Open Letter to Woke Students

[Alexis Jacobi]

then they have to be drawing on something higher than the social to get such "rights."

The moral game, let’s say, occurs within a culture deeply steeped in moralized rights and wrongs (with “God” on high, watching). So, residues remain. Even in an atheist society.

Higher can be seen in different ways. It can mean “an abstract plane of conceived values” but not associated with a religious confession necessarily.

My disagreement with you remains. For all the reasons explained.

[Immanuel Can]

then they have to be drawing on something higher than the social to get such "rights."

The moral game, let’s say, occurs within a culture deeply steeped in moralized rights and wrongs (with “God” on high, watching). So, residues remain. Even in an atheist society.

Yes, fair enough. Some Atheists behave morally because they were raised by Christians, is essentially your argument. But here's the problem: when a society no longer believes in the truth of the propositions that once made morality binding to them, how long do they continue to hold onto the morality? Why should they continue to believe in things they now think are premised in lies or mere myths? And how long can such a commitment to morality be sustained?

We know the answer now: it's about three to four generations. The first post-Christian generation lives pretty much by Christian morality, while not believing in Christianity anymore. The second, by about half of it. The third, by remaining residues only, and always questioning the necessity of it. The fourth generation hears only the distant echoes of a morality that a few still practice, but in which nobody they know really believes anymore.

What's next? We'll see.

Higher can be seen in different ways. It can mean “an abstract plane of conceived values” but not associated with a religious confession necessarily.

Well, we'd have to explain what duty this "abstract plane of conceived values" places upon a society to relinquish its hold on women's rights, or peasant's rights, or black equality rights, and to agree to something contrary to its own social mores and practices.

I do not see that appealing to "an abstract plane" is going to convince anybody that that is what should be done.

[Harbal]

If she says, " I have a right to vote", she may well mean that she has a God given right, but she might mean that she has a right according to principles of justice and fairness.

Let's say it's the latter, then.

To what conception of "justice and fairness" could she be referring? Because there are many.

I don't know what arguments the suffrage campaigners used; but one could have been that it was unjust for some members of society to have a right to vote, while other members were denied that right.

If you insist she already thought she had a right to vote, in what way do you account for her having it?

But where will we ground democratic egalitarianism, which would then tell us that women should have a right to vote? I think that's more obvious.

The right to be treated justly and with equal regard as a human being is grounded in the narrative of man and woman made in the image of God. So I would account for it based on the truthfulness of that Theistic narrative.

And that narrative comes from the Bible, I assume. In which case it appears that I have, again, suffered a misunderstanding. I thought that God created woman as a help mate and companion to man, not as an equal partner. I was also under the misapprehension that the Bible instructs women to be obedient to their husbands, and subservient to their authority. Have I got that wrong?

But, that aside, if we can draw on some narrative or other to establish what is right and just, the power of that narrative is dependent on how much authority we invest it with. The narrative of the Bible is one of many narratives, and different cultures are influenced by different narratives, each one believing that theirs is the right narrative. All you need is a narrative; God is optional.

How would your account of the situation explain the case of gay rights? which is similar to that of women's rights in many respects. A category of people wanted rights that much of the establishment was opposed to giving them, but they managed to get them eventually. Wouldn't gay marriage need to be endorsed by the Bible to make your scheme of things viable?

What narrative would Atheism or skepticism use, if it were trying to explain or make sense of their claim?

You would have to ask someone whose arguments are based on "Atheism" and skepticism; I am only speaking as a person, not as an atheist or skeptic.

Well, one can always just "talk" in any way one pleases, of course: one can say things that are true, and things that are untrue, and things that are consistent, and things that are not consistent, and things that are real, and things that are imaginary. But what one cannot do it talk logically without regard for the logical basis on which one is talking.

I'm choosing to speak logically about Atheism. So if Atheism, or more generally, God-skepticism, thinks it can talk logically about rights, I am asking to see it's logical line of explanation.

I am simply presenting an opinion with no reference to God, because I do not consider God to be relevant to the discussion, regardless of whether he exists or not. I am certainly not acting as a representitive of atheism.

I do believe in moral claims in as much as I believe moral claims exist, but I do not believe they have any absolute authority behind them.

Well, then, back to the suffragettes: how to they manage to assert a moral claim if it has no authority behind it? Or do we simply point out to those women, "Your claim is backed by nothing. In our society, we don't grant you the right to vote. We think men should vote, and you should not. So settle down, honey, and back to the kitchen with you; because politics are simply too serious for your fluffy little brains."

A claim does not necessarily have to have authority behind it in order to persuade. If enough people have sympathy with the claim, that can be enough for it to be granted, and I believe that is more or less how it did come to be granted.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Some Atheists behave morally because they were raised by Christians, is essentially your argument.

