Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Moral Argument

The Moral Argument

     The moral argument is another common argument for god you are likely to come across in your conversations with the faithful. The argument was made popular by 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant in his treatise "Critique of Practical Reason". Kant argued that the existence of god was a necessary assumption one would need to make in order to understand morality.

The moral argument takes many forms but it usually looks something like this

1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
2. Objective morality does exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

     There are a few philosophical stumbling blocks contained in this argument that should be explained before I go into the content of the argument itself, mainly "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity".

Objectivity

     Objectivity as used here means being true outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginations.

Example: The mass of the earth is 5.97219 × 10^24 kilograms.

This is an objective fact. It is true independent of any individuals opinions of it.

Subjectivity

Subjectivity means relating to the perceptions, experiences, interpretations, feelings, and beliefs of a subject.

Example: Vanilla ice cream is the most delicious ice cream. 

     This is a subjective statement. The truth or falsity of the statement is relative to the opinion of person evaluating it. If you like vanilla then you agree with the statement, however, If you prefer chocolate ... well screw you.

     Now, it can get even more fuzzy because you can have objective facts about subjective statements. "Vanilla ice cream is the most delicious ice cream." is a subjective statement but the fact that "Adam thinks vanilla ice cream is the most delicious ice cream" is an objective fact.

... Hope I didn't butcher Objective/Subjective and hope I didn't confuse you, or myself. on to the moral argument.

Problems

     My main problem with this argument is the first premise. This is because I accept premise 2 (depending on the definitions of objective and morally good or bad), but that is a whole post on it's own that I plan to do later on. For this post I mean to focus on why this argument is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of any god or gods.

If God does not exist, objective morals do not exist.

1: What do we mean when we use the word moral?

     Morality deals with the distinction between good and bad or right and wrong. A big difference between theists and atheists on the subject of morality is the definition of the words good and bad. Premise 1 fails because it becomes irrelevant or circular when morality is defined in any religious terms.  

     

   Some define good and bad in this way

Good is what god tells us to do.

Bad is what god tells us not to do.

     This is known as Divine Command Theory. Lets substitute this definition into the 1st premise.

If God does not exist, Divine Commands do not exist.

      Of course it is true if a command exists then the one who gave the command is implied. This pushes the objection to the 2nd premise because I reject that this morality as defined under Divine Command Theory exists. More over I am willing to bet that most believers, when pressed, reject this as a definition of morality as well.

Enter The Euthyphro dilemma

     The Euthyphro dilemma was put forth by Socrates in Plato's book "Euthyphro" and it exposes the problem with attributing morality to a god. It was originally used to demonstrate piety but is easily adapted to morality. It goes like this:

Is that which is good commanded by the gods because it's good, 

or is it good because the gods command it?

Neither answer is satisfying.

Good is commanded by god because it's good

     This reduces god to a messenger, a middle man who is telling us what is good and bad. This means god is irrelevant and not the source of morality thus defeating the argument that he is required for morality to exist.

Good is good because god commanded it. 

     In this case god could command slavery, rape, or murder and it would become good by definition. Prepare yourself for the inevitable "But God would never do that" response. Check out some of the crazy stuff the god of the bible has commanded over the years.

www.evilbible.com

truth-saves.com

     In this scenario morality becomes truly arbitrary and subjective, god would then be the source of it but it would by no means be objective.

"The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good." - Bertrand Russell (Why I Am Not a Christian)

The usual response to the Euthyphro dilemma is to try to create a 3rd option.

"Neither, instead good is good because it reflects gods character or nature"

This changes the definitions of good and bad slightly

Good is what reflects god's nature
Bad is what conflicts with god's nature

This only changes the terms of the dilemma and further damages the argument.

Is god's nature the way it is because it is good or 
is god's nature good merely because it is god's nature?


God's nature is good merely because it is god's nature.

     This leads us right back into the arbitrary definition of good. Gods nature could be any way at all and that would be good by definition. This is further confounded when you ask "Did god have any choice in his nature?" if he did then you have the exact situation as before where god simply subjectively defined morality. On the other hand if he is not the source of his own nature then neither is he the source of morality

God's nature is the way it is because that way is good.
This is plainly circular. just ask "why?"

Why is what is good morally better than what is bad?
Because what is good reflects god's nature and what is bad doesn't
Why does god's nature reflect what is good instead of what is bad
Because what is good is morally better than what is bad
...Rinse and Repeat

2: Which god?

     Again even if this argument was successful it would only argue for a generic deistic god or even aliens that are sufficiently more advanced than us. There is nothing in it that would point towards any particular religious tradition.

