Arguments for god...kind of (Part 2) - The Kantian Moral Argument

Besides the comment 'what if you are wrong' the next most common response to atheism is 'then why are you good?'. This is a laymen version of a moral argument, a class of god arguments that claim morality comes from god and hence god must exist.
The Kantian moral argument, named for Immanual Kant, argues that morality is only rational if there is a god, and since people are moral and rational there must be a god!

The Kant argument is as follows:

1. Moral behavior is rational.
2. Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
3. Justice will only be done if God exists.

Therefore:

4. God exists.

There are some serious issues with this argument but I want to consider each of them in parts.

Moral behavior is only rational if justice will be done.

Rationality must be considered in relation to goals.
Is it rational to step in front of a bus?
Is it rational to step in front of a bus if you are trying to save a child?
without the goal the rationality of the action is in question. with the goal the rationality is clear. If the goal of your morals is to treat others with respect and courtesy and receive the same in kind then it is absolutely rational to behave morally, irrespective of if a god exists to enforce pain on those who reject that behavior themselves.

A moral code need not be perfect or always working, it only needs to work well enough to insure propagation of the moral code within the society it exists in.
All societies have a social norm that states that murder unrestrained is bad, the reason for this is simple. Societies which allow for unrestrained murder fail to propagate and die out.
Societies which have concepts of self ownership also have rules about theft. Even in cultures without a concept of self ownership there is the concept of communal ownership and the rights of the community over the individuals need. these moral codes develop because of the communities needs and previous cultural codes and mores.

Justice will only be done if God exists.

Notice the inherent argument from consequence in this statement. The statement is a blatant attempt to convince the listener that without god, or at least the belief in god, that morality will break down. but the question becomes, why hasn't it then? There are plenty of nonbelievers, and even non-believing majority countries. why are these countries still standing?
Worse then this though is the subtle implication in this whole argument. the implied consequence of 'without my god I would steal, rape, and murder' a claim more then one theist has actually made. This shows that the person making the argument is only as moral as the consequences require them to be. Without big daddy standing over them, without a stick they would break everyones toys.

That is not morality.

There are other issues with this argument, mainly the implied postulates which are either incorrect in part, unlikely, or false entirely.

Implied postulates:

• There is an objective moral code.
• Everyone knows what this moral code is.
• This god is of religion X, of type Z.
  

The implication of an objective moral code is required because if there is no objective moral code, then god can't give it to us. There are a few problems with an objective moral code. I will touch on that in a later post.

The second implied postulate is worse then all of the rest because simple observation will show that not everyone has the same moral code, and even worse, that some people are physically and psychologically unable to know some of these moral codes. It is literally imposable for someone who is a psychopath by the clinical definition to have a conscious, they can pretend and act like everyone else, but they truly can not comprehend emotionally and viscerally why moral behavior is good.

Lastly, this argument even if it was correct says nothing about which god, or what this moral code is! Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

The only thing this would say is that some god, somewhere, of some type, with some properties of some type, will punish people for not following some moral code this god has provided. None of this tells you which moral codes are from humans and which from the god, none of this tells you if the god in question is informed before it makes said decision, etc etc.

If you accept the implied components then, sure it works to support your god....but wasn't the point supposed to be to convince ME?

Arguments for god....kind of (Part 1) - Pascal's Wager

One of the first things that happens when someone realizes you are an atheist is they usually try to argue about the existence of god. That is, of course, if you are living in a country where the result is not shunning, torture, or death. But in most modern first world countries the first reaction is an argument, most commonly Pascal's wager.

The simplest form of Pascal's, and by far the most often used, is the simple phrase 'what if you are wrong?', which is fair enough I suppose. It is after all a real true concern. If atheism is wrong, and Christianity is correct then the result is infinitely bad. the problem is that this argument can be assigned to Christianity as well, what if you are wrong and Judaism is right? or Hinduism? or Islam? or any other number of religions? What if Christianity is right, but you have the wrong sect? After all there are more then thirty two thousand different sects of Christianity alone, and most of them say every other kind is going to hell!

The reason this all sounds so bad is because of the conditions of the argument. When we measure the danger of something we consider two parts, the risk, and the hazard. Now the risk is the chance of something happening. The hazard is how dire the results are. The way Pascal's wager works is to first assume there is but one form of religion that is valid (though one would assume that would actually be the conclusion we where trying to reach, oh well), next we set the hazard to infinity. Once the hazard of something is infinite the risk can be infinitely small but as long as it's not zero then we should always err on the side of caution. Brilliant!

