Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
TheEgoist

The New Atheists

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Technically, haze is spelled correctly, but it is a poor substitute for the word has.

I am not sure chow he could have assumed that either.

Don't blame me blame the spell check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an intriguing and sometimes fairly heated discussion with my boss at work about once a week. My boss is a Christian (Baptist,) actually studying in seminary to become a preacher...pastor or whatever. I am an Objectivist, and an Atheist.

Reliably every time, the discussion whittles down to the basis for morals and ethics.

He states that, as I do not believe in a god or holy scripture or holy word, there is no basis for my morals or ethics (his basis being the word of his god.)

I explain to him that the basis for my morals, values and ethics rests in my ability to reason...my understanding of the world and people around me, and my recognition of the correct values and morals which allow me to best serve my own well being.

He then claims that my own reason or intelligence is not a valid basis for morals, ethics or values, as my knowledge is not nearly extensive enough to determine the difference between right and wrong. He claims that only god and jesus christ can truly make this distinction, and for that reason we should follow his word.

I usually then repeat to him a quote I heard...from someone. Not Rand...peikoff, paul, anyone like that, not a name. I think it was from an obscure book.

"It is foolish to claim that because I know something, I know everything. It is far more foolish to claim that because I do not know everything, I know nothing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He thinks that people can be good without religion just because some instinct informs them.

This belief has an analogue in the Aristotelian view of ethical process as taught at Providence Collage in the Ethics course

It is called "co-natural knowledge" and holds that an attutude toward good and evil "comes with the territory" i.e. from living and being an observant being, without formal training. This, in turn, is used as evidence to point to the legitimacy of Ethics (how to tell good from evil) as a subject of inquirey. Also the desireability of the Good lies not in ethics (which presupposes good and evel and the desireaability of making that observation and distinction), but in Metaphyisics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He then claims that my own reason or intelligence is not a valid basis for morals, ethics or values, as my knowledge is not nearly extensive enough to determine the difference between right and wrong. He claims that only god and jesus christ can truly make this distinction, and for that reason we should follow his word.

Just because he is not able to discern right from wrong dosen't mean the rest of us need the Great Wish fairy in the Sky to tell us what is what. Point out to him the Bible was not written by "God," but by men.

He is willing to give up to an authority his ability to think for security of being told what to think. That make him no better than a child.

Edited by Maximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...