You might find this interesting,
Apparently 59% of atheists subscribe to "moral realism".
What do you want me to glean from this 53-minute presentation, just the part about moral realism? If so, I would appreciate it, in the future, you reference the point in the lecture you want me to go to. That would save a lot of time. This person, Peter Millican, has very little that I have not heard before.
First, I noticed that Peter Millican constructs his worldview on the thinking of others who have the disposition to be biased against God. For instance, during his argument on Fine-tuning, Millican references Hume and Darwin (i.e., "since Hume wrote, or perhaps Darwin..." i.e., David Hume.org). Remember, if you want to find out something about someone, find out who most influences them. Thus, his whole presentation is one of confirmation bias. There is no neutrality. I don't believe there can be whether you are a theist or atheist. You either start with God or gods, or you start with chance or some non-thinking "reality." Millican speaks of 'zillions' of universes to explain why we have one that gives the requirements for life as we experience it (i.e., the fine-tuning). Still, he also speaks of how the gravitational force for this universe would have to be just right (a constant), not too weak, not too strong, to have any universe at all. So, all these other universes would have to have what is right for them to exist too. And the idea of other universes is just another way of replacing God with 'matter.' It is just another magical idea that has gained a popular following because it poses something other than God. The simple Occam's razor just got more complex and complicated. Now, with these universes, are they too finite or do they have a beginning like we believe this one did? So, on and on this speculation goes that poses as a science rather than philosophy or scientism. By excluding God, we get an array of all different explanations that no one quite agrees upon. The models keep getting more involved as objections are raised as to one or another particular aspect of the model (its inconsistencies). Millican even says, "It is hard to justify (or even make sense of) probability judgments about cosmic scenarios, when we only have our limited experience of this one universe." (@ 13:12 minutes) So, what you have is a contingent being, Millican, speculating on what might possibly have been. Why should you trust in his thinking? Why should I? He already admitted he does not have what is necessary to make sense of the universe. All he can do is guess as to what might have happened. Do I need to go further with his argument? Over and over, he presupposes.
I.e., @ 14:12 minutes: "But SUPPOSE in 1,000 years...brute facts...convincingly establish..."
Notice that @ 20:14, he thinks if God exists, He went through 13.8 billion years to produce this intelligent life - the human. Again, that is his presupposition that he has been condition to accept billions and billions of years or be shunned by "modern science." Because of the complexity, the timeframe has to be stretched to a period of time like this to meet the probability. The key assumption also has to be made that the present (where we now are) is the indicator of what happened in the past.
Why do I have to go through all these hoops and speculations when there is a simpler explanation, God is a sufficient, necessary reason and being? Why, because we have been indoctrinated and conditioned to believe this secular stuff from an early age. As Christians, we understand this principle of training our youth to
think biblically, or in a particular way, one I would argue as the correct way.
Now to his ideas about morality.
He speculates on the lack of evidence of moral 'goodness' for such a divine being (20:38), but how does Millican arrive at goodness without a moral objective and fixed reference point?
First, he builds moral values into the universe. Somehow something within it (humans) contains the knowledge of what SHOULD be the case. Suddenly the universe produces things conscious, living, and intelligent that produce objective moral values (since only minds are value-conscious, thinking morally or qualitatively). Suddenly that which is limited in knowledge can determine moral objectives by their own ability.
He believes the universe could have been designed for profound suffering (20:16) rather than for profound good. But that is not what the biblical God reveals. The universe was good up until a man sinned, per such a God. Then God imposed penalties for a purpose, to show humanity its need for God in making sense of ultimately anything and so that some would reach out once again to God and find Him. (You can't make sense of things in an immoral universe, for ultimately everything in such a universe is meaningless).
He uses the word 'objective' with a particular meaning --> "independent of our own (or others) personal desires" (21:20). I agree that is necessary but does that solve the problem, or would objectivity also have to be devoid of moral biases? Are you free of moral biases? That is a significant point. You would have to be all-knowing to be free of particular biases. You would have to see the big picture, be aware of every possible scenario and whether such a scenario has underlying hurt and wrong as an outcome of such thinking.
Then he speculates on morality, implying a moral lawgiver who is a necessity because morals are mindful and personal things. You can't have them without first having a thinking, intelligent (thus, mindful and personal) being, therefore, a moral lawgiver to prescribe them. But you are not that necessary being. Millican also wrongfully points out that God would build morality into the structure of the universe rather than moral beings (21:35, 3rd bullet point). What does the structure of the universe mean? Humans are not the structure of the universe. How do you get an ought from an is? Morals are a moral obligation, something that should be done because it is good or should not be done because it is bad.
Then Millican gets into the Euthyphro Dilemma (23:23), which is either morally good before He wills it or good because God demands or wills it. This fails to consider a third possibility, that God's eternal, unchanging nature is 'the good,' that what comes from God's will reflects what God is.
Millican believes we have to work out a theory of good and evil independent of God's existence, even if we are Christians. This once again begs why what we believe is the actual good since we now, once again, have no fixed measure for goodness. He says, don't worry, without theism, people think morality falls down; it doesn't. Then he lays out some bullet points on what this would atheistic morality would look like:
1. Rationality and consistency (fairness). The point is whose? Why is what you or he believes fair? Why is his or your rationality superior to mine?
2. Logical and Moral language (e.g. universality [or as he puts it - "universalizability" - a Kantian idea]). Also, generally speaking, universal moral values are usually the same that are found in the six Ten Commandments that relate to human beings.
3. Maximization of wellbeing (e.g., Utilitarianism). Utilitarianism does not work. Again, it begs of whose well-being is the standard and why what that person believes is actually good. Kim Jong-un's idea of well-being maximized is different from yours or mine. You could point to what actually happens and whose idea of well-being is good when there are so many conflicting views of any age. Even within each society, you have sub-cultures and individuals that object to the overall social values.
4. Preservation and harmony of society. You mean like America today!!! There is a political and cultural war going on in your country. There is no harmony between these groups. Do you want everyone to think the same-mindedness as you - your mindedness? Could you give me a compelling reason to do so? ***
Then he goes onto an evolutionary account (27:57). That explains nothing morally. As I have pointed out many times before, why does what one being does as influenced by their genetic makeup, environment, and social conditioning need to be the same another being does. The DNA makeup programs one to work one way and another with a different program? Remember, a descriptive order does not prescribe what should be, only what is.
Human success, he says, is largely due to our power of cooperation (28:00). What if a Hitler authoritarian, totalitarian type figure dictates what you do, and your future depends on being obedient (slaughter 11 million undesirables as he defines undesirable). You have to concede then that killing these people is morally good for the larger group. And with China, the majority gets even bigger but again is controlled in the hands of a few, the elites. The same thing is happening in your country, America. The Democrats control the gatekeepers of society. Thus they dictate the policies, policies that hurt the average Joe. In contrast, the ruling class, the Dems, profit in every way and the average Joe loses more ground to injustices (lies, manipulations, spin).
