And yet, it is obviously an unfounded fear, since the vast majority of
atheists are easily able to live their whole lives without raping or murdering
anyone.
><< Suppose I, playing a materialist, answered your question: "no, I cannot
>explain to you why Hitler was evil". What then? Am I now somehow
>responsible for Hitlers actions? Am I immobilized by this question
>to the point where I cannot condemn Hitler? No, I don't think so.>>
>
>But I would continue to point that you cannot condemn Hitler without BORROWING
>your morality from SOMEWHERE. Russell finds it inside his empathy for others.
>And you know what? That is a CLUE (as Lewis puts it in his argument) as to the
>true nature of morality--which, of course, comes back around to contradict the
>materialist!
You are starting to get it -- you realize what the true source of my morality
is now. But I am baffled by your claim that this "contradicts" the materialist.
Haven't I told you many times that even atheists don't believe that science
should be used to derive moral laws? You are attacking a strawman again. Even
if my emotions and empathy arise entirely from naturalistic sources, that
still doesn't make them any less real, and it doesn't mean that I, as a
"materialist", should be any more inclined to deny them. There is no
contradiction
here.
>Here is how Kreeft and Tecelli summarize it:
>
>1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively
>obligated to do good and avoid evil.
As individuals, I think this is true. However, history has shown all too
well that our "obligation" to do good and avoid evil can be quite easily
suppressed -- particularly in a large group of people.
>2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the theistic one.
By "the theistic one", are you including every supernaturalist view of
the universe that has existed throughout human history? If not, then you
are committing the bifurcation fallacy. And if so, then your choice of words
is rather poor, since some religions don't even believe in a supreme being
in the sense that you do.
>3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
Why? The concept of "moral obligation" (that is, people being compelled to
care for one another) can just as easily be explained by a natural tendency
in the human psyche towards emotional empathy.
>Truly, as Craig put it, the materialist cannot live consistently and happily.
Since this claim is obviously false, something must be fatally wrong with
Craig's logic. But I've already pointed out what that is.
>For if he is consistent, he will be unhappy; if he is happy, he is being
>inconsistent. I'll take theism.
Since I'm happy with my life, the obvious implication is that I am being
inconsistent. And yet, I have laid out the source and foundation of my
morality in every detail, and you have failed to point out anything inconsistent
about it.
Strike three against Craig's "logic".
[Pascal's bigoted attacks deleted]
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.