Skeptic Michael Shermer writes an open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens in a Scientific American essay entitled Rational Atheism. Shermer chastises his fellow atheists because of their attacks on religion and then asks them to follow the golden rule.
Shermer does not quote the Bible but simply refers to the "golden rule" as if it were floating around out there somewhere. Shermer quotes Martin Luther King Jr. heavily. This is ironic since MLK Jr. grounded his morality in a Judeo Christian worldview. Anyway, Shermer quotes an objective moral rule in the final sentence of the essay.
"the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion."
Wha? Says who?
This is from a guy who says he believes that ultimate reality is matter in motion. Molecules. Matter. Nothing transcendent. Just matter. That's it.
Reading Shermer make moral arguments based on objective moral principles, therefore, is irrational if his worldview is true. The supreme irony is that Shermer titled his article Rational Atheism.
Shermer does not quote the Bible but simply refers to the "golden rule" as if it were floating around out there somewhere.
FWIW, I don't think Shermer needs to quote the Bible for the Golden rule. The Wikipedia article on the subject cites teachings from Plato and Seneca as well as Hindu and Confucian philosophy. Several of them predate Jesus's formulation by quite a bit and are unlikely to be derived from Old Testament teachings.
However, that doesn't negate your main point. If the Golden Rule is floating around out there so that almost every religion and philosophy hits on it, then that might support the some concept of natural law, but it doesn't explain how atheists ground their understanding of that natural law.
Posted by: Nick | August 22, 2007 at 08:43
The Golden Rule has been around much longer than Christianity and has been expressed similarly by many cultures.
Did Shermer say he considered his moral principal to be objective, or is that just your spin so you can attack him? I don't think it is irrational for atheists to follow moral precepts as long as they acknowledge that they are born of man.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | August 22, 2007 at 08:55
"If the Golden Rule is floating around out there so that almost every religion and philosophy hits on it, then that might support the some concept of natural law, but it doesn't explain how atheists ground their understanding of that natural law."
Shermer smuggles in natural law language to make his moral argument.
Can't have it both ways. Either reality reduces to matter in motion or it doesn't. Transcendent entities like a universal objective code of ethics are absurd in a naturalist's worldview.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | August 22, 2007 at 12:32
"Did Shermer say he considered his moral principal to be objective, or is that just your spin so you can attack him?"
No. He did worse. He assumed it. It is an unspoken premise of his argument that must be assumed or his argument has zero punch and can be defeated with nothing more than "says who?"
Don't confuse a personal attack with attacking an argument. I attacked Shermer's argument. I didn't impugn his character. His argument simply doesn't fit with his worldview.
BTW, I did not think you were attacking me personally with your negative comment. You weren't, were you?
"I don't think it is irrational for atheists to follow moral precepts as long as they acknowledge that they are born of man."
Ok, then. I could agree to that. Just as long as we are all clear about the fact that Shermer's subjective moral preferences carry as much weight as arguing mint chocolate chip is more tasty than Rocky Road ... Shermer is one piece of matter telling other pieces of matter his preferences.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | August 22, 2007 at 12:40
"No. He did worse. He assumed it. It is an unspoken premise of his argument that must be assumed or his argument has zero punch and can be defeated with nothing more than 'says who?'"
I think you assume that he assumed it. Also, I don't think a "says who" is quite sufficient to defeat his argument; he could respond quite eloquently, perhaps, given the chance. There are sometimes some pretty satisfying answers to the "says who" question.
"Don't confuse a personal attack with attacking an argument. I attacked Shermer's argument."
You are right, of course. I worded that part incorrectly. I'm sorry.
"Shermer is one piece of matter telling other pieces of matter his preferences."
So are we all.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | August 22, 2007 at 19:40
Rob Ryan said... "There are sometimes some pretty satisfying answers to the "says who" question."
Please give an example or two, Rob, as this would be quite enlightening to a non-relativist like me.
Posted by: Laughing Boy | August 24, 2007 at 11:30
"Please give an example or two, Rob, as this would be quite enlightening to a non-relativist like me."
