Dang. That was an offensive title. I'm going to get so much flame for that.
So what do I mean? Let me be clear. I'm not suggesting that all atheists are immoral people. There are plenty of likeable secular humanists out there. Just look at Joel Osteen!
What I'm arguing is this: atheism, if carried to it's logical conclusion, destroys the foundation for morality. That is, moral nihilism-the belief that there is no right and wrong-is the logical conclusion of atheism. Before I continue, I strongly suggest you watch this video to understand the argument. If you do not view this video, methinks that you won't understand the argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewTj1dzTdDg
Meaning of the word "Objective"
I will be using "objective" to describe "that which exists independently of the human mind". So, for example, the fact that my body is 6 feet tall is an objective fact. It is true independent of human subjectivity. It's part of the "third-person" perspective on reality. To give another example, think of the sun. The objective facts concerning the sun-it's physical composition for example-are true independent of the human mind. (And for all you smart-butts out there, no, this does not conflict with idealism. Key word: human mind. For the rest of you who have no idea what idealism is, smile and nod. Or click on my blog post from November on consciousness. #shamelessselfpromotion)
Objective Morality
So objective moral facts are moral facts that are true independent of the human mind. What the monkey butt? Here's how that works. For example, take murder. Objective morality allows you to say that the murder is wrong to think he's right. Why does that matter? Only through an objective moral framework can you say that. Think about it. When you attempt to draw a straight line, in order to determine if that line is actually straight or not, you have to compare it against an objective standard of what a straight line is. You have to compare it to the objective "straightness" as it were. If you are to say that someone else's moral worldview is more perverse than your own (for example, Stalin's), you have to say that yours more closely conforms to an objective standard. Or if you think we've made moral progress (Civil Rights), your saying that our societal norms today are better than they were 60 years ago in that regard. I'd definitely affirm that (with respect to Civil Rights at least). I think there are right and wrong answers to the question of morality.
Moral Relativism
What is moral relativism? Well, let's think about ice-cream for a second. Suppose my brother George likes chocolate ice-cream. It's brown, he's brown. It fits. Plus, George just likes the flavor a ton. I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever say that George is wrong to like chocolate ice cream. You may have a different preference, and George's preference wouldn't align with yours. But he isn't wrong to like chocolate ice-cream. If you called his choice "dumb" or if you said he was "wrong", you would either be joking, or you wouldn't be using wrong in the normal sense of the word. You'd be using it to describe the fact that George's preference is different than yours. Why is it that George isn't wrong when you have a different preference? Because there is no objectively "best" ice-cream flavor. Ice-cream preferences are totally subjective, and totally relative because there is no objective standard.
Moral relativism says morality reduces to a matter of preference. You have your moral worldview, and Stalin has his. Neither moral worldview is more right than the other. You can beat the crap out of the other guy all you want-that doesn't make your moral worldview better. So here's the fun part.
Atheism Implies Moral Relativism
Let's assume there is no God. Take a birds-eye view of the human race. If we think about morality, then the sense of morality would be purely a product of human minds. They wouldn't have any sort of existence outside of human minds-rather, they'd be creations of the human race. From this birdseye perspective, let's consider all people. You would see a bunch of different ideas of right and wrong depending on the person. However, in the absence of God, there is no objective standard by which to measure these ideas of right and wrong. The universe doesn't care about what happens on the planet. Platonism in and of itself certainly doesn't make a lick of sense (I've never seen an atheist with the gall to affirm that some abstract form of "goodness" exists out there...even I don't know what the heck that means...). Think about ice-cream flavors again. Preferences of ice cream flavors are purely relative precisely because there is no objective standard. If there is no objective standard for morality, then the same follows: you have just as much of a basis to condemn someone else's moral worldview as I do to condemn your preference of ice cream. There is nothing that makes your ideas of good and evil more or less valid than another persons. That means if a murder thinks he ought to murder people because it gives him pleasure, he has no better or worse of a moral worldview than your own. He just has a different preference.
Objections Considered:
Literally. It's 1AM (not figuratively. Literally). Here's a video I made months ago dealing with some objections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m8n1d3Yu9g&list=PLKG-HUiN5dvtzp3WlK-XwDAU93BzxbdRq&index=4
Practical Implications
Ok, so let's take the one of the worst case scenario. If you see a murderer murdering people, why ought he not murder people? He's just doing what he thinks is right. What makes your view of right and wrong more valid than his? And if you say, with Sam Harris, that it produces human flourishing, what if the murderer doesn't care about human flourishing? In fact, see the video above.
