Phil Robertsons Eloquent Morality Argument

[RawBBQSauce]

I suggest Mr. Robertson read The Moral Landscape

[CrypticVillain]

I gotta believe most normal Christian folks wish this guy would just shut up.

You would be right. lol

[grhqofb5]

Hey Look, another eloquent argument by Phil Robertson.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/duck-dynasty-star-fantasizes-about-atheist-familys-brutal-rape-and-murder-to-make-point-about-gods-law/

 

Excerpt from his actual speech:

 

 

and the religious folks wonder why the numbers of non-religous are growing. Likely because on top of easier access to information, there are whack-jobs like this who get a ton of support from other bible-belt whackos.

 

The obviously fallacy with this argument is that Phil Robertson is assuming that the atheist has no belief in god and no independent set of morals, and also no biological instincts (i.e. protecting your offspring, avoiding death).  He is also assuming that the atheist prefers "nothingness" (assuming he's not one of those subsets of atheists who claim some sort of afterlife type arrangement) over "living."

 

So the fact that Robertson is religious is not really the issue.  It's the fact that he's a moron, and that's he's disparately attempting to fashion an argument that atheists cannot develop (or on the biological side, are not born with) a set of morals or behaviors that pattern generally shared morals (i.e. rape and murder is bad, cutting off nuts is bad). Or perhaps he he realizes this, and isn't a moron, but is simply trying to persuade the 10% of our population (i.e. morons) that won't think this through to follow him. And by "him" I mean whatever it is that he's gleamed from the Bible (or maybe he doesn't actually believe that the Bible is the word of god, perhaps he just wants "donations.").

[CrypticVillain]

3)  Slavery is still moral, cause God endorsed it for thousands of years, and the humans who've decided that it's immoral simply have delusions of being qualified to decide issues of morality. 

I am not a theologist by any stretch... So please, PLEASE don't give me a long, reply to what I'm about to post. 

 

But I was just talking to somebody about slavery in the Bible and somehow, we found this link.

 

In it, it said:

 

 

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

 

As well as:

 

 

 

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16)

 

Of course most won't care what it had to say, I'm just throwing this out there because.

As far as the Phil Robertson quote, 

 

Some touched on it, but what he said was so wrong. To me he's saying that if there wasn't a God, he could rape children, kill women, and not feel bad about it. And that if an Atheist did it, they wouldn't feel bad about it. That's some bull. 

[PeterMP]

It is foolish for theists not to recognize that there are issues with accessing any God related objective morality that makes the practice of those (potential) objective morals on Earth difficult if not impossible.

 

The more interesting/important discussion, I think and suspect is free will.

 

Take Larry's point, it at least suggest that people had an option with respect to deciding that slavery became immoral.

 

They were able to apply logic and add in some empathy and come to a decision as if there was an option to come to the decision that slavery was moral.

 

But did they really have an option?

[Larry]

Ah, got it. 

 

Slavery was moral, for thousands of years, and still is, if it's this particular kind of slavery. 

 

I mean, it's either that, or morality changed. 

It is foolish for theists not to recognize that there are issues with accessing in God related objective morality that makes the practice of those (potential) objective morals on Earth difficult if not impossible.

Am I the only one standing around on the bridge of the Enterprise, wondering WTF Spock just said?

[PeterMP]

I suggest Mr. Robertson read The Moral Landscape

 

The Moral Landscape gives us an objective, the flourishing of life on a gradient scale based on consciousness (human well beign most important as we are most "conscious"), without really addressing why that should be our objective.

 

Why should individuals give up things that benefit their well being for the benefit of other living things?

 

Should somebody that creates an over all drag on society kill themselves or be killed?

 

(And try and keep in mind the importance of evolution in terms of (long) term survival of species, especially with respect to the first question.)

[Zguy28]

As far as the Phil Robertson quote, 

 

Some touched on it, but what he said was so wrong. To me he's saying that if there wasn't a God, he could rape children, kill women, and not feel bad about it. And that if an Atheist did it, they wouldn't feel bad about it. That's some bull. 

It is. But that's not his point I think. His point seems to be that if an atheist so chooses, they could choose to not care and what framework do they have to say that that is wrong?