All in all I find there is no way to define morality in a religious way without assuming what it is you are trying to prove. If you want my definition of good and bad please check back when I post my treatise on morality... might be a while, I want to do a bit more research and thinking on it before I post. In the mean time check out these links and videos to learn more.

ironchariots.org

This guy is brilliant... 

but he pronounces "Euthyphro" weird

Morality 1: Good without gods 

Morality 2: Not-so-good books

Morality 3: Objectivity and oughtness

Thank you for reading and I welcome any comments or corrections especially on this subject as I am a bit of a newb here. 

-Adam

Defence Against the Dark Arts: Personal Experience

Personal Experience

    Another Favorite argument that the average religious person will bring up in discussions with the godless is their personal experience of the divine or a miracle they witnessed. I have already had several encounters of this kind and so far they have come from people I care deeply about. Recounting their personal experience has resulted in them becoming emotional or even crying. This leads me to believe that they are being incredibly honest and sincere.
     That makes these types of conversations incredibly awkward and difficult because I do not want to hurt their feelings but at the same time I absolutely cannot give credibility to anecdotal stories because they are infamously unreliable and ridiculously insufficient as evidence of such grand claims. So here are some tips I have developed for how to handle these encounters (Hope they help).

Let me remind you the goal here is to get through this awkward situation without hurting your relationship or their feelings and without reinforcing any delusions.

(if their feelings are not your priority scroll down)

1: Listen intently

Give the person speaking your undivided attention and let them finish. They are usually pouring out their heart and soul when they recount their personal experience. Letting them have their say will help create openness.

2: Do Not Laugh!

You may be tempted to giggle or chuckle while you listen, especially if the story gets supernatural or ridiculous but DO NOT DO IT! Nothing kills someones willingness to cooperate more than being laughed at.

3: Make an effort to understand them

If this is a person you care about you'll want to actually understand the emotions fueling this belief as well as understand how to help them through it. Ask clarification questions and genuinely make an effort (this is time consuming and can be tedious but if it is someone important to you then It will be worth the effort)

"Seek first to understand then to be understood" - Stephen Covey

4: Don't acquiesce 

An easy way out of these situations is to agree with the person and lend credibility to their story. This is harmful to the person because it reinforces the delusion. Every time they tell the story and get support from someone they will feel more confident in it. Politely, let them know that you cannot find their story convincing or reliable and let them know why as kindly as possible. That being said, do not apologize or flip flop. Respect the person and respect their emotional reasons for holding unjustified beliefs but do not pretend to respect the ridiculous belief itself. (This is tricky and I don't always do so well with it myself)

5: Don't try to disprove their personal experience

You probably can't. Even if you were there and know what happened, trying to argue against their interpretation of events is next to impossible. Excuses like "It could have been all in your head" or "Maybe you missed something" may seem like reasonable rationalizations to you but might be interpreted as a cheapening of the experience to them or it could come off as you calling them crazy.  Relating a story of your own or telling them about some of the common tricks our brains can play on us could be beneficial but avoid coming off as adversarial. Try to avoid using the word "You" as it can put them on the defense.

6: Try not to get frustrated
The person probably wont give up the belief after the first talk with you about it. Realize this is an emotionally based belief, evidence and argument carry very little weight here. Be patient. Think of your talk as the first dose of antibiotics to treat the problem and further doses will almost certainly be needed. If you show signs of frustration (sighs, moans, glares, side-long glances, face-palming, or becoming angry) you can compromise the relationship you have been trying to build with the person.

...on to the argument itself

Does Personal Experience count?

The argument is usually formatted like this.

1. I had a personal experience of god

2. Therefore god exists

Some common experiences are 

a near death experience

Witnessing a miracle

a revelation from god 

a vision or a dream

the inner witness of the holy spirit

Argument 1: Can your experience mean anything to me?

      In chapter 2 of Thomas Paine's pamphlet "The Age of Reason"  Paine say's

"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it."

The argument here is basically: 

You may very well have had a genuine experience of god but to me it can never be anything but a story.

Argument 2: Some things seem extremely real... but they are not actually real

     While there is still many secrets about the inner workings of the human brain there are many things that neuroscience has brought to light. Among these bits of incite into the cosmos between our ears are warning signs. There are many things our brains do that are not at all obvious to us consciously, many pit-falls and shortcomings of the mind that we need to be aware of before accepting divine revelations as anything more than figments of our imaginations.