But of course one must first show that the hazard is infinite, as well as that the risk is not zero, and that the correct religion is selected. but the point of course was to show that god exists (or at least that it's smart to believe in him) in which case the hazard would be infinite and that....well you see the circle there.

and this is but the simplest form of the argument! the full form of the argument presented by pascal is:

1. It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
2. If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
3. If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
4. It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.

Therefore:

5. It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
6. If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.

Therefore:

7. It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

This argument rests on some pretty strange grounds.

First, let us assume that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists just for the sake of argument. Do you think this god would like that you believe in him simply because you where playing the odds? Can you even believe simply because it is in your best interests? I can't believe I'm going to win the lottery just because I think it's in my best interests to win. But then maybe I'm lacking in imagination, or mental fortitude or something.

The next point that needs to be raised is that while there is really only two options, the Christian god exists, or the Christian god does not exists. this does not mean both options are equally likely! It would be just as silly to argue that there is only two ways to die, by train wreck or not by train wreck, so you should not take the train.
The point of Pascal's wager was to show that it is rational to believe in the Christian god simply because it is likely the results would be bad for you if you do not, but the premise of the argument requires you to give equal likely hood to god existing, which is what the conclusion needs to show!

Now I don't believe in strong atheism, that is to say, I don't believe that god doesn't exist, I think it's possible that god exists, I just think it's so insanely unlikely that we might as well be arguing that pink unicorns exist. they are possible also. It's just they are not probable. That is my view with god as well. it's just so unlikely that it's nearly laughable.

Given that I think that the risk here is insanely low but not zero, that part of the risk assessment is satisfied for me. I believe it is possible god could exist. which means that all that needs to be satisfied to hold Pascal's wager to be solid (for me) is that there is the one true faith and it's some form of Christianity, that the punishment for not believing is hell, and that hell is infinitely bad and lasts infinitely long. Now when someone provides evidence for hell and for a particular form of Christianity I will start to believe...but then again, I would start to believe if you had provided some form of evidence to show there is a one true faith of Christianity because god is a component of Christianity.

why then, did they need Pascal's wager again?

Chick tracts. evil? oh yes.

So I got back from another bus ride with a new chick tract in hand. I collect these silly bit of apologetics fluff. I think of them as apologetics lite, for those who can't be bothered to read the dumb down claims, we have the dumber version.

So I posted on Reddit about my new find and that I had this 'oh so brilliant' idea of pointing out the logical fallacies, the inconsistencies and basic sillyness in them....then someone posted a copy of 'Lisa'.

This. is. evil.

This is why I hate religion so much. below you will find a copy of 'Lisa', I plan to eventually do a full critiquing of this (and all the chick tracks I can get a hold of) but please notice that this one has a man committing an evil act, a 'wise older man' cliché explaining his error....and then nothing else happens to this man for his acts! thats it! the cliché older man must have not reported this!!?!?! This doesn't need satire or critique. This needs to be read, then simply let the horror flow into you.


I'm sorry for the bad quality of these, if anyone, anywhere, has a better version of this please email me and I will get it put up. but as it is it should be readable.

I'm closed minded because I....think?

It's a common claim every atheist who has ever spoken out about religion must eventually receive. I think it's actually in the theist hand book or something:

"You are closed minded!"

The real annoying part about this claim is the blatant hypocrisy of it.

I considered the claims of religion and have found the relevant claims either unlikely, impossible, or unsupported. That is not being closed minded. That is being the very definition of open minded!

I believe my beliefs are correct because if I did not, I wouldn't hold those beliefs, I would hold some other set of beliefs. I know my beliefs have been incorrect in the past, this means I could also be incorrect about my current beliefs.

Any other position is intellectual dishonesty.

But to change my beliefs you must provide evidence before I will accept it. Since I can be fooled I require real evidence before I will change my stance from the default of 'I do not believe the claim pending further evidence.' to 'I believe the claim pending further evidence.'


This is what it means to be open minded.

It doesn't mean you simply accept a claim without evidence, it means you consider it in light of the evidence.

The god claim is possible, but not probable.