I doubt that, because my examples of satisfying responses to the "who says" question will be, like yours, appeals to authority:
"Your mother"
"Your coach"
"Your commanding officer"
"Your boss"
"Your government"
"Your society"
Before you dismiss these as not universally satisfying, consider this:
What are Christian precepts based upon if not the authority of God? That is not universally satisfying either, even for people who believe in God. It satifies me not at all, since I consider God to be a fictional character.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | August 25, 2007 at 10:14
Appeal to authority is indeed the crux of the matter. In some areas and at some times of life, one's mother, coach, CO, etc. may be properly appealed to. Mom, however, is not the universal source of morality—if for no other reason than there are lots of moms. Unless there is a single, external and ultimate source, than we can all appeal to whatever source floats our boat. If sexual promiscuity is my thing, I can find a source that accomodates it, while you may seek one that prohibits it. Your authority may not satisfy me at all. What argument could you present that says I should be bound by it? Unless we agree that there is ONE ultimate authority then it is all relative and no judgement can be rendered. As Dostoyevsky writes, "Without God, all things are permitted."
Posted by: Laughing Boy | August 26, 2007 at 22:59
"What argument could you present that says I should be bound by it?"
Probably nothing you would find particularly compelling. What argument can you present that I should be bound by the precepts of an entity whose existence seems vanishingly unlikely to me?
"Unless we agree that there is ONE ultimate authority then it is all relative and no judgement can be rendered."
Well, we DON'T agree. What now? I've never considered the practical usefulness of a god-concept to be evidence of a god's actual existence. Judgements can still be rendered, however. We humans have to render them. We've been doing so for thousands of years. Every law we have is man-made, even if some claim without proof a divine source for them.
"As Dostoyevsky writes, "Without God, all things are permitted."
Maybe in an existential sense, but I wouldn't suggest committing crimes willy-nilly and hoping to evade secular justice.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | August 27, 2007 at 19:32
If we don't agree, we have no basis to hold one another accountable or to make judgements. If we create a new social contract between ourselves, or agree to be bound by an existing one, the matter is resolved for us. However, others can adopt another social contract which could be contradictory to ours on crucial issues, or they can make up their own to suit themselves. You and I can not hold them accountable or render judgement in any sense whatsoever. If there is no single, external, ultimate authority our local moral systems are held together by consensus, an agreement to play by arbitrary rules. If that consensus breaks down there is no viable recourse.
Fortunately there is a single, external and ultimate authority and even atheists behave as if there is, though they deny the only logical foundation of such behavior.
Posted by: Laughing Boy | August 28, 2007 at 12:41
"If there is no single, external, ultimate authority our local moral systems are held together by consensus..."
Yes! You get it!
"If that consensus breaks down there is no viable recourse."
Of course there is: you form another one or you fight it out. This is called revolution, and it happens a lot."
"Fortunately there is a single, external and ultimate authority..."
To bring the discussion full circle, Says who?
"...and even atheists behave as if there is, though they deny the only logical foundation of such behavior."
Oh dear, I'm afraid you don't get it after all. My behavior is an outgrowth of my moral system, not the one you attribute to a supernatural being and consider ultimate and objective. Furthermore, I recognize that morals, including mine, are subjective.
I think I know a great deal more about the logical foundations of my behavior than you do. Your concept of a deity may be omniscient, but you are not.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | August 28, 2007 at 19:32
"I think I know a great deal more about the logical foundations of my behavior than you do. Your concept of a deity may be omniscient, but you are not."
Says who?
Regardless, no omniscience is required. One's logical foundations are open for all to see because logic is not subjective and personal, but intuitive—like morality.
Logic is not invented; it's discovered. We learn, hopefully, how to apply it. Morality, likewise, is discovered. We learn, hopefully, to live in accordance with it. I am not aware of any non-circular arguments that prove the fundamentals of morality arose via naturalism or via a consensus of matter units, and (since my omniscience has not yet been refuted) I would know.
I think I've made my point sufficiently well. I'll give you the last word.
Posted by: Laughing Boy | August 29, 2007 at 12:06
"...since my omniscience has not yet been refuted..."
Not formally, perhaps, but I think you've provided evidence of absence.