Some tricks of the mind are:

Cognitive biases

False memory

Optical Illusions

(This pic is not moving)

Hallucinations
(This one is fun in full screen... but not if you have Epilepsy)

     With this in mind I am very skeptical of my own experiences and look for evidence before I come to a conclusion about what I have seen or heard. In turn I am more skeptical of other people's experiences when they bring little or no evidence to support their conclusions. In addition religious experiences have been induced by magnets in the laboratory (google "god helmet") leading us to believe that all of this is in our heads.

     This is an immense topic and I cannot do it justice here, for more info check out Michael Shermer "The believing brain". 

(Warning it's a bit long, but well worth the watch)

Argument 3: Which god?

     This is a reoccurring response to many arguments for god. I personally have heard from christians about their experiences seeing Jesus or calling on his name and being saved from a bad outcome to a series of events. But non-christians have experiences relating to their beliefs too. Why should we take the word of christians but not the word of muslims, mormons, hindus, buddhists, alien abductees, or anyone els? Are hindu miracles less miraculous than christian ones?
     If we must believe everyone's personal experience at their word then we will be believing contradictory things. So all of them cannot be what they are claiming to be, at least some of them must be wrong. They all believe their own claims with the same conviction as everyone els, so some of them must be believing something untrue with that same conviction. Some of them must be delusional.

How can I tell the difference between your religious belief and a delusion?

If there is no process I can use to differentiate between what you claim and what a delusional person claims how can I tell them apart? 

     In response to this many people will reply "Come on now you can't compare a crazy person to a religious person". Why? To someone outside both of their beliefs they both appear to be claiming highly unlikely or downright impossible things and providing no solid evidence for it at all. How do we know if we cannot check? 

How popular the belief is? 

The amount of money they have? 

How nice they are? 

How reasonable they act concerning other things? 

     These reasons are all fallacious, you can be popular, rich, kind, reasonable, and still be wrong. The answer is we can't tell, they are indistinguishable. They are both bizarre unsupported claims that I have no reason to take seriously.

Argument 4: Hume on miracles 

     The basic argument David Hume makes is:

The only way you could have enough evidence of a miracle happening is if the possibility of it not happening was even more unlikely.

A good example is the Miracle of the Sun
     In Fatima, Portugal on October 13th 1917 30,000 people witnessed the Sun crashing toward the earth in a zig-zag pattern. The event is well reported and witnesses well documented. But did the miracle happen?

It seems improbable that 30,000 people shared in a mass hallucination, collaborated to lie about it to reporters, or that they all were mistaken.

But how much more improbable is it that the gigantic star at the center of our solar system almost crashed into the earth without anyone outside of that town noticing? What about the gravitational effects? The natural explanations are not very likely but the probability of it having actually happened is even more remote.

     

Thank you for reading, I know it was long. Any comments or corrections are welcome and appreciated.
-Adam Johnson

Happy 420 / Easter

I have been lazy this week but here is a brilliant clip of the late Christopher Hitchens on the Immorality of christian doctrine.

Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument

(St. Thomas Aquinas)

     The Cosmological Argument Is one of the more formal arguments for the existence of a god. It takes several forms and may be a bit intimidating at first. Some forms of the argument are simple to say but require lengthy replies to be debunked, making it a favorite of apologists in formal (timed) debates as a good way to eat up your opponents time. But taken step by step it is not too difficult to work through. Here goes nothing...

     A little history first. The cosmological argument dates back to Plato and Aristotle. It was adapted by Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish philosophers but the most influential form of the argument was adapted by St. Thomas Aquinas.

     Aquinas put it 3 different ways. 

Argument from Efficient Causes

Argument from Motion

Argument from Possibility and Necessity

They all take on the same form so I will address the efficient cause argument

1. There exist things that are caused (created) by other things.
2. Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3. There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.

Problem 1: Which god?

 

    At first glance this looks pretty solid logically and It convinced me for a short while before I became an atheist. The first Issue I took with it was the fact it had been used to prove a number of different gods (Yahweh, Allah, Brahma, etc) and they couldn't all be right. This made the argument insufficient to demonstrate any particular god. It also made me a Deist (Someone who believes in a creator god... that doesn't really do anything els in the world) for a week or two before I figured out what els was wrong with it.

Problem 2: Who created god?

     The big problem here is that while the argument hits a real issue in philosophy, the answer it provides is not really an answer at all. We have what is called an infinite regress problem meaning the answer to the question just creates another question... over and over again with no end in sight. 

     Kinda like when a child asks "Why?" and whatever your response is, the child simply repeats "Why?". Technically the child is not asking anything wrong but we tend to get annoyed when asked too many questions especially when he/she gets down to one we don't know the answer to.