The trouble is that if you're a consistent atheist, you'll have to deny that "right" and "wrong" actually exist, since both are objective terms. Morality, rather, reduces to a matter of preference. So...why should you oppose him? On what grounds do you condemn his actions? After all, he's not doing anything actually wrong. His preference is just different than yours, not more or less good. Suppose we say "well, it makes me feel good to punch rapists and murderers in the face and put them in jail." Well and good-the problem is that the evildoer in question is operating under the exact same principle. So you're condemning him for acting under the very same operating principle you are: self-pleasure.
This is the problem. Condemning someone else's actions becomes either hypocritical, or just flat out impossible. Moral progress is also impossible. On moral relativism (and therefore, on atheism), the Civil Rights movement wasn't an improvement from ante-bellum slavery. Why? Because both groups just had a different preference of right and wrong. No one group in history had a better sense of morality, as that would assume an objective standard. Given moral relativism (given atheism), there is no objective standard. Again, moral choices reduce to a matter of subjective preference. Moral judgments become impossible-and I think this is too high of a price to pay.
Bonus: Why Morality is Objective, and why Morality implies God's existence
If you agree that that's way too high of a price to pay, see here for why Morality is objective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVw24cKPdH4&index=5&list=PLKG-HUiN5dvtzp3WlK-XwDAU93BzxbdRq
And this is why it implies the existence of God. Let's look at the premises leading to the conclusion of moral relativism.
P1.) If there is no God, there is no objective standard of right and wrong.
P2) There is no God.
C1) Therefore, there is no objective standard of right and wrong.
The logic is impeccable. The conclusion follows inescapably given the truth of the two premises. The only question is: are the two premises true? I think we can all agree that the conclusion is a false. One-it's absurd to think that Stalin's sense of morality was no more right or wrong than Mother Teresa or *insert exemplar human here*. And for those who don't, see the video link on why morality is objective (above). I've given reasons to justify P1. In fact, the reasons I gave are why most atheistic philosophers are also moral nihilists and deny the existence of right and wrong. So P1) is true. However, the Conclusion is false (I think we can safely say that moral nihilism/moral relativism is false). And as I've said earlier, the only way for the conclusion to fail is if there's something wrong with one of the two premises (since the conclusion follows inescapably from the two premises). That leaves Premise 2; premise 2 must be false. Therefore, God exists, and is Himself the objective standard of good, by which all other standards must be measured.
Bonus #2: Euthyphro Dilemma considered and Refuted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq-LYeAuhTE&feature=autoshare
It doesn't, actually. First, I read no justification for the first premise. Secondly, what is necessary for atheism to entail the rejection of morality is that atheism needs to deny essences. You haven't shown that to be the case at all.
ReplyDeleteEverything that came beforehand was justification for premise 1
DeleteI must have missed it then. Can you please copy and paste it?
DeleteThere was nothing in the intro. The next three sections you defined terms. And there was no argument in the next section. All you said was, "If we think about morality, then the sense of morality would be purely a product of human minds." But this weak for three reasons. First, this is by no means a necessary view of atheism and so is a straw man. Secondly, if God did exist, then according to you, morality is still a product of mind, namely God. Thirdly, there was no evidence for the proposition anyways. Assertion.
In short, your argument is as follows. If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist, BECAUSE, if God did not exist, then it would be a product of mind which is not objective at all, and you've committed a circular argument.
"Let's assume there is no God. Take a birds-eye view of the human race. If we think about morality, then the sense of morality would be purely a product of human minds. They wouldn't have any sort of existence outside of human minds-rather, they'd be creations of the human race. From this birdseye perspective, let's consider all people. You would see a bunch of different ideas of right and wrong depending on the person. However, in the absence of God, there is no objective standard by which to measure these ideas of right and wrong. The universe doesn't care about what happens on the planet. Platonism in and of itself certainly doesn't make a lick of sense (I've never seen an atheist with the gall to affirm that some abstract form of "goodness" exists out there...even I don't know what the heck that means...). Think about ice-cream flavors again. Preferences of ice cream flavors are purely relative precisely because there is no objective standard. If there is no objective standard for morality, then the same follows: you have just as much of a basis to condemn someone else's moral worldview as I do to condemn your preference of ice cream. There is nothing that makes your ideas of good and evil more or less valid than another persons. That means if a murder thinks he ought to murder people because it gives him pleasure, he has no better or worse of a moral worldview than your own. He just has a different preference. "
DeleteThis as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVw24cKPdH4&index=5&list=PLKG-HUiN5dvtzp3WlK-XwDAU93BzxbdRq (a video i made responding to some common objections)
Yes, it would be, but it would be necessary and essential to His nature. So God wouldn't be making it up because He has a necessary nature. My argument is that if God did not exist, objective morality wouldn't exist because there'd be no objective standard. There'd be nothing that exists outside of men to determine who's standard of right and wrong is more valid than the next guy's.
