Reply to accusations,

I write this knowing that only a tiny percentage of people who watched DA's video are actually going to read this. He also knows whatever reply I make I can never reach the amount of people he can and so this meme he has created will live on despite whatever I do to respond.

The 'dooyeweerd' account was indeed an account I set up many years ago now when I first came to YT. I set that account up along with 'soctratesforthewin', 'aikidocrazy' and 'CartesianTheist'. At that time myself and a couple of other friends had a female friend on YT who was being seriously harassed by a group of bullies. In order to defend this person we shared all four of these accounts as well as some of their own. That was a mistake especially because it had been shared with one person I did not know so well. I did not look after those channels closely enough because I did not view them as merely my own in those days and keep tabs on what was being said by others on it and it was my responsibility to have done so. In that I clearly failed but I did not write the sexually explicit or racist comments/insults DA is suggesting I did.

Many of the comments in DA's current video I had not even seen before and if I could get into the dooyeweerd account now I would certainly close it down. Unfortunately I cannot and have lost touch with the people who could. I will certainly attempt to do so again.

I most certainly did not stalk the woman DA is accusing me of stalking and have no idea what that is about. Never did I attempt to contact her in person or any of her family (which is why it's only asserted without evidence).

It is actually ironic that DarkAntics makes claims that I tried to doc drop his name because when everything kicked off with him the first time I actually had people offering to do this for me and I asked them not to in the strongest terms possible. Someone even made a video revealing where he lived but I contacted the person and convinced them to take it down. I can also state quite categorically that I have never tried to hack any account of his (which would explain why there was no evidence offered for this and only a bare-faced assertion instead). The ironic thing is that his friend MeridianFrost has doc dropped DarkMatter already without being aware he has done so. Even DarkMatter himself has dropped his own docs to everyone since if you play two videos of his side by side you can find out who he is and where he lives! He has already let everyone know who he is by appearing on camera and taking pictures of his own house. How he thinks he has kept his identity hidden... goodness only knows.  

It is with further irony that I have plenty of evidence of DarkAntics trying to intimidate and bully me using my personal docs. I have never used any of it, however, since the police in the UK have asked me not to but they currently hold evidence of DA contacting people in my real life and some of his followers from Facebook and YT making threats and attempting bribery aimed at myself and my family. Since I have no interest in trying to discredit him or them on