Review 2 (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 13:23 (5673 days ago) @ Mark

My thanks to Mark for his detailed response to my post of 21 October at 12.11, and to Carl and George for their additional comments. - It seems to me, Mark, that the basis of your argument is that only God can provide us with an objective foundation for morality, and I can accept this without further discussion. Where the misunderstandings arise is in the implications of the argument. You use words like "choice", "subjective", "arbitrary" and "illusion" which, whether intentionally or not, give the impression that the morality of anyone who doesn't believe in God is less valid than that of a believer. We are all, of course, theoretically free to embrace or reject the customs and laws of the society we live in, just as we are all free to embrace or reject Christ, and to embrace or reject the (often disputed) tenets of Christianity. But if society regards murder as wrong, I am just as bound by its laws ... and by my conscience ... as you are, and I see no reason why as an agnostic I should refrain from using the word "wrong" simply because it has no divinely objective basis. Nor do I see any reason why with my subjective (but socially validated) morality I should be regarded as more likely to commit murder than, say, a Muslim fundamentalist who shares your belief in a divinely objective morality. I know you are not accusing me of harbouring murderous desires ... I am simply pointing out that claims to objectivity do not increase validity. - However, I'd like to take the argument one step further. You say "The differences can be exaggerated. The disagreement between religions, and within Christianity, is not necessarily a sign that good is subjective, but that good is not fully known." And you go on to say, "It's not as if basic principles such as 'do no harm' or 'do as you would be done by' are changing and disagreed across humanity." These basic principles are shared by social and religious codes, and as such are independent of God. Society cannot function without them. The devil, as they say, is in the detail, and the disagreements are far more basic than you seem willing to acknowledge. If one interpretation of God's word exhorts believers to kill non-believers, and another says we are all God's children and mercy should be shown to all, the argument that there is an objective basis to morality is frankly useless when it comes to the practicalities of living on Earth. The Catholic ban on the use of condoms and on contraception generally is just one example of the harm done by religious dogmatism. Indeed wars have been fought and are still being fought over whose interpretation of God's word is correct. In my subjective agnostic view, the welfare of humanity should come before adherence to outdated principles resulting from suspect interpretations of suspect texts. - Please do not take this as a personal attack or even as a general attack on Christian morality, with most of which I am in complete agreement because it concurs with humanism. I am only trying to describe what I see as the dangers that underlie your obligation to obey a code which "is not fully known".