I found the below video on Youtube this morning and figured that as I’m obviously in the mood for answering random questions I would give this guy’s ones a shot.
A couple of wee things before I get started though “atheistic”? I’m not even sure that I know what that means? Does it mean people that are just a little bit atheist? People who are akin to atheism? Secondly, “evolutionist”? I also believe that special relativity, as far as I understand it, holds true. Does this make me a “special relativityist” or a “gravityist”? Off to a good start so we are.
Question 1: How do you account for the existence and nature of laws? In particular 1)Laws of Morality, 2)Laws of Nature and 3)Laws of Logic.
Hoooookay. Now the idea of ‘Laws of Morality’ is a bit strange to be honest and that is the first time I have ever heard the phrase, despite having been a bit of a philosophy gimp in the past. There are no laws of morality. Morals are rules of social conduct that have evolved along different lines in different cultures around the world. In one culture, for example, marrying outwith the tribe/culture is seen as taboo whereas in another it is taboo to marry within the group. In another society it is perfectly moral for a person to have multiple life partners but in another monogamy may be the moral norm. So there don’t seem to be any moral laws that are standard throughout the world.
The laws of nature? I think you are misunderstanding the concept of the ‘laws of nature’. These laws are not proscriptive but descriptive. They describe what we observe in the universe, including our wee world. Once we have observed something to be or act in a certain manner, under given conditions, on all observed occasions then we describe that behaviour as a law.
Again with ‘laws of logic’ I’m not 100% sure what it is that you mean. I am assuming you mean the methods and rules that we use in the process of reasoning? Is that right? Again these ‘laws’ are human creations that we have come up with in order to describe to one another the means by which we ave reached a conclusion.
Question 2: If we are simply chemical accidents, or just blobs of flesh and chemicals that got together by chance, as the evolutionary worldview says as simply as that, why should we feel compelled to act in a certain way?
There is no such thing as an ‘evolutionary worldview’ and more than there is a ‘quantum mechanical worldview’. Evolution also does not claim anything about accidents. you should probably read something that was written by an actual evolutionary biologist about evolution. Or even the wikipedia entry…
The reason we are compelled to act in certain ways is a mix of biological imperative and social conditioning. As with the ‘laws of morality’ the manner in which people act changes dramatically over space and time and indeed it can vary wildly within a given society or culture depending upon things such as sex, gender, class, perceived race and so on.
Question 3: If laws of morality are just what bring the most happiness to the most people, then why would it be wrong to kill just one innocent person if it happened to make everyone else happier?
Aside from this question being made redundant by the lack of any existing universal morality I will answer as these sorts of sociopathic questions are often brought up by Christians.
There are many reasons why it would be wrong to kill this hypothetical innocent. It would be wrong to kill the person as their murder would, inevitably, cause upset to others. No person on this planet is so completely isolated from everyone else that their death would not cause suffering beyond that of the individual being killed. The person to be killed also has a history, a life, which would be curtailed by their murder. this would rob both them and society of all the contributions they could make.
If the only reason you think it is wrong to kill a person is because you read it was bad in an old book then you really do need help. I don’t think that is why you believe killing the innocent is wrong but you probably do.
Question 4: If laws of morality are just the adopted social custom, then why was it wrong for Hitler, Stalin and the Columbine High School shooters to do what they did?
Morals are not ‘adopted’. A society doesn’t just get together and say “You know what chaps and chappettes we were wrong about homosexuality, it’s actually ok from now on. Shall we have a vote on it”? Moral codes evolve over time, are often influenced by powerful groups and institutions and by dramatic events. Germans didn’t all get together and say “you know what, I reckon it’s the Jews that are to blame for everything. Let’s gas them all”. The holocaust was the result of bigotry which had developed over millennia fostered by Christian institutions. Widespread abhorrence of anti-Semitism is a result of the holocaust.
The reason that the actions of the three bogeymen above, well four counting the two shooters, was wrong was that they caused suffering. Suffering is something that people wish to avoid as it is unpleasant. To force this upon them is therefore wrong.
Question 5: In YOUR worldview, dear atheist, why do different objects in the universe obey the same laws of nature?
They don’t. I may be overweight but I’m pretty sure I don’t bend light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Aside that is than the things that do, tachyons spring to mind. Again, the laws of nature are descriptive not proscriptive so the laws of nature can change when we observe something new.
Question 6: Do you have confidence that laws of nature will apply in the future as they have in the past?
*sigh* Yes I do.
Question 7: Since you could not have experienced the future, how do you know that the laws of nature will behave in the future as they have in the past?
*sigh* Because I have observed these things happening every time I have observed them in the past. Therefore it is perfectly rational to assume that they will behave the same tomorrow assuming there are no new factors that could change them.
Unless you mean the far future in which case I would be surprised if they did behave exactly the same in a universe consisting of nothing more than black holes and photons. Though given what we know about the way the universe works we can make predictions as to how this universe would behave.
Question 8: In the Christian creationist worldview, it makes sense to have universal laws of logic. These are the Lord’s standard for correct reasoning. How do YOU account for the existence and properties of the laws of logic?
We use them to describe our process of reasoning. Descriptive not proscriptive.
Question 9: Do you believe the laws of logic are universal(applying everywhere)? If so, why(since you don’t have universal knowledge)?
No. An organism that evolved under different conditions to us could easily develop a different means of reasoning. They may well reach the same conclusions merely through a different means.
Question 10: Why do you believe the laws of logic will be the same tomorrow as they are today, since we are not beyond time and have not experienced the future?
The phrase ‘beyond time’ is meaningless. You may as well say ‘beyond up’. See my answer on the laws of nature.
Question 11: How can you have immaterial laws if the universe is “material only”?
By ‘immaterial’ do you mean “that we made up”?
Question 12: Why does the material universe feel compelled to obey material laws?
*sigh* it doesn’t. These laws of which you speak are descriptive not proscriptive.
Question 13: How does the material brain have access to immaterial laws?
Because we used it to think them up perhaps?
How was that then? Feel free to respond Eye2EyeIIIV either in the comments below or on your channel. Smell ya later! 😀