"I am not aware of any non-circular arguments that prove the fundamentals of morality arose via naturalism or via a consensus of matter units"
Nor have you proven otherwise. We are left to interpret the evidence as best we can and arrive at our own conclusions.
Nice talking to you, though. :-)
Posted by: Rob Ryan | August 29, 2007 at 18:42
Rob,
The problem with ethical relativism is that it is very easy to articulate and impossible to live.
I doubt, for example, that you actually believe the Taliban are morally honorable in their view of women even though within their culture they have achieved moral consensus.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | August 30, 2007 at 08:39
"The problem with ethical relativism is that it is very easy to articulate and impossible to live."
Maybe I am not an ethical relativist. I prefer my morals to those of anyone else. Maybe I'm a cult of one.
I do not think the Taliban are honorable in their treatment of women. I don't like their moral consensus. I don't like Saul of Tarsus's view of the role of women, either, nor do I like the consensus view of women that dominated Christendom for centuries. I only say that consensus is how we enforce morality; I didn't say I like it.
All I'm saying is that morality is subjective. I am not abandoning my right to say that I am right and others are wrong. I am merely honest enough to admit that it is my opinion that they are wrong, not that they violate any ultimate and objective standard of morality. There simply isn't one to violate. We have to make the rules, so we had better put a lot of thought into them.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | August 30, 2007 at 19:40
"Maybe I am not an ethical relativist."
Bingo. Relativistic statements sound wonderful and tolerant and all that ... but the philosophy is completely unlivable. If it were true, then the Taliban would be honorable and right for its view of women because that society had reached its moral consensus. There are plenty of other examples ... honor killings, female circumcision, all of that. A consistent relativist simply has to grant that those things are ok because they are culturally formed and approved.
So we have established that you do believe in objective morals. You may have formed them subjectively ... but you hold them quite universally. You have to because you believe the Taliban is quite wrong. The question becomes one of standards.
Based on your statements, your moral standard is quite clearly you.
The Taliban disagrees with you on your view of women.
The question is, who is right?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | August 31, 2007 at 00:27
It seems like Rob is logically forced to agree with Ivan Karamazov; without God all things are permitted. All things may not be personally amenable to us, but why should anyone else care what we find personally amenable? As long as I am being true to my own rules, I am acting morally. Anyone who thinks otherwise is merely an obstacle to my personal fulfillment and can be dealt with in any manner consistent with my personal standards. I may have to face legal consequences—or I may not if I have adequate political influence—but either way my morality is unassailable.
Rob seems to think we live in such a world now, that this is how things are and have always been. To some degree he may be right, but the only place this moral system can exist in pure form is hell.
Posted by: r10b | August 31, 2007 at 11:21
"Bingo. Relativistic statements sound wonderful and tolerant and all that ... but the philosophy is completely unlivable."
Bingo what? I never claimed to be a moral or ethical relativist. You and Laughing boy introduced that term into the discussion. My position has been consistent from the outset.
"So we have established that you do believe in objective morals."
No, we have not. My morals, and yours, and everyone else's, are subjective. Wishing that others would follow them, as we all do, does not magically or logically grant them objectivity.
"Based on your statements, your moral standard is quite clearly you."
Bingo! Of course, I didn't form my morality in a moral vacuum. I draw from many sources, as do you and everyone else.
"The question is, who is right?"
That is, has been, and will continue to be a bone of contention. With no ultimate arbiter, the question must remain the topic of endless debate. That a god would be mighty handy in these matters in no way provides evidence for the existence of one.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | August 31, 2007 at 17:49
"It seems like Rob is logically forced to agree with Ivan Karamazov; without God all things are permitted."
No, you are wrong. Ask yourself this question: permitted by whom? If God does not exist, he cannot grant permission. Assuming the absence of God, who permits "all things"?
Not society.
Not government.
Not me.
Who, then, permits all things? Clearly, Karamazov's statement is unsupportable.
"Anyone who thinks otherwise is merely an obstacle to my personal fulfillment and can be dealt with in any manner consistent with my personal standards. I may have to face legal consequences—or I may not if I have adequate political influence—but either way my morality is unassailable."