No, I would not put it like that, and the way you put it changes my meaning -- the meaning I would covey.

Christian culture, let's say, even christienesque culture, creates norms, the sense of what is right and wrong; habits; conventions; attitudes. These are established sometimes, I think, at a subconscious level. Not things that have to be thought through with deliberation. So for example there are certain things that just don't feel right and some that do.

I would say that people in given cultures behave as they behave for many different reasons. But it is certainly true that in the Occident, steeped in Greco-Christian categories for millennia, has absorbed and integrated ethical and moral behavior that functions as *this seems to me the way that things really are and should be*, if that makes sense.

Atheistic culture can be highly and demandingly moralistic. And different people speculate about what the 'engine' that operates there is.

[Gary Childress]

I guess until God tells Christians that it's ok to be gay, allowing "pride" parades just isn't sufficiently "grounded". I wonder if the Amalekites would be given a right to vote, had God not ordered them destroyed? Is there any tangible reason we should look to the Bible for moral guidence? What evil could we do that God hasn't already commanded his chosen people to do according to the Bible?

[Immanuel Can]

If she says, " I have a right to vote", she may well mean that she has a God given right, but she might mean that she has a right according to principles of justice and fairness.

Let's say it's the latter, then.

To what conception of "justice and fairness" could she be referring? Because there are many.

I don't know what arguments the suffrage campaigners used; but one could have been that it was unjust for some members of society to have a right to vote, while other members were denied that right.

But women were not regarded as "full members of society." That they should be, was their argument; it was not what their society thought was the case.

If you insist she already thought she had a right to vote, in what way do you account for her having it?

But where will we ground democratic egalitarianism, which would then tell us that women should have a right to vote? I think that's more obvious.

If that were the case -- if women only have a right to vote in "democratic egalitarian" societies, then they don't have a right prior to their society. But that was exactly the case of the suffragettes: their society, too, did not regard "egalitarianism" to include females...only males, and only males of a certain age...and at one time before, only propertied males, as you will probably be aware.

Consider also the plight of women and minorities in tribal societies or in today's Middle East. Their societies have no regard for their alleged "rights." So on what moral basis can they appeal to be allowed such basic things as freedom from being raped or having their possessions confiscated or even being killed? If their society determines their rights, they cannot; they have all the rights to which they are entitled, and all they should ever be given.

The right to be treated justly and with equal regard as a human being is grounded in the narrative of man and woman made in the image of God. So I would account for it based on the truthfulness of that Theistic narrative.

And that narrative comes from the Bible, I assume.

Yes, of course.

In which case it appears that I have, again, suffered a misunderstanding. I thought that God created woman as a help mate and companion to man, not as an equal partner.

Now you know.

I was also under the misapprehension that the Bible instructs women to be obedient to their husbands, and subservient to their authority. Have I got that wrong?

Ah, you're mistaking human rights equality for role identity. If I am, for the sake of my salary, "obedient" and "subservient" to my boss, who pays me a good wage, that's role inequality; if he refuses to let me vote, then that's human rights equality.

All you need is a narrative; God is optional.

You need more: you need the right narrative. You need the narrative that tells the truth.

If the narrative on which you draw is merely a made-up one, it fails to obligate anyone to heed it. So no rights follow from it.

How would your account of the situation explain the case of gay rights?

These are among the phony "rights" that people claim, like "a right to kill children" or "a right to a living wage." They're yet another case of people simply appropriating rights language, with no logical rationale behind their claims.

Well, one can always just "talk" in any way one pleases, of course: one can say things that are true, and things that are untrue, and things that are consistent, and things that are not consistent, and things that are real, and things that are imaginary. But what one cannot do it talk logically without regard for the logical basis on which one is talking.

I'm choosing to speak logically about Atheism. So if Atheism, or more generally, God-skepticism, thinks it can talk logically about rights, I am asking to see it's logical line of explanation.

I do not consider God to be relevant to the discussion, regardless of whether he exists or not. I am certainly not acting as a representitive of atheism.

An agnostic, then...though clearly not one with equal openness to both possibilities.

A claim does not necessarily have to have authority behind it in order to persuade.

The only way it can do that is by bluffing or propagandizing. If the claim of "rights" is without authority, it can be dismissed.

[Harbal]

Consider also the plight of women and minorities in tribal societies or in today's Middle East. Their societies have no regard for their alleged "rights." So on what moral basis can they appeal to be allowed such basic things as freedom from being raped or having their possessions confiscated or even being killed? If their society determines their rights, they cannot; they have all the rights to which they are entitled, and all they should ever be given.

And what is your point?

