evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63478820263626976922008-03-26T18:49:00.000-06:002008-03-26T18:49:00.000-06:00Simplesmente,Try community centers. Many cities ha...Simplesmente,<BR/><BR/>Try community centers. Many cities have one. But you have to be active in promotions and activities. If there is none in your community, your first effort could be to create one.<BR/><BR/>Instead of a preacher making the speeches (and thus the decisions), I envision something like a Quaker meeting, with those who want to speak standing up and speaking.<BR/><BR/>Or you could just join a local club for your hobby of interest. This is actually the same thing. In the first, the thing you all have in common is location. In clubs, it gets a bit more specific.Emu Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05352556221263050952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-22788946848768343742008-03-26T16:47:00.000-06:002008-03-26T16:47:00.000-06:00Excellent post, excellent blog. I have been readin...Excellent post, excellent blog. I have been reading the interesting book "Jews, God and History", by Max Dimont. As an Atheist, one thing makes me sad: the fact that the community which people of religion have (such as the Jews, as that book shows) may be unattainable for us atheists. Jews have a feeling of "family". Churches do also. Where can atheist get that? That is one thing I wish someone would solve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com