 

Usually this evolves into a discussion about the Holocaust. Were the Nazi's wrong or evil for what they did to the Jews? I'm sure atheists and theists alike think they were wrong and evil to do that. But the German majority populace obviously thought it was right. Was it right? Or is it wrong and evil and always will be?

 

Only one atheist on this board that I know of has conceded that the Holocaust events are not objectively  or universally wrong or evil. What say the rest of you? Is the Holocaust wrong and evil, even if all humans ceased to exist tomorrow?

[CrypticVillain]

 

Ah, got it. 

 

Slavery was moral, for thousands of years, and still is, if it's this particular kind of slavery. 

 

I mean, it's either that, or morality changed. 

Meh, just chalk it up to one of those things that Christians like to debate about among each other.

 

Some Christians drink, some don't.

 

Some don't own any slaves... And I do.

 

I'm joking... A little. 

[PeterMP]

 

Am I the only one standing around on the bridge of the Enterprise, wondering WTF Spock just said?

 

 

I'd like to say that God always thought that slavery was immoral, and we just figured it out fairly recently.

 

But I can't because I don't really know what God explicitly thinks on the subject in really great detail (realistically, the Bible only mentions slavery a handful of times. and even ignoring MLSKINS point there are good reasons to believe that in the Bible God allowed things that he thought were wrong to happen- look at Jesus' discussion of divorce in the context of Mosaic law).

 

So it is possible that God is okay with (some) slavery.  It is also possible that God has always thought that all slavery was immoral even though it doesn't directly and explicitly state that in the Bible.

 

I think when you take the whole Bible in context, it is hard to argue the first, but there is no explicit direct statement to that affect.

 

I don't have access to the objective morality that (potentially) derives from God to really address your point explicitly.

[drtdrums]

There are two bullet points in this conversation.

1) Phil is a crazy old coot.

2) The Morality Argument is a legit issue that requires the ability to both understand and convey nuance, neither of which the crazy old coot possesses.

FWIW, the Moral Argument (that objective morality, if it exists, requires a supra-human objective moral authority) was one of the theistic positions I found compelling enough abandon agnosticism. It was one of Lewis's clinchers as well.

It's just regrettable that such an important discussion has been devalued by incendiary presentation.

[Larry]

I'd like to say that God always thought that slavery was immoral, and we just figured it out fairly recently.

And neither Jesus nor Moses, when they were mentioning how people should treat their slaves, thought to mention that "oh, by the way, you shouldn't own any, in the first place"?

 

I mean, I realize that The Bible nowhere explicitly states "Slavery is moral".  (With or without explicit qualifiers as to when it is or isn't moral.) 

 

Granted, my knowledge about Moses' time derives from watching Charleton Heston talking to Yul Brenner, but I kinda get the feeling that, if God thought slavery was wrong, he sure had a great context in which to mention it. 

[drtdrums]

The following is my understanding of the Christian position.

Regarding biblical morality (the slavery question, etc):

God revealed himself through Israel without bothering to fix all their imperfections and cultural unGod-likeness. God gave the Israelites the Law they requested in order to bring them - and humanity - to the end of themselves (thus Paul calling OT law "the ministry of death").

We believe the full revelation of God is in the person and actions of Christ, NOT in Israel's Law or prophets. Where Israel fails - race wars, slavery, idolatry, adultery - Christ is perfection. In short, He didn't come to fix human culture or even stop humans (even his chosen people) from sinning. He came to set us free from the result of sin.

A major point of Christian theology is that Christ's perfection covers our imperfections, including slavery and rape and murder and even Phil's quite unChristlike presentation of the Moral Argument.

If the wages of sin is death, and the sinless one (who was Embodied Objective Moral Law) took death upon himself, the bill is paid "once and for all."

The biblical texts were produced by the hand of broken men with divinely-inspired intent of pointing to Christ (in the case of the OT, not even knowing it). The signposts may have sections that are weathered and marred, but those scratches and nicks should never be confused with the city.

The map is not the territory.

[PeterMP]

And neither Jesus nor Moses, when they were mentioning how people should treat their slaves, thought to mention that "oh, by the way, you shouldn't own any, in the first place"?

