Schooling theists on the stupidity of objective morality

"Capturing Christianity" invited Dr. Anne Jeffrey to write an article on the following subject:

CC021: If God Does Not Exist, Why Be a Moral Person?

I responded there, and somebody ("T.N.") who parrots Frank Turek's "argument for God from objective morality" challenged me with the typical "why should one bag of chemicals care about another bag of chemicals" stuff. See here. So far (July 31, 2019), TN has complained that my asking him/her/both/other to agree to the dictionary definition of "objective" made our debate more complicated than it needs to be

!?

Just in case that forum deletes the discussion, I cross-post our exchange here to make sure it is preserved.  Let's just say that Frank Turek will probably think it best to drop trying to prove god from "objective morality" if he gets hold of this discussion.

I already trounced Christian philospher Matthew Flannagan on the same subject, to the point that he stopped responding right exactly when he was hit with the hardest questions the relativists can ask.  See here.

from Barry

Not sure why Christians think it impossibly difficult for atheists to give a rational and normative justification for acting morally while denying god’s existence. If even Christians themselves disagree on a large host of moral issues (i.e., death penalty, divorce, birth control, gun control, the minimum age for marriage, the point when pre-marital petting becomes fornication, how often to bathe, how often to attend church, how disastrous or trivial “sin” is, etc, etc), then it doesn’t matter if a quick “God’s mysterious ways” can help you save face at that point; those Christian in-house disagreements about morality still rationally justify the skeptic to say it is more than likely that those disagreements exist because there is no god in the first place, therefore, there is no ultimately transcendent source of morality, therefore, being without ultimate guidance, mammals on this earth who compete for resources are naturally going to be in a perpetual state of moral disagreement. We are nothing but roaming dogs growling at each other after we both spot a fresh kill at the same time, we are merely a higher developed type of mammal. Asking how we can know which person is “right” as two people fight, is about as stupid as asking how we can know which bug is in the “right” as a spider attacks a fly. There is no reason to posit there is any moral “right” in the first place, therefore, the question is invalid, except in the uselessly subjective sense of which participant we think has views closer to our own standard of morality.

Furthermore, if you think morality is “objective”, you aren’t doing your job by presuming child rape to be objectively immoral, then asking the atheist to explain why they find it to be immoral. YOU are the one asserting such act to be “objectively” immoral, therefore YOU have the burden to demonstrate such. You aren’t demonstrating such by blindly appealing to the fact that “most people” think child rape is intolerable. If that act is “objectively” immoral, then because “objective” means “true for reasons independent of human opinion”, you should be able to demonstrate such objectivity without appeal to any human-based opinion or belief.

Finally, the atheist-argument that “god” as viewed in traditional religion, constitutes an incoherent proposition, necessarily makes any coherent naturalistic explanation for morality more likely or plausible. If the naturalistic explanation is at least coherent, it has much more going for it than any “god did it” explanation.
In short, not only does the atheist have good arguments for the purely naturalistic origin of human morality, but the atheist remains rationally justified even if they choose to cut off the discussion before hearing every last little trifle the apologist can marshal.

from T N

Barry,

When you say “Christians” or “theists” claim this or that, I would say you are pointing to people who happen to be largely philosophically incompetent (of which there are admittedly many). The question of whether or not God is necessary for morality can be understood in two senses: One is the question of whether or not a person needs to be an explicit theist in order to be moral, and, quite obviously one need not be (I believe you are arguing against this sense). The other is whether or not one can show by philosophical argument that morality is necessarily the result of a transcendent cause (i.e. God) independent of whether or not a given person understands morality as having its origin in such a cause.

As an Aristotelian I have no problem with arguments that base morality on natural causes such as “enlightened self interests”, or “survival of the herd”, or what have ya. But, this approach does not complete the argument because these claims lead to further questions as to the nature of “enlightened self interests”, etc. all of which can be shown to further depend on irreducible causes. For example: you offer an argument for the relative nature of morality and its indeterminacy, but you presume your analysis itself to be objective, abstract, and mind independent. Why? If morality is merely the product of some given neurons zigging instead of zagging, why do you presume your evaluation of the question to transcend merely material causes? In the act of denying objective morality, you are asserting that your opponents are objectively wrong. If you believe your position, you cannot assert that “wrong” exists. Your opponents are merely chemicals that produce a given result. There is no basis for claiming that chemical reactions can be “wrong”.

barry
Well, I just deleted several pages of detailed reply to you, because I sometimes overlook my own higher goal to resolve my disagreements with people like you one tiny step at a time. Most mature educated adults realizing that the more comprehensive the reply, the greater risk that important points will be avoided, lost or skipped…especially in the context of back and forth bickering on the internet and not on the context of the controlled confines of an academic debate.

My rebuttal to you was objective, but only on the condition that the dictionary has correctly defined “objective”. I wasn’t claiming pure objectivity, I was merely assuming you agree with me that the dictionary correctly defines the word “objective”.

Do you agree with the “being outside of the mind and independent of it.” definition of “objective” as provided by Merriam-Webster, yes or no?

T N
It’s not that complicated; simple English works fine. The question is why get mad at chemicals? Suppose I said that toothpaste is “wrong” because it doesn’t do photosynthesis. How does it make sense to say that chemicals have violated some hierarchy of values? Theists (and atheists) are merely chemicals that have their respective properties, how is it “wrong” for chemicals to possess the properties they have? What standard has been violated?
If you believe your position, you should just say you think what you think because your brain chemicals have that property, not that your brain chemicals can identify some objective, mind independent standard that has been violated. No?

barry
You said: “The question is why get mad at chemicals?”

I reply: No, you asked me to reply to your criticism of relative morality.

I made clear in my reply that I will be proceeding one baby step at a time.

I am taking one baby step at a time in order to establish as much common ground between us as possible on the issue of morality.

People who have more common ground on an issue are more likely to successfully resolve their differences, than people who have little or no common ground on the issue they argue about.

I will not permit you to jump away from my criticism just because you fear you cannot answer it without creating horrific empistemological problems for yourself.

The question is

Do you agree with the “being outside of the mind and independent of it.” definition of “objective” as provided by Merriam-Webster, yes or no?

If you object that using the dictionary to establish common ground between us on the issue of word-meanings unnecessarily infuses extra complications or confusion into the debate, please say so.

If you object that asking you to agree with the dictionary definition of “objective” is fallacious or otherwise somehow unnecessarily diminishes our ability to establish common ground here, then just say so.

If you think establishing common ground is a bad way to attempt to resolve your disagreement with another person, just say so.

What I fear from your latest reply is that you appear to think proceeding in baby steps is a bad idea (!?), when in fact because our positions are so radically opposed to one another already, our coming to agreement on as many possible facts about morality as we can, would obviously be crucial to resolving our dispute (or enabling the reader to more clearly determine who “won” this debate).

T N
Yes.
Does “mind”= brain?

barry
Yes. Does “bodily strength” = muscle? Or would you deny this common sense because some ancient text insists that bodily strength comes from another dimension and merely manifests using the muscles as a mere interface?

T N
Following your lead with “baby steps”, please cite any claims I made about “ancient texts”? Once you do that, I can answer your question about what my point is.

barry
I have no obligation to help you distract the discussion about your alleged prior claims about “ancient texts” as I never expressed or implied that you ever made any such claims. Go read my post again. I was “asking” you whether you would deny a common sense thing because of something written in an ancient text. The comment you refer to was in the form of a question, a question you chose to avoid answering.
Now that I’ve “done that”, do what you promised, and answer my question about what your point is, that is, your point in asking me whether I think mind = brain.

-------------------------------------


-------will update later.