In which case it appears that I have, again, suffered a misunderstanding. I thought that God created woman as a help mate and companion to man, not as an equal partner.

Now you know.

No, not really.

I was also under the misapprehension that the Bible instructs women to be obedient to their husbands, and subservient to their authority. Have I got that wrong?

Ah, you're mistaking human rights equality for role identity. If I am, for the sake of my salary, "obedient" and "subservient" to my boss, who pays me a good wage, that's role inequality; if he refuses to let me vote, then that's human rights equality.

So a woman having no right to defy the wishes of her husband is not a human rights issue?

All you need is a narrative; God is optional.

You need more: you need the right narrative. You need the narrative that tells the truth.

If the narrative on which you draw is merely a made-up one, it fails to obligate anyone to heed it. So no rights follow from it.

But I, and many others, think the Bible narrative is a made up one, so I obviously feel no obligation to heed it, and I don't. No one is actually obligated to heed the Bible, so why should any rights necessarily follow from it?

How would your account of the situation explain the case of gay rights?

These are among the phony "rights" that people claim, like "a right to kill children" or "a right to a living wage." They're yet another case of people simply appropriating rights language, with no logical rationale behind their claims.

That's a variation of the "no true scotsman" thingamajig.
If gay people can campaign for rights and get them without it being anything to do with God, why did the suffragettes need to rely on biblical justification to win their rights?

An agnostic, then...though clearly not one with equal openness to both possibilities.

You and your labels!

Okay, God is a possibility, but an extremely small one, but the possibility of the God you believe in wouldn't even register on the negligible scale, so to take him into account would be the most irrational act a body could commit.

A claim does not necessarily have to have authority behind it in order to persuade.

The only way it can do that is by bluffing or propagandizing.

Or, as I said in the part you left out, by invoking sympathy.

If the claim of "rights" is without authority, it can be dismissed.

So can the claim that it has authority.

[Immanuel Can]

Consider also the plight of women and minorities in tribal societies or in today's Middle East. Their societies have no regard for their alleged "rights." So on what moral basis can they appeal to be allowed such basic things as freedom from being raped or having their possessions confiscated or even being killed? If their society determines their rights, they cannot; they have all the rights to which they are entitled, and all they should ever be given.

And what is your point?

If they're going to get any rights, they're not going to proceed from their societies.

So a woman having no right to defy the wishes of her husband is not a human rights issue?

You'll have to show me that passage that says women have "no right to defy the wishes" of a husband.

All you need is a narrative; God is optional.

You need more: you need the right narrative. You need the narrative that tells the truth.

If the narrative on which you draw is merely a made-up one, it fails to obligate anyone to heed it. So no rights follow from it.

But I, and many others, think the Bible narrative is a made up one, so I obviously feel no obligation to heed it, and I don't. No one is actually obligated to heed the Bible, so why should any rights necessarily follow from it?[/quote]
Because truth always wins. Those who ignore the true narrative, do so not at its peril, but at their own.

How would your account of the situation explain the case of gay rights?

These are among the phony "rights" that people claim, like "a right to kill children" or "a right to a living wage." They're yet another case of people simply appropriating rights language, with no logical rationale behind their claims.

That's a variation of the "no true scotsman" thingamajig.

Not at all. The difference between real and phony claimed "rights" is the difference between legitimized and unlegitimized "rights" claims. If you can show, on the basis of the facts of reality, that you have a "right," you have it...whether anybody tries to take it away from you or not. It's "unalienable," as the D of I puts it.

If the true narrative -- and even your own chosen narrative -- fails to provide legitimate grounds for your "rights" claim, you don't have it. That's the case of gay rights claims.

[Immanuel Can]

Some Atheists behave morally because they were raised by Christians, is essentially your argument.

No, I would not put it like that, and the way you put it changes my meaning -- the meaning I would covey.

Christian culture, let's say, even christienesque culture, creates norms, the sense of what is right and wrong; habits; conventions; attitudes. These are established sometimes, I think, at a subconscious level. Not things that have to be thought through with deliberation. So for example there are certain things that just don't feel right and some that do.

I would say that people in given cultures behave as they behave for many different reasons. But it is certainly true that in the Occident, steeped in Greco-Christian categories for millennia, has absorbed and integrated ethical and moral behavior that functions as *this seems to me the way that things really are and should be*, if that makes sense.

You just said exactly the same thing, but in many, many more words. You could have saved yourself the time. Just say, "Yep."

Atheistic culture can be highly and demandingly moralistic. And different people speculate about what the 'engine' that operates there is.

Well, well...

Let's hear some of that alleged "speculation." What "speculative" grounds do you know that these "different people" have thought Atheism provides for morality? Let's see how that line of logic would go.