 

I mean, I realize that The Bible nowhere explicitly states "Slavery is moral".  (With or without explicit qualifiers as to when it is or isn't moral.) 

 

Granted, my knowledge about Moses' time derives from watching Charleton Heston talking to Yul Brenner, but I kinda get the feeling that, if God thought slavery was wrong, he sure had a great context in which to mention it. 

 

1.  I'm pretty sure that Jesus didn't directly address slavery.  It is addressed in other places in the New Testament by others.

 

2.  Jesus directly says that Moses said divorce was allowed, but it shouldn't be.  Moses allowed one thing, but God believes another.

 

"Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

 

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

 

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

 

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning"

 

The Bible is a document that is open to interpretation, and we are encouraged (directly by Jesus) to interpret it and go beyond what is allowed to determine what is actually good and right.

 

It is also a document written for certain people at certain times based on prevailing attitudes and conditions.  It is also a finite text and as such can't cover every moral situation in the history of the world.

 

Just because it gives directions and at some level allows something to be done doesn't mean it is right or really okay with God.  We need to get beyond that and look at the whole book in context in the spirit of the total message.

 

3.  And I'll point out that in the Western world this is where the abolitionist movement came from.  It came from Christians (mostly Quakers initially) looking at the Bible and saying slavery isn't consistent with the context of the whole book even though parts of it do describe things like how to treat slaves.  The abolitionist movement was born out of (active) Christian churches working to change the moral values at the time and laws in the existing political systems at the time.

[drtdrums]

people are focusing on the rape/decapitation part of the story. that's just a disgusting mechanism he chose to use.

the actual meat of the comments, as bang has said, is that if you do not believe in god you cannot have any true sense of morals.

and while christians will get upset at the idea that their thinking will be aligned with phil's in regards to rape and decapitation, what Rocket442Olds (and others) are saying is that your likeness to Phil has to do with the idea that without believing in some God(gods) you lack the ability to behave morally.

based on quite a few conversations i've had with quite a few different people, i agree. religious people seem to think they're special in this regard, that this is something they have over others. some even take it the extra length to imply some sort of proof, or if nothing else the necessity to believe, that god exist because without him, oh my we'd all be immoral savages.

i'm not an atheist, but morals are not exclusive to the religious. reading the bible and believing in god is not a prerequisite for understanding how to behave civilly and not be a **** that steals/murders/otherwise harms (physically, mentally, financially, etc) others.

Perhaps already addressed, but this is a complete misunderstanding of the Moral Argument. The MA only asserts that the source of objective moral values is a supra-human objective moral authority. It does NOT in any way assert that those who deny the existence of that source are incapable of perceiving morality or acting morally.

That would be akin to saying a person can't turn on the light switch or perceive light because they don't believe in the power company.

[mistertim]

It is. But that's not his point I think. His point seems to be that if an atheist so chooses, they could choose to not care and what framework do they have to say that that is wrong?

 

And if a theist so chooses, they could choose to not care and they could find plenty of ways to delude themselves into thinking it was ok and inline with their theological beliefs. See ISIS or pretty much any violent religious group in history. Horrible people are going to be horrible, whether they are theists or atheists. The only difference is how they choose to justify their actions.

[Zguy28]

And if a theist so chooses, they could choose to not care...

That would make them agnostic? The rest has nothing to do with anything were talking about.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Totally over people making dumb comments like this and the outraged comments that follow.  Anyone else with me?

[mistertim]

That would make them agnostic? The rest has nothing to do with anything were talking about.

Of course it does. You're claiming that an atheist could could choose not to care and it wouldn't matter because they apparently have no "framework" to tell them they're wrong (which is incorrect). My point is that a theist could do the exact same thing and figure out ways to justify it; happens all the time. Sometimes theists even find ways to use their beliefs to support their bad behavior. People can convince themselves of almost anything if they want to do it badly enough. It doesn't matter if they are atheist or theist. Again, bad people will do bad things, no matter which "framework" they have that says it is wrong (laws, the bible, humanistic morality, whatever). 