Actually, the morality is still assailable. All morality is assailable. The honest assailant, however, must admit his assault is based on his opinion. Most of us assailants like to point out, of course, that our moral basis for such an assault is shared to a large extent by logic, society, government, scripture, etc. That gives our arguments added weight, but our foes are unlikely to admit defeat. They have their own way of looking at things.
I sense a great longing among theists for ultimate justice, and I understand that longing. What I don't understand is why they think it must surely exist just because it seems to be needed so badly.
Isn't it possible that we will never be satisfied? After all, that is the way it is in our temporal lives. Maybe we just have to do without ultimate justice. I think that is exactly what we are doing.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | August 31, 2007 at 18:09
"Wishing that others would follow them, as we all do, does not magically or logically grant them objectivity."
It is not merely that you wish that others would follow your moral code, it is that you actually believe others are wrong for not doing so. You said so. You said the Taliban was wrong for its view of women. You are making judgments about others based on a standard. How the standard was formed is not the point ... nor is whether they follow your standard.
Your implicit claim is that you believe that whoever disagrees with your moral standards is wrong.
"With no ultimate arbiter, the question must remain the topic of endless debate."
No it doesn't. You have made yourself the ultimate arbiter. You are sure that others that disagree with you are wrong. You are not wavering ... your mind is made up about the Taliban's attitude toward women. There is no true debate in your mind, is there?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | September 01, 2007 at 05:02
"It is not merely that you wish that others would follow your moral code, it is that you actually believe others are wrong for not doing so."
I suspect you do the same thing. "Wrong" is as much a matter of opinion as morality. There is still no objectivity.
"You have made yourself the ultimate arbiter."
For me, yes. Not for everyone! Do you honestly believe I think myself incapable of error, or are you grasping at rhetorical straws? I said there is NO ultimate arbiter, and I meant it. Sheesh!
"There is no true debate in your mind, is there?"
Of course there is, every day. This is just insulting. Sometimes I change my mind. Sometimes I decide that I am wrong and the other guy is right. And I would never suggest that the same is not true of you.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | September 01, 2007 at 09:24
"'Wrong' is as much a matter of opinion as morality."
In the case of honor killings, wrong is wrong. It is objectively wrong. I am sure if a relative stoned one of your girls for being with a boy that you wouldn't say that it was only your opinion that what happened was wrong. You would be outraged and rightly so.
"For me, yes. Not for everyone!"
Sorry you are getting emotional about this, but anger is not an argument. Nobody here is going after your character. I am staying focused on your ethical argument.
I believe you think honor killings are wrong all the time, no matter what other people think, and no matter who commits them. Correct?
"Of course there is, every day. This is just insulting. Sometimes I change my mind."
No doubt you change your mind about some things. The case I have consistently been discussing is the Taliban's view toward women ... and now honor killings as one example of that view. How often have you changed your mind about whether that is wrong? Are you unsure of the morality of that particular act? Do you think it is acceptable in some circumstances and locations?
This is a modest claim. The claim is that you believe honor killings are wrong at any time, in any location, in any culture, no matter what popular opinion may be ... and it is highly unlikely that you will be persuaded otherwise in the future.
Can we agree on this?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | September 01, 2007 at 10:13
"I am sure if a relative stoned one of your girls for being with a boy that you wouldn't say that it was only your opinion that what happened was wrong."
When I say something is wrong I mean it is my opinion that it is wrong. That is what the word "wrong" means to me when one is discussing morals.
"Can we agree on this?"
Yes, we can, with the proviso that despite my adamant opposition to the practice I claim no objective basis for this opposition. It is my opinion. Some Muslims have a different opinion. I think they are wrong. The debate goes on.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | September 01, 2007 at 12:55
I am relieved to hear you agree that honor killings are wrong at all times in all cultures in all locations in all circumstances ... and even more relieved that this is something you hold firmly no matter what people think. I am glad you think it is barbaric and evil. You should.
Have a great Labor Day weekend, friend.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | September 01, 2007 at 17:14
I disagree with Shermer's thinking. I think of reality, not as a matter of molecules, but as a matter of living with a conscience.
Posted by: Carrot Top | September 06, 2007 at 11:04