Comments on: TIA Tuesday: Getting low on gas

By: Ric

Ric — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:26:11 +0000

Vox’s “Argument from God’s Character” is perhaps his worst one yet, because it is entirely and wholey a straw man.

No atheist anywhere is arguing that since god’s morality is abhorrent god doesn’t exist. That’s ludicruous. In rightly pointing out god’s abhorrent morality, atheists are pointing out that god cannot be omnibenevolent as christians claim. Basically they are arguing that god is not worthy to be worshipped by moral creatures. So, as he often does, VD is refuting an argument that no one actually makes or has made.

Frankly, Duncan, I’m surprised you didn’t point that out. ; )

As for the evolved morality argument VD makes, it is almost as bad as the Character argument. Does Vox really think that evo biologists and psychologists actually think that ” moral[s] … mutate and replicate [themselves] genetically”? Playing stupid is an apt description here, or maybe actually BEING stupid would be a better description. Luckily evo biologists and psychologists are not so stupid.

By: Galloway

Galloway — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:23:57 +0000

“Be that as it may, Vox either does not understand what moral evolution is, or he’s just playing dumb so as to have an excuse to give a flippant dismissal to a very serious problem: The Bible, as a source for “divinely-inspired” morality, has some pretty immoral things in it-things that were supposedly revealed to man by God Himself.”

Vox associates the moral relativism
of skeptics with inferior behavior.
And yet those very acts of
immorality found in the Old
Testament, which are no longer
in vogue today, strongly suggests
a Christian moral relativism – morality
based on the time period of human
history in which it occurs. If Biblical
morals were absolute as Vox claims,
then the morals of Jesus’ time would
be just as valid today as they were
then. Clearly, biblical morality has ‘evolved’.

By: Roger, FCD

Roger, FCD — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:59:19 +0000

“Vox’s “argument from God’s character” sounds vaguely like a combination of the argument from the inconsistencies in what men say about God’s character, coupled with a non-propositional reaction to the absurdity and incoherence of the pictures men paint of their God(s).”

I think you’re missing an important point here. This is /exactly/ how Vox gets all of his information, I suspect that he thinks this is a good argument. Religion is nothing but a set of hand-me-downs passed on from generation to generation and the only way to ‘know’ god(s) is to listen to what other people have to say about them.

I absolutely love reading your posts about Vox Day, and they’re very popular at my office. Thanks!

By: Chigliakus

Chigliakus — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:37:06 +0000

That same stupid insistence that morality either comes from God or comes directly from genes was used by Turek in his debate with Hitchens. It’s frustrating to watch Hitchens fail to address it because if he had we could have found out if Turek was just playing dumb. During the debate Turek seemed to honestly believe what he was saying, and yet he in his book he repeatedly makes disingenuous statements in support of his conclusion.

By: Deacon Duncan

Deacon Duncan — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:52:55 +0000

I believe the homosexuality argument was intended as a “Devil’s Advocate” thing: “If you say the morality of homosexuality has improved, that implies a rate of evolutionary change that’s too high.” It’s a muddled argument at best, so you can’t take that too far, but I think that’s what he had in mind.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:40:52 +0000

I don’t get his example about homosexuality — is Vox admitting that morals are not absolute and unchanging after all?

Also, just thought I would mention that the typical Christian response to you challenge about “getting morals from a book” is that “God has written the moral code on our hearts”, so one need not be literate. Not the best solution for them, since now they have two moral sources (Bible & intuition) whose interpretations are totally subjective and inconsistent.