Sentence by sentence, then.
Delete"Let's assume there is no God." Okay. This is the antecedent of premise one.
"Take a birds-eye view of the human race." Not necessary. Not a proposition.
"If we think about morality, then the sense of morality would be purely a product of human minds." Then it is equally true that if morality is not the product of human minds, then we have not thought about morality, by rule of modus tollens. But that obviously is wrong, so the proposition is unsound. But even if this were the case, what reason is there for this proposition?
"They wouldn't have any sort of existence outside of human minds-rather, they'd be creations of the human race." This is essentially the same as the last sentence. So, again, why believe this?
"From this birdseye perspective, let's consider all people." Not a proposition so nothing to analyze in terms of argument.
Delete"You would see a bunch of different ideas of right and wrong depending on the person." This is essentially the third time you've said this. Where is the justification?
"However, in the absence of God, there is no objective standard by which to measure these ideas of right and wrong." This is the first premise of which I am asking justification for. Where is the justification?
"The universe doesn't care about what happens on the planet." Correct, but trivial and has no bearing on the argument. Caring is not something a universe can do, whether there is or is no God. Category mistake. But I understand you're trying to be somewhat poetic. That's cute and all, if we were having a casual conversation, but we are having an argument, and I am asking you, repeatedly, to justify your claims. We cannot afford poetry. At least, I cannot.
Platonism in and of itself certainly doesn't make a lick of sense..." Sure it does, but there's ambiguity here, which is caused by your...poetry. If by not making any lick of sense means you cannot comprehend it, then that's hardly no defeater or justification for saying it fails as an account or its truth or falsity. But you probably mean, since you say in and of itself, that there is something intrinsically erroneous about it, most likely incoherence since it cannot possibly be comprehended. What then is it? But even if it were shown to be the case that it is incoherent, this does not justify your first premise.
Delete"I've never seen an atheist with the gall to affirm that some abstract form of "goodness" exists out there...even I don't know what the heck that means..." Then I recommend reading Plato, and see if you understand the problem of universals. Introductory philosophy stuff. I'd be more than happy to direct you to some resources at your request. In any case, this does not justify your first premise.
"Think about ice-cream flavors again." No. :-P
"Preferences of ice cream flavors are purely relative precisely because there is no objective standard." I'm going to briefly quibble with you here, but before I do, I agree: If there is no sense of objectivity, then relativism likely follows (if it doesn't, moral nihilism follows). But you wouldn't say fecal flavored ice cream can be considered good. Those who say it is aren't subjectively right, they're objectively wrong, and need help. Why this is is related to my meta ethics, which is not in question nor the topic.
"If there is no objective standard for morality, then the same follows: you have just as much of a basis to condemn someone else's moral worldview as I do to condemn your preference of ice cream." Right, we all agree on that, with a qualification here or there, but this doesn't explain why if it were the case that God does not exist, morality wouldn't exist (for simplicity sake, ill take moral relativism as a kin
Deleted of moral anti realism). Why think God is the only objective standard? You've yet to justify this.
"There is nothing that makes your ideas of good and evil any more or less valid than another persons." This would follow from P1, but you haven't justified P1.
"That means if a murder thinks he ought to murder people because it gives him pleasure, he has no better or worse of a moral worldview than your own." This follows from P1 but you haven't justified P1.
"He just has a different preference." See last two comments.
Concerning the youtube video, just direct me to the relevant sections, please.