     Aquinas said there must be something to fix this problem of infinite regression and he calls that fix god. But does saying "god did it" answer the problem or just push it one more question back? The next logical question as every christian parent knows is, "where did god come from?" I asked this as a child and quickly learned that it was not a question that parents liked to be asked. But if we are to be brave in our quest for truth we must ask, "Who created god?". This leads right back into an infinite regression. God was created by another god who was created by another god who was created by... on and on and on.

     A common response is that god is the only thing that is eternal therefore nothing made him. But that is no answer, you could say that about anything. To assert that this response works for god and not anything els is to make a Special Pleading Fallacy because you have no real reason to believe that there is any difference between "god is the only thing that is eternal" and "Blork, the time travelling hippopotamus, is the only thing that is eternal". It does not matter at all if one is ancient conventional wisdom and the other a whimsically lovable imaginary friend. Ideas must stand on their own merit, tradition does not indicate truth.

Problem 3: How do you know something cannot cause itself?

     This problem is a hasty generalization. With advancements in quantum physics and general relativity we are learning more and more that the universe acts very weird on the scale of the very small and the speeds approaching light speed.

    Things like Vacuum Fluctuations and Barrier Tunneling are challenging our common sense ideas. But this is to be expected our common sense is tuned to the size scale of things we live with and the speeds we travel at normally. We should be cautious when applying common sense that we have gained from observing everyday human life to particles so small you can't see them with the best microscope or when they are moving 99% the speed of light.

     While this is not proof positive that the argument is flawed it is a stern warning that we have been wrong before and we should tread lightly. The right time to believe something is when sufficient evidence is provided.

There are a few more intricate and sophisticated versions of the cosmological argument out there and I will post my take on them in the future. But I'm done for now. As always any comments or corrections are welcome and appreciated.  

Thank you,

-Adam

Tth

Defense Against the Dark Arts: Pascal's Wager!!!

Pascal's Wager

     The first argument I will attempt to dismantle is also the most common argument you are likely to see while talking to the average religious person. Pascal's wager is the name of an argument put forth by 17th century philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal.

Here is the argument in a nut shell:

If you believe in god...

        ...and he is real, you go to heaven.

        ...and he is not real, nothing happens when you die.

However, if you do not believe in god...

        ...and he is real, you go to hell.

        ...and he is not real, nothing happens when you die.

Even if god seems very unlikely, it is better to believe in god and be wrong than it is to risk the consequences of not believing and being wrong. 

     To be perfectly honest this seemed convincing to me when I was a christian. I even used it on a few people in an attempt to convert them.

     But I have since had a few realizations... 

Realization 1:  You can't really choose what you believe. Can you?

    You believe something because you were convinced it was true not because you chose to believe it. You may choose to say that you believe something but unless you are really convinced in your mind you don't truly believe in it.

Realization 2:  Wouldn't a god know that you were faking it? Or that you did it for the wrong reasons?

     If you decided to say you believe just to save your own ass wouldn't the omniscient (all knowing) master of the universe know that you are a phoney? This seems like a cowardly covering of your bases instead of honest whole-hearted belief.

Realization 3: Why are we only considering the christian god?

     Pascal formulated his wager only considering the christian god but what if, instead, we include the risks you are taking by not figuring in the consequences of other faiths? Accepting Jesus as god will put you in hot water with the muslim god Allah, what if they are right? Or what about the Hindu gods or anyone els's god? If any other god is as jealous as the Judeo-Christian god is said to be then wouldn't an atheist, who doesn't worship any god, do better than the person actively worshiping the wrong god?

    

In fact an Anti-Pascal wager can be formed.

1. It is impossible to tell which religion has it right, if any.

2. The consequences of worshiping the wrong god may be 

    worse than the consequences of worshiping no god at all.

3. Therefore, it is a safer bet to refrain from worshiping any god

     until such a time as that god can be substantiated.

This line of thought echo's Marcus Aurelius's quote

     Personally, the second realization was the one that killed off Pascal's wager for me. I reasoned that I should be honest with myself and that if there is a good god he/she/it would appreciate my honesty and dedication to truth.

For more info visit 

ironchariots.org Pascal's Wager

Arguments for the Existence of god

The existence of god

     Having only been an atheist for a few months my level of experience refuting religious arguments is relatively low. However, I have been reading, watching, listening to, and thinking about many of these arguments and I want to take a whack at them. 

     Arguments or excuses made to defend religious beliefs are often called Apologetics. What I will be doing is countering these arguments and that is referred to as Counter-Apologetics.

I am calling this series of posts "Defense against the dark arts"... I can't take credit for that name but I don't know where I picked it up.

