Jump to content


Photo

Why Creationists Use The Moral Argument.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3 replies to this topic

#1 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:37 AM

A scientist sees something in nature there is no explanation for, thinks up a potential explanation, then finds a way to test that explanation, ie asks "what must be true if my explanation is right and what can't be true if my explanation is right, and how do I test that". The process of testing the explanation experimentally is what science is.

Creationists do not do this at all, they do not believe in testing their views because their views are based on faith and typically they are, according to the rules of their religion, not allowed to question their doctrine beyond a certain point. Because of this, and the un-testability of claims about god and the origin of the universe, creationism, rather than being based on tests and evidence, is based on a simple argument - if you can't explain it, god must have caused it.

This is called the god of the gaps, any gap in our knowledge is cited as proof of the existence of a higher power, even gaps that have been filled in since these religions began. Illness is described as demon possession in the bible because we once didn't know what caused illness. Lightning, thunder, floods, drought, victory in battle and other things are attributed to the biblical god too. And to the gods of many other ancient religions, though few people today still think this way. But the gaps are gradually being filled in over time and every time a gap gets filled in the creationist position gets a little weaker. Evolution was a huge gap, as big as the explanation that the earth went around the sun - so when it was filled in creationists were similarly pissed off by this.

So what does this have to do with the moral argument creationists use so often?

It's just the same god of the gaps argument. Creationists are saying "you can't explain why you're moral so god must be the reason". The reason they get traction with this argument is not because it makes sense (after all just not being able to explain something doesn't point to any particular explanation being true any more than not knowing who killed someone points to any particular suspect, any detective who showed up at a crime scene and said "I have no idea who killed this victim so that proves jeff did it!" would not be taken seriously, and we should not take the god of the gaps argument seriously for the same reason), but because it deals with something that is very abstract and hard to understand and which most people do not know about. Asking people why they're moral is a lot like asking people to solve a complex equation, both require a fair amount of education to even begin to attempt.

Most people do not know why they do what they do or don't do what they don't do any more than a dog knows why it barks at people. It just does. But if we understand a fair amount about sociology, psychology, neurology, philosophy, how our culture has developed over time etc we can begin to understand ourselves a bit more. But even the most learned men and women today don't have the full picture, just like nobody has the full picture of the origins of the universe yet. So creationists look at that and see a nice, big, juicy gap to call god.

It's just the same logic of chasing ignorance as proof of the unprovable.

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:05 AM

1. A scientist sees something in nature there is no explanation for, thinks up a potential explanation, then finds a way to test that explanation, ie asks "what must be true if my explanation is right and what can't be true if my explanation is right, and how do I test that". The process of testing the explanation experimentally is what science is.

2. Creationists do not do this at all, they do not believe in testing their views because their views are based on faith and typically they are, according to the rules of their religion, not allowed to question their doctrine beyond a certain point. Because of this, and the un-testability of claims about god and the origin of the universe, creationism, rather than being based on tests and evidence, is based on a simple argument - if you can't explain it, god must have caused it.

3. This is called the god of the gaps, any gap in our knowledge is cited as proof of the existence of a higher power, even gaps that have been filled in since these religions began. Illness is described as demon possession in the bible because we once didn't know what caused illness. Lightning, thunder, floods, drought, victory in battle and other things are attributed to the biblical god too. And to the gods of many other ancient religions, though few people today still think this way. But the gaps are gradually being filled in over time and every time a gap gets filled in the creationist position gets a little weaker. Evolution was a huge gap, as big as the explanation that the earth went around the sun - so when it was filled in creationists were similarly pissed off by this.

4. So what does this have to do with the moral argument creationists use so often?

5. It's just the same god of the gaps argument. Creationists are saying "you can't explain why you're moral so god must be the reason". The reason they get traction with this argument is not because it makes sense (after all just not being able to explain something doesn't point to any particular explanation being true any more than not knowing who killed someone points to any particular suspect, any detective who showed up at a crime scene and said "I have no idea who killed this victim so that proves jeff did it!" would not be taken seriously, and we should not take the god of the gaps argument seriously for the same reason), but because it deals with something that is very abstract and hard to understand and which most people do not know about. Asking people why they're moral is a lot like asking people to solve a complex equation, both require a fair amount of education to even begin to attempt.