[Harbal]

But I, and many others, think the Bible narrative is a made up one, so I obviously feel no obligation to heed it, and I don't. No one is actually obligated to heed the Bible, so why should any rights necessarily follow from it?

Because truth always wins. Those who ignore the true narrative, do so not at its peril, but at their own.

But that is just words with nothing to back it up. You say something is true, I say it isn't.

That's a variation of the "no true scotsman" thingamajig.

Not at all.

Yes it is. The scotsmen in this case would be the suffragettes and the gay rights campaigners. They both felt they were suffering social injustice, and both campaigned until they brought about a change in the law. Parallel situations. If the sucess of the suffragettes somehow demonstrates that God's will ultimately wins through, then the same has to be said about the achievement of gay rights.

[Immanuel Can]

But I, and many others, think the Bible narrative is a made up one, so I obviously feel no obligation to heed it, and I don't. No one is actually obligated to heed the Bible, so why should any rights necessarily follow from it?

Because truth always wins. Those who ignore the true narrative, do so not at its peril, but at their own.

But that is just words with nothing to back it up. You say something is true, I say it isn't.

But something is. And one way or another, that something is going to win...regardless of what you or I choose to say.

That's a variation of the "no true scotsman" thingamajig.

Not at all.

Yes it is. The scotsmen in this case would be the suffragettes and the gay rights campaigners.

Then it would seem perhaps you don't understand the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Here's a definition: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ ... ueScotsman. Maybe you can explain how you think that describes what I'm saying.

[Harbal]

Because truth always wins. Those who ignore the true narrative, do so not at its peril, but at their own.

But that is just words with nothing to back it up. You say something is true, I say it isn't.

But something is. And one way or another, that something is going to win...regardless of what you or I choose to say.

I don't know what you mean by, " something is going to win".

Then it would seem perhaps you don't understand the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Here's a definition: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ ... ueScotsman. Maybe you can explain how you think that describes what I'm saying.

No True Scotsman (also referred to as the fallacy of "Victory by Definition" in Robert Allen's "The Propaganda Game") is an intentional logical fallacy which involves the act of setting up standards for a particular scenario, then redefining those same standards in order to exclude a particular outcome.

It seems to fit to me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

These are among the phony "rights" that people claim, like "a right to kill children" or "a right to a living wage." They're yet another case of people simply appropriating rights language, with no logical rationale behind their claims.

Sorry, Charlie, you’re in trouble now.

The giver of rights — though you fail to make it plain in your argument — is our own Yahweh/Jehovah.

That God is culturally-specific. Socially specific.

Gay Rights, women’s rights, and so many other rights are rights asserted and taken. Once “rights” are established anyone has a right to grab them. And you cannot oppose them (logically at least).

You now want to say: God supports a/b/c rights but not ac/dc rights.

And so you have to revert to the invocation of God’s Voice: that Voice that you administer and control.

It either depends on “reason & logic” or God’s sovereign will. Not necessarily both.

It simply doesn’t work, Immanuel. Say goodnight …..

[Immanuel Can]

These are among the phony "rights" that people claim, like "a right to kill children" or "a right to a living wage." They're yet another case of people simply appropriating rights language, with no logical rationale behind their claims.

Sorry, Charlie, you’re in trouble now.

Really? I don't think so.

That God is culturally-specific. Socially specific.

No, actually: He's the Supreme Being, and the only God there actually is.

Let me know when I get to the "trouble" bit...if you don't point it out, I'm surely going to miss it.

Gay Rights, women’s rights, and so many other rights are rights asserted taken.

Well, women's rights are one thing, and the others are something different. But just because some joker says he has a "right" to something, that doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about, or that he has it.

Am I at the "trouble" bit, yet?

Once “rights” are established anyone has a right to grab them.

You mean that you think that one person's right gives everybody else any right they want?

And you cannot oppose them (logically at least).

Oh, sure you can.

There's a world of difference between a legitimate right and an illegitimate rights-claim.

I never did find the "trouble" bit...did you forget to put it in?

[Immanuel Can]

So a woman having no right to defy the wishes of her husband is not a human rights issue?

Did you find that quotation that proves a woman has no right to defy the wishes of her husband? If you didn't, then what are you talking about?

If gay people can campaign for rights and get them without it being anything to do with God, why did the suffragettes need to rely on biblical justification to win their rights?

The right of all people to freedom of conscience is a universal right, grounded in Creation. Locke showed that. In what is the claim to a "right" to particular sexually-deviant actions grounded?

Okay, God is a possibility, but an extremely small one, but the possibility of the God you believe in wouldn't even register on the negligible scale, so to take him into account would be the most irrational act a body could commit.

And the basis of that claim is...?