[alexey]

Zguy28,

What do you mean by "right" and "wrong"?

[tshile]

Perhaps already addressed, but this is a complete misunderstanding of the Moral Argument. The MA only asserts that the source of objective moral values is a supra-human objective moral authority. It does NOT in any way assert that those who deny the existence of that source are incapable of perceiving morality or acting morally.

That would be akin to saying a person can't turn on the light switch or perceive light because they don't believe in the power company.

 

That's fine.

 

My point is I've been told many times by self-identified christians that without a belief in God one cannot have morals/behave morally. Which is what I was talking about. Christians seem to take issue with the idea that Phil speaks for them, my point was that (as I understand it) it's not the rape/decapitation part of the story people are linking to Christians - it's the overall message that without belief in god society would be without a moral compass to guide them.

 

The conversation goes something like this - if no one believed in god then why would anyone follow any rules/laws? as if the only reason people could be expected to follow rules/laws is if they believe there is this ultimate punishment of hell (or banishment from heaven, if you prefer that viewpoint.) I've been told this quite a few times...

 

You can say that all christians don't think/say that non-believers are not capable of having morals, I'm just sharing what my personal experience is. It's worth what it is, a stupid post on an internet message board and nothing more.

 

If I'm still the one that's confused, and I misunderstood your post, then I apologize. Wouldn't be the first time

[drtdrums]

That's fine.

My point is I've been told many times by self-identified christians that without a belief in God one cannot have morals/behave morally. Which is what I was talking about. Christians seem to take issue with the idea that Phil speaks for them, my point was that (as I understand it) it's not the rape/decapitation part of the story people are linking to Christians - it's the overall message that without belief in god society would be without a moral compass to guide them.

The conversation goes something like this - if no one believed in god then why would anyone follow any rules/laws? as if the only reason people could be expected to follow rules/laws is if they believe there is this ultimate punishment of hell (or banishment from heaven, if you prefer that viewpoint.) I've been told this quite a few times...

You can say that all christians don't think/say that non-believers are not capable of having morals, I'm just sharing what my personal experience is. It's worth what it is, a stupid post on an internet message board and nothing more.

If I'm still the one that's confused, and I misunderstood your post, then I apologize. Wouldn't be the first time

I don't think we have any disagreement or misunderstanding. It may in fact be that the misunderstanding exists in the minds of the theists you're citing. If they are trying to stretch the Moral Argument to say non-theists can't be moral, they're just flat wrong .

"There is no rational basis for objective morality in an atheistic worldview" is a pretty strongly worded but tenable position. But that is entirely separate position from "Atheists cannot act morally" or even "Atheists have no reason to act morally."

There are plenty of sociological, psychological, and biological imperatives for atheists to act as if there are objective moral values. It would seem the theists in your example fail to realize that point.

On the other hand, it is often mistakenly asserted by non-theists that those imperatives constitute rational naturalist grounds for objective moral values. If one were to assume an atheistic perspective, the imperatives are merely very good reasons to pretend there are objective moral values and are not themselves a rational basis for objective morality.

[PF Chang]

"There is no rational basis for objective morality in an atheistic worldview" is a pretty strongly worded but tenable position. But that is entirely separate position from "Atheists cannot act morally" or even "Atheists have no reason to act morally."

 

Lewis said "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver." 

 

My problem with this line of thought is that the moral argument seems to presume that all consciences are the same. What my conscience tells me about gay marriage is presumably much different than that of others. It's shaped by culture, observation, age, and so on. 

 

To an atheist, there's no rational basis for objective morality in Christianity either. If the Bible's the source and the atheist believes it was written by men instead of by a god, then what's the difference? To that worldview it wouldn't matter which fallible source you used, neither is objectively moral. 

[No Excuses]

Grounding morality in God, when even practitioners of faith X can't come to decide what exactly God commands, always makes for an interesting debate.

[tshile]

It may in fact be that the misunderstanding exists in the minds of the theists you're citing.

 

Yes, I believe this is exactly what the problem is

 

I have no gripes with the idea of religion, hell I don't even know what I believe anymore. Like everything else in life, it's the way some people use it

 

(emphasis on some)