DeleteNow, I have argued that if you have a problem with morality being grounded in mind under atheism, the problem still applies to theism because morality, according to you, would be grounded in the mind of God. You respond, "Yes, it would be, but it would be necessary and essential to His nature." To which I have two replies, maybe three, replies. First, so what? At best that gets you moral platonism, which, as indicated earlier, you abhor. Second, so what? That doesn't solve the problem and your confused use of necessity and essential demonstrate that. What is essential to a thing is also necessary to that thing. If it is in the essence of A to have X, then necessarily, all A's have X's. If A does not have X, it is not truly an A. But, then it is also true that humans have essences, that is, some things that all humans necessarily have. But then we, like God, have necessity in our nature and would also fit your criteria for grounding morality, so appealing to necessity won't solve the problem. The way I see it, you have some options out. You could say humans don't have essences, to which you might be like Hume and subscribe to bundle theory and out of Christian orthodoxy. Or you could just drop the argument.
"My argument is that if God did not exist, objective morality wouldn't exist because there'd be no objective standard." I understand what your argument is, but I'm asking you for the justification. All you've done is repeat and assert yourself. To the quoted proposition, I ask, again, why?
"There'd be nothing that exists outside of men to determine who's standard of right and wrong is more valid than the next guy's." Okay.
"Not necessary. Not a proposition. "
DeleteExcept it is necessary-it gives a visual point of reference.
"Then it is equally true that if morality is not the product of human minds, then we have not thought about morality, by rule of modus tollens."
False. That conflates ontology with epistemology. Here's my video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewTj1dzTdDg
"This is essentially the third time you've said this. Where is the justification? "
In the absence of an objective standard-without anything existing outside the human mind by which to judge our definitions of right and wrong-then in reality, only varying conceptions of right and wrong exist. When you try to judge whether a line is straight, you must judge it against the objective standard of a straight line (even if that objective standard is apprehended/put into words by subjective minds, it remains an objective standard). The bird's eye example is relevant because it gives a way to conceptualize the argument. From an objective viewpoint, there's nothing existing outside the human minds with their varying concepts of morality by which to determine whether one concept is more valid than another. So say Bobby has moral scheme X, and Freddy has moral scheme Y. If there is no objective standard (which, in the absence of God, there wouldn't be-the universe doesn't really care about our concepts of right and wrong), then morality reduces to a matter of subjective preference. One guy has moral scheme X, and that scheme is no more valid than moral scheme Y-they're just different.
"Correct, but trivial and has no bearing on the argument. Caring is not something a universe can do, whether there is or is no God. "
Again, it's not trivial, because without an objective reference point, morality reduces to subjective preference.
Think about ice cream flavors. Suppose I like chocolate, and you like vanilla. Who's view of "the best ice-cream flavor" is correct? Well, neither. There is no "objectively correct" flavor of ice cream because there is no objective standard when it comes to things like taste preferences. Likewise, without an objective reference point for morality-a standard that remains true regardless of what people think is true-then morality reduces to a matter of preference. On atheism, there simply is none. There is no platonic "goodness" or "wrongness" floating out there in the universe somewhere.
" Those who say it is aren't subjectively right, they're objectively wrong, and need help. Why this is is related to my meta ethics, which is not in question nor the topic."
What? Of course, no one likes fecal flavored Ice-cream...but if someone did, that would be his preference. He wouldn't be wrong about what he likes best. He'd be wrong if he said it was good for your health or whatever, but he wouldn't if he liked it best. That's just bizarre.
As for Platonism, it's just ill-defined. To say that there's an abstract form of "good" out there means nothing. It's not just that it's incomprehensible-it's meaningless. It's a sequence of words without reference to anything.
Delete"First, so what? At best that gets you moral platonism, which, as indicated earlier, you abhor."
Neo-Platonism, sure. But Platonism in an of itself just posits some sort of abstract goodness that exists "out there". I'm actually find with Christian Neo-Platonism because morality actually has a foundation.
"That doesn't solve the problem and your confused use of necessity and essential demonstrate that. What is essential to a thing is also necessary to that thing. If it is in the essence of A to have X, then necessarily, all A's have X's. If A does not have X, it is not truly an A. " Right.
"But, then it is also true that humans have essences, that is, some things that all humans necessarily have. But then we, like God, have necessity in our nature and would also fit your criteria for grounding morality, so appealing to necessity won't solve the problem."
Wrong, because it's not a part of our essence to be the standard of right and wrong. I'm not saying goodness flows from God because He has a nature-that's a misrepresentation. I'm saying because His nature determines right and wrong, thus right and wrong flow from it.