Here is a list of the some formal arguments I have come across so far 

1. The Cosmological Argument
2. The Teleological Argument
3. The Moral Argument
4. The Ontological Argument
5. The Transcendental Argument

There are also a few less formal arguments I have seen

1. Pascal's Wager
2. Argument from Scripture
3. Personal Experience
4. Argument from Faith
5. "Would someone die for a lie?" Argument
6. Lunatic, Liar, or Lord Argument
7. Argument from Miracles
8. The Banana Argument

I have also come across many logical fallacies put forth as arguments

1. Argument from Ignorance
2. Popularity Argument
3. False Dichotomy
4. False Cause
5. Slippery Slope
6. Straw-man 
7. Appeal to Emotion
8. Ad Hominem
9. Shifting of the Burden of Proof
10. Appeal to Authority
11. Begging the Question
12. No True Scotsman
13. Composition / Division 
14. Appeal to Nature
15. Coercion
16. Loaded Question
17. Special Pleading

     These have all been addressed by people before me and are easily available online. I will try to take these on in my own words as a learning experience for myself and maybe others.

Here is a list of resources on these topics

Get to know your logical fallacies at 

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Read up on Counter-Apologetics at 

ironchariots.org

The Thinking Atheist has a few good videos that go over some of the creationist arguments pretty well 

Give them a Look-See!

Top Ten Creationist Arguments

Part 1

Top Ten Creationist Arguments

Part 2

What is an atheist?

What is an atheist?

     So a common issue I have with people that find out I am an atheist is they don't know what I mean.  I will try my best to explain a few terms that I hope will clear things up. One thing I would like to point out before we get going is that the labels we give ourselves are our own. Just because you may fit into a definition is not a requirement that you self identify with that label.

Theist: A person who has a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

From the Greek "Theos" meaning god

     A theist is a person who holds a belief in a god or multiple gods. It is important to remember that this speaks only of their belief and not of their knowledge, one can believe in god without being able to prove he/she/it exists. Many world religions fit into this category Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, Scientology, some forms of Buddhism, and many tribal religions. 

 Atheist: A person who does not have a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

From the Greek "A" + "Theos" meaning without/not god

     An atheist is a person who is not a theist. A common misconception is that being an atheist is professing a claim to knowledge. Just like theism speaks only to that persons belief, not any proof, atheism speaks only of that person not having that belief. Some forms of Buddhism and Jainism fall in this category.

     The first two terms on this list deal with having or not having a belief. The next two deal with having or not having knowledge.

Gnostic: A person who claims to poses knowledge.

From the Greek "Gnosis" meaning knowledge

     A gnostic person is someone who has or claims to have knowledge. The word is usually used for a kind of mystical knowledge. It is also the name of a Christian heretical group that branched off the Orthodox Christian church. Someone can be a Gnostic and a Theist this would mean that they have a belief in a god and that they claim to know that the belief is true. On the other hand someone can be a Gnostic and an Atheist this would mean that they do not have a belief in any god and that they claim to know that such a belief is false. Atheists that fall into this category are called Antitheists or Strong-Atheists. Please take note that all antitheists are atheists, but not all atheists are antitheists.

Agnostic: A person who does not claim to posses knowledge.

From the Greek "A" + "Gnosis" meaning without/not knowledge

     An agnostic person is someone who does not claim to have knowledge. The word is more widely used than it's counterpart but both are not strictly limited to mystical or supernatural knowledge. Someone can be both an Agnostic and a Theist this would mean that they have a belief in god but do not claim to know that the belief is true. Also one can be an Agnostic and an Atheist this would mean that they do not have a belief in any god but that they do not claim to know that such a belief is false. Atheists that fall into this category are sometimes called Weak-Atheists.

     I feel I need to add that there are basically two kinds of Agnosticism. Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TA) and Permanent Agnosticism in Principle (PA).

     Temporary agnosticism in practice is a state of temporary ignorance, where a definitive answer is out there to be found but is out of reach for the time being. An example of this would be the answer to the question, "Do aliens exist?". There really is a definite answer to that question but until we find alien life or search and rule out every planet in the universe, the only honest answer is, "We don't know right now".

     Permanent agnosticism in principle is a state of permanent ignorance, where no matter how hard we try, in principal there is no way to come to a definite answer either way. An example of this would be the question, "Do you see colors the same way I see colors?". No matter how much new information is put forth we cannot know the answer. The most honest answer is, "We may never know".

I hope this has been informative and I would appreciate any comments or corrections.

Thanks as always,

Adam

Ps. Here is a great video on what atheism is, watch it!