The substantial cost of theistic morality

[drumdude]

You're not immoral, you just don't have a God (or Gods) as your moral foundation.


Well, ok then.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Egh. I rarely go on Sick and None these days because it’s about as interesting as watching dogs running a train on each, which, if that’s your thing then cool, but imho if you’ve seen one dog humping another dog you’ve seen them all. Regardless, this little gem from the comments section is something to consider:

L the A: "Daniel, if you knew for certain that God didn’t exist what would prevent you from supporting another Holocaust?"

DCP: If you don't want to engage my actual argument, just say so. You're under no obligation. You can simply stay out of this one if you prefer.

In typical DCP fashion the lolcow is asked the perfect question by reframing his own question back to him, which illustrates that morality isn’t derived from Kolob, and he responds by throwing his plastic bucket and scoop into the sandpit and stomping away.

This freakin’ guy. I honestly believe the greatest con of the last century was him extracting money from the notoriously tight-fisted Mormon cult and squeezing out a few decades of dreck. I stand all amazed.

- Doc

[drumdude]

Yeah I saw his holocaust photo juxtaposed with a lazy rehashing of the morality argument and my eyes rolled into the back of my head.


DCP is on autopilot, there's no way he's ever going to release a book.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yeah I saw his holocaust photo juxtaposed with a lazy rehashing of the morality argument and my eyes rolled into the back of my head.


DCP is on autopilot, there's no way he's ever going to release a book.

SO. MANY. MANUSCRIPTS.

MANUSCRIPTS.

- Doc

[drumdude]

Wow, it's actually quite cringe worthy. DCP can't engage with any criticism of this old, very tired morality argument.

critics respond foolishly because of incapacity or because of determined unwillingness to understand.

If you don't want to engage my actual argument, just say so. You're under no obligation. You can simply stay out of this one if you prefer.

Will it? Feel free to actually engage what I actually wrote.

Do you have anything relevant to say about my little article?

I never expected you to engage the actual argument that I summarized in my little essay

Do you have anything cogent to say about what I wrote?

I'm not inclined to be dragged off into the weeds. Please post relevantly.

It's quite the spectacle.

[PseudoPaul]

Dan cites a new book with the claim that atheists have no good reason to argue against the following policies:

Christian Smith offers a short list of measures that might potentially be proposed — they are not his proposals — to improve society. I provide an abridgment of his list here:

“All inveterate drug addicts, incorrigible drunks, and long-term homeless people” should be either forcibly enslaved or euthanized."

"Babies who are born with incapacitating mental or physical defects, or who, though healthy, are unwanted, should be allowed to die."

"Elderly invalids and long-term patients in mental hospitals and insane asylums who show no promise of recovery should be permitted or assisted to die."

"Serious repeat criminals, if allowed to live, should be sterilized."

For most of us — including me and Christian Smith — such suggestions would be abhorrent. But why? And on what naturalistic basis could one rationally argue against them? Smith is unpersuaded that, in an atheistic, naturalistic world, there would be rational grounds for opposing these and similar policy suggestions.

...rejecting the existence of God comes at a substantial cost.

There's a very simple rebuttal to this, specifically towards Mormons.

Mormonism offers a list of measures that were proposed, and implemented, to improve the church. I provide an abridgement of that list here:

"Persons with any black African ancestry may not hold the priesthood in the LDS Church and may not participate in most temple ordinances, including the endowment and celestial marriage.

"Children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender may not be blessed as infants or baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints."

"Sexual relations are reserved for a man and woman"

Unfortunately, basing your morality on the teachings of men who claim to speak for God comes at a substantial cost.

Dan has spent so much time in Christian apologetics he doesn't seem to get that those apologetics don't apply to Mormonism, only to classical theism. Mormonism is ultimately just as naturalistic as atheism.

[drumdude]

Dan has spent so much time in Christian apologetics he doesn't seem to get that those apologetics don't apply to Mormonism, only to classical theism. Mormonism is ultimately just as naturalistic as atheism.

This is a very good point, could you expand on it? Are you referring to the idea within Mormonism that God is simply a more intelligent man?

[PseudoPaul]

Dan has spent so much time in Christian apologetics he doesn't seem to get that those apologetics don't apply to Mormonism, only to classical theism. Mormonism is ultimately just as naturalistic as atheism.

This is a very good point, could you expand on it? Are you referring to the idea within Mormonism that God is simply a more intelligent man?

Correct. In classical theism, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. God is the uncaused cause, the prime mover. God in classical theism isn't a part of the universe, he's beyond the universe.

In Mormonism, God is a part of the universe. He's one God in an infinite chain of Gods. He's not omnipotent, he didn't even make the rules - if he doesn't follow the rules, he will cease to be God. So in Mormonism God isn't even the author of morality - morality is just a part of the rules of the universe. So Christian apologetics don't work for Mormonism.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

In response to a DCP-dodge the poster jafnhar crafted this thoughtful comment:

jafnhar > DanielPeterson

Yes, you were arguing that while atheists may be fine people in day-to-day life, at a philosophical level, an atheist will be unlikely to provide a satisfactory explanation of why one should behave according to a universal moral code. My question is if such a formal, objective moral code sourced in external authority matters much to daily life.

I recall an example you gave of a sinking boat and those on shore who may risk their own lives to save the drowning individuals, depending on if they might be generally considered virtuous or unvirtuous individuals. But it is unlikely that any random observer on shore would know much about who is on the boat and while their decision to take a risk to behave altruistically might be partly rooted in an externally-sourced ethic, their own personal courage, confidence in their physical abilities, and their status as family bread-winners are probably much more relevant to their decision making.

In response DCP said:

DanielPeterson > jafnhar

It might matter very much in certain cases.

This is it. This is the best BYU has to offer. This is the philosophical pinnacle that Mormonism provides.

Man. All those years and all that money the cojcolds at the COB put into this guy and that’s what they get.

“It might matter …”

-_-

Mormonism is an intellectual and philosophical dead end.

- Doc

[drumdude]

Peterson has found his chestnut, the refrain he can sing whenever he is backed into a corner:

according to the overwhelming evidence, religiously involved lives -- the lives that he proclaims "wasted" -- are healthier, happier, and longer.

As to how he can make a book out of a single asinine observation, we shall see.