Again, the argument is that without an objective reference point, nothing makes one guy's moral scheme more valid than another's. I'm using the "bird's-eye" perspective as a visual reference point, not as a proposition. From that reference point, you'd see a bunch of different people having different ideas of what constitutes right and wrong. Without a standard existing outside of those people nothing makes one idea of right and wrong more valid than the other's. This is because "rightness" and "wrongness" are always assessed with respect to objective standards. If I answer wrongly on a math test, it's because there's an objective right answer (at this point, you may say that math was invented by people. The SYMBOLS were invented by people, but the concept itself of one thing plus another thing giving you two things was not invented).
Going back to the ice-cream example, the person who said he liked fecal flavored ice cream the best, while strange, wouldn't be wrong. He knows his preferences best. He wouldn't be objectively wrong to say it tastes good, because again, with respect to tastes, there's no objective standard.
I'm not even saying that because God's nature is necessary it grounds morality. I'm saying because God's nature grounds morality, and God's nature is necessary, goodness remains consistent.
DeleteSo again, if Bobby has moral scheme X, Freddy has Y, then nothing makes X more valid than Y. There's nothing by which to measure these definitions-only a "might makes right" mentality. There's nothing by which to judge these definitions-hence why morality becomes as trivial as ice-cream preferences.
It's strange to read you describing Platonism as intrinsically meaningless, but then you ascribe yourself to Christian Neo Platonism. It doesn't matter how many words you attach to it, it's still meaningless. And I think this portion boils down to, Do you understand the problem of universals? I'm not quite sure you do, and I'm clued in on this because you describe Platonism to mean it's "out there". But that's false, Aristotelian realism is a type of platonism (yet is so distinct in importance of differences, it is often contrasted with traditional Platonism), which I personally hold to be true, but doesn't consider these forms to be "out there" and anyone familiar with traditional western thought out to know this. Have you ever seen Raphael's The School of Athens, where Plato points "out there" while Aristotle motions "down here"?
ReplyDelete" And I think this portion boils down to, Do you understand the problem of universals? I'm not quite sure you do, and I'm clued in on this because you describe Platonism to mean it's "out there"". The reason I think Christian (or any theistic) Neo-Platonism makes sense is because what Plato wanted to affirm actually has foundation on theism.
DeleteBecause I think Platonism, apart from God, is simply just a sequence of words. What does it mean for abstract "goodness" to exist "just because"? That doesn't make sense. I maintain, without an objective foundation, there is nothing that makes one person's definition of the good more valid than the next. They're just different definitions.
Do you know what Aristotle's account of universals was? Why are his criticisms unsound and why is his account unsound? Because if they're not, then needing a grounding is totally irrelevant, hence, the moral argument you've presented is unsound.
DeleteWell, having looked into Aristotle further, it appears as though he was a theist. So I don't think his account was unsound so long as God is the embodiment of all Platonic forms, and thus grounded his thinking.
DeleteThis argument doesn't get you to Christianity-it gets you to a general form of theism.
Yes, it's well known he was a theist. Aristotle is totally your friend, and it's a shame that, as Christian, you haven't read him. He was only the basis of Christian thought for like 1000 years. No worries, I dismissed him for platonism up until relatively recently.
DeleteSee, you actually can't ground morality in platonism. This is because platonism is false. This is why I'm asking you if you've read him and his arguments against Plato. They're important to the discussion and is essential why i fundamentally disagree with you. Allow me to lay out some arguments.
Take the form of man. Men are men because they participate in the form of man. But if the form of man is itself a thing (or substance) that means there has to be a form that *it* participates as well. So we posit the form of a form of a man. But then what from does *that* participate, so we posit the form of the form of the form of a man. Ad infinitum, and absurdity.
The platonic form also leads to contradictions. Take animals. Animals are either rational (like humans) or non rational, like farm animals. So then the form of animals entails that it is both rational and non rational (or is neither, which is also absurd), and so contains a contradiction, and so cannot be grounded in God lest you want to say God contains a self contradiction and you've successfully found an argument for atheism. And I'm not atheist.
So, you have to reject the existence as forms in their own right, and cannot be found to be grounded in God. Now, I agree, as an Aristotelian realist, there is a way in which forms are real. But they cannot be so Platonic. Aristotle gave his answer, modified by St. Thomas Aquinas, but for now, it should suffice to say that forms cannot be grounded in God, be it moral forms or anything else.