Most people do not know why they do what they do or don't do what they don't do any more than a dog knows why it barks at people. It just does. But if we understand a fair amount about sociology, psychology, neurology, philosophy, how our culture has developed over time etc we can begin to understand ourselves a bit more. But even the most learned men and women today don't have the full picture, just like nobody has the full picture of the origins of the universe yet. So creationists look at that and see a nice, big, juicy gap to call god.

It's just the same logic of chasing ignorance as proof of the unprovable.


1, Handy to know since we are discussing the evidence of evolution on the other thread. I'd probably refer to this later in that thread, when I demonstrate how the "evidence" of evolution doesn't follow this method.


2. Please quote someone on the forum using the "God of the Gaps" argument... The arguments that have been put forward (at least by me) have been derived from things that we already know about the universe, (I have already told you this... did you "forget"). If not then don't make sweeping claims about creationists from a few, its the same as claiming all Muslims are terrorists from the handful of extremists, that all atheists are evil due to Stalin and Pol Pot, etc such generalisation is fallacious. So if you want to keep some form of intellectual honesty I ask that you start to make arguments that do not hinge on fallacies.

3. Again who has used this method of inference? Certainly not me.

4. Yes do tell

5. Again totally fallacious... The moral argument stems from subjective and objective morals, (something you failed to grasp in the other thread since you claimed that something can be both things at one, despite them being mutually exclusive terms- like locked and unlocked).

Subjective pertains to a person's own opinion, views, beliefs, thoughts, nature etc. Morality here is very much all shades of grey since situtional events are given weigh in the determination of whether the act was good or bad... For example killing someone because they asked and wanted to end suffering.

Objective pertains to the act in question. Morality here is very much black and white, in that there are things that have no excuse or no situation that can redeem them as being bad (or good).



The moral argument is not from what we don't know its from what we do know.

1- Without God there is no foundation for objective morals
2- Objective moral values do exist
3 Therefore God exists

No ignorance here since the 2nd premiss is about something we know exists.




Here William Lane Craig affirms how within naturalism there is no reason to believe that we are special and that objective morality ties in within human nature.







See here how Lewis Wolpert continually denies and contradicts his own worldview for the sake of morality... He admits that morals are subjective (derived from human nature) but then continues to make objective moral claims... This fits in with the 2nd video whereby when one has been brought up with objective morality from a Religious background in western culture, once one lets go of God its hard to give reason to the objective morals that are still there.





Therefore this entire thread has been constructed out of either you inability to comprehend the argument, or is an attempt to try and confuse people by placing a strawman of the argument and then tear it down... As I said previously (many times now) you need to stop with the strawmen as you will soon have an army of them.

#3 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:40 AM

"Handy to know since we are discussing the evidence of evolution on the other thread. I'd probably refer to this later in that thread, when I demonstrate how the "evidence" of evolution doesn't follow this method."

I already made an entire thread dedicated to your version of the scientific method:

1) Claim there is no experimental evidence for evolution and demand to see it.

2) Refuse to look at it when it is presented to you.

3) Repeat 1 and 2.


Not bothering talking to you anymore.

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:50 AM

"Handy to know since we are discussing the evidence of evolution on the other thread. I'd probably refer to this later in that thread, when I demonstrate how the "evidence" of evolution doesn't follow this method."

I already made an entire thread dedicated to your version of the scientific method:

1) Claim there is no experimental evidence for evolution and demand to see it.

2) Refuse to look at it when it is presented to you.

3) Repeat 1 and 2.


Not bothering talking to you anymore.


Again more slander... When have I ever rejected a chance to prove you wrong? I'm quite happy to reply... Evidence of this can be seen on the forum.

I have been asking for YOU to give evidence of your claims, you cannot simply say, fossils prove evolution, you need to demonstrate HOW do they prove evolution, explain yourself, this is what you do on a forum.

I ask you to retract or support your claims about me.. If you cannot then you are attempting an ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy... (are logical fallacies on discount today?)



Not bothering with me anymore? So this is akin to "la la la la la la not listening"?.... Glad you've finally admitted to this, since you continually ignore my points rather you switch to semantics or sideline the topic with a red herring, which your entire post here is.... (which is by the way, yet another logical fallacy)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users