Gregg Davidson: The Resurrection, With a Little Help from Richard Dawkins

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@DarrenG

That might explain why the the line
“Addressing the latter questions led me to the works of Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most well known and outspoken apologist for evolution and atheism at the time.”
is repeated.

Yeah, there was a copy error. We did not delete the original text. Should be a correct now.

[sfmatheson (Stephen Matheson)]

@John_Dalton

Not sure Christians are any different I see a lot of good people of all stripes all over too.

Yeah, but see that’s exactly why I stopped believing. Christians are most definitely not any different–once you realize that gods are memes, then Christians are just humans who are susceptible to mind viruses of all kinds. Tribalism, xenophobia, Dunning-Kruger, you name it, those things are all just normal risks of having a human mind. Christianity failed for me because it lied about whether its god could make a difference. He’s a meme complex, and some parts of the complex can be inspiring for good, sometimes, and some parts of the complex can be inspiring for evil, sometimes. Since the same is true of Ophelia and Dumbledore, then…

@John_Dalton

the Christian god weakens moral reasoning and deconstructs human goodness.

How do you figure?

I figure based on observations such as: overwhelming support of fascism and overt white nationalism by evangelicals in the States. Export of anti-gay positions, leading to murder, by evangelicals to places like Uganda. My claim is not that he only exerts evil influence. It’s that he undeniably exerts corrosive influence on huge numbers of people. Gods with immense power have to answer for stuff like that.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

What does “absolute basis” mean here

It means that killing babies like Khmer Rouge have done is objective evil (IOW, it is not a subjective opinion, it is a moral absolute truth).

[John_Harshman]

@system

Note: This article was updated on April 10, 2020 at the author’s request to more accurately describe the contents of The Blind Watchmaker

All very nice, but the author has not corrected his much more fundamental misunderstanding, about the possibility of morality in a Godless universe. It appears that he is unwilling even to discuss or respond to the matter.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

IOW, it is not a subjective opinion, it is a moral absolute truth

Where do moral absolute truths come from, and how do you know?

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@John_Harshman

All very nice, but the author has not corrected his much more fundamental misunderstanding, about the possibility of morality in a Godless universe

What would be the definition of good and evil in a Godless universe?

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Giltil

@Puck_Mendelssohn

What does “absolute basis” mean here

It means that killing babies like Khmer Rouge have done is objective evil (IOW, it is not a subjective opinion, it is a moral absolute truth).

If you define “absolute” as meaning “absolute,” that’s not very helpful. What you need is to show what would make something a “moral absolute truth,” then, if you like, rather than saying it has an “absolute basis.” Who cares how many times you can repeat the word “absolute”? Where is the source of the “absoluteness”? Even the views of a god are just one being’s subjective opinions (and not a being with a lot of skin in the game). You need to show how you cross the “subjective/objective” barrier, but it can’t be done.

[sfmatheson (Stephen Matheson)]

@John_Harshman

author has not corrected his much more fundamental misunderstanding, about the possibility of morality in a Godless universe. It appears that he is unwilling even to discuss or respond to the matter.

That seems a reasonable choice on his part. I think the morality-therefore-god argument is obvious twaddle, but the essence of apologetic pieces like the OP is to provide comfort to believers, not to make a compelling argument for a god’s existence. Hence the reliance on Dawkins as a foil. The author doesn’t have to defend his argument, and I personally think we should acknowledge that some people prefer to put a god at the beginning, to be the “source” of things like morality and universes.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

What would be the definition of good and evil in a Godless universe?

I doubt there are very good short, simple definitions. Moral ambiguity and shades of gray abound. What would adding a God to the universe do?

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@John_Harshman

Where do moral absolute truths come from

God, of course! Barry Arrington who officiated at the UD blog, has the following nice answer:
The good is that which is consistent with the objective transcendent standard grounded in the character of God.

[John_Harshman]

In what way is that answer nice? You really need to deal with the Euthyphro dilemma. Why should the character of God provide an “objective transcendent standard”?

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@John_Harshman

I doubt there are very good short, simple definitions. Moral ambiguity and shades of gray abound

There is no moral ambiguity nor shades of gray in the killing of babies by the Khmer Rouge. It’s pure evil. Period.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Giltil

The good is that which is consistent with the objective transcendent standard grounded in the character of God.

The character of a being that is by definition infinite and beyond mortal understanding is character that is unknowable. Which means that good defined in this way is also unknowable. Which makes all of this rather useless when it comes to framing morality.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

It’s pure evil. Period.

I agree. But there is no absolute standard, whether or not God exists. There is a human standard.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@John_Harshman

You really need to deal with the Euthyphro dilemma

I don’t know about the Euthyphro dilemma. Can you tell more about it?

[sfmatheson (Stephen Matheson)]

@Giltil

There is no moral ambiguity nor shades of gray in the killing of babies by the Khmer Rouge. It’s pure evil. Period.

I agree. That’s why the god of Christianity is a sick monster. He inspired Deuteronomy 20. To believe in him is to disrespect him; the decent choice is to respect him enough to acknowledge that he’s not real.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

Exactly. The Khmer Rouge killings are absolutely the regular order of business for the god of the Bible. Certainly one could never base any sort of “objective” or “absolute” morality on the opinions of such a monster; morality exists despite, not because of, such things.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

I don’t know about the Euthyphro dilemma.

I’m surprised, and even so, Google would be handy here. I’ll give you some time to look and consider. Short version: is something good because God likes it, or does God like it because it’s good? If there were an absolute moral standard, it could not arise from God.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Is there not an absolute basis for affirming that killing babies like the Khmer Rouge have done is evil?

You could assert that there is, but that is all it will ever be.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

There is no moral ambiguity nor shades of gray in the killing of babies by the Khmer Rouge. It’s pure evil. Period.

Sure, and I share your opinion. But that’s what it is, an opinion we share. They don’t share it in the Khmer Rouge.