"Take the form of man. Men are men because they participate in the form of man"
DeleteI disagree. Men are men because they possess essential properties that characterize humanity. Essential properties predicate a thing, but aren't in and of themselves things.
"The platonic form also leads to contradictions. Take animals. Animals are either rational (like humans) or non rational, like farm animals. So then the form of animals entails that it is both rational and non rational (or is neither, which is also absurd), and so contains a contradiction"
The argument doesn't make sense here either. "Animals are either rational or irrational"-and you say then that the form entails a contradiction. But that's not true. A particular animal, while having essential properties that characterize "animality", also have essential properties true of the unique animal itself (which is why no animal is identical). Hence, animals have different forms. A particular animal has a unique form.
So we may be talking past each other. What I mean by "God is the form of The Good" is simply that God's being, which ground reality, determines right and wrong. Goodness is "to be conformed to God's character", and evil is to be out of harmony with His character.
Yeah, again it seems you don't know universals, because you aren't using the word from as a platonism would use them, so I don't see how you're able to be a Christian platonism.
DeleteTell me, what are universals, what are forms? If you can't explain these concepts, you should, like, stop.
A Christian Neo-Platonist simply takes God as the form-the source and origin-of The Good. That is to say that God is the locus from which all goodness in reality flows. Again, THIS is what I'm saying.
DeleteThen please stop calling it platonism. That's not what forms are.
DeleteI'm too lazy to post the rest. Ill be back. 3:-)
ReplyDeleteYou have argued that if we think about morality, then morality is not a product of the human mind. I attempted to demonstrate this false by exposing the unsoundness of the relationship between the antecedent and consequent by applying a modus tollens. You responded, shockingly, by agreeing and saying that was false and there was a conflation between ontology and epistemology. But that was exactly what I was driving at. If you read my next sentence, I even say that's obviously false. But what's false is the relationship between the antecedent and consequent, in YOUR argument!
ReplyDelete"You have argued that if we think about morality, then morality is not a product of the human mind."
DeleteNo, that's not what I have argued. I've argued that if God does not exist, then there's no objective foundation for right and wrong, and morality is simply a product of the human mind. Without an objective standard that exists outside human minds by which to judge said minds, morality reduces to subjective preference. So let me be clear-I agree that people having an apprehension of morality in and of itself doesn't prove the argument to be true. I'm saying that if atheism is true, moral relativism is true. But moral relativism is false (Properly Basic Belief). Thus, atheism is false.
I mistyped. What I meant to write was, "You have argued that if we think about morality, then morality is a product of the human mind."
DeleteBut even with my typo, is matters not. Simply saying nuh uh and presenting another argument you presented, does not constitute a defeater. You presented more than one argument.
DeleteBut I never said "if we think about morality, then morality is a product of the human mind." I agree that epistemology doesn't weigh into the ontology question. Yo haven't addressed the actual arguments being made-only straw men.
DeleteYes, you did. Third sentence under atheism implies morality.
DeleteContext. "Let's assume there is no God. Take a birds-eye view of the human race. If we think about morality, then the sense of morality would be purely a product of human minds. "
DeleteThe wording was unhelpful here, I'll admit. What I meant is not "if we think" as in "if we have a concept of morality", but rather "if we consider morality". So that was sloppy wording on my part.
So I'm saying that if there is no God, and we consider our moral sense, then it would just be solely a product of the human mind.
Good. That was originally what I was getting at, but then you thought I was reading you mean concepts, to which I ran with and tried to shown false anyways (because like, I guess I have nothing better to do at 2 am), and when I actually gave citation, we arrived here, with an admission of unhelpful wording. Now, let's progress.
DeleteIt's a bit unbecoming to suggest that if there is no God, and one gives some thought to the matter, one will realize that atheism implies relativism, then an atheist who disagrees basically has not thought about the issue. That's really all I'm trying to get at here in this point. Which is why I made it unnecessarily laborious. :-P
Now then, back to some serious stuff, like Aristotle.
Yes, I do think that an atheist who isn't a moral relativist has a (happy!) inconsistency in his thought, and hasn't thought his worldview completely through. That's not unbecoming, because I'm not saying he's stupid for that. We all have blind spots. But I am exhorting him to consistency to see why his worldview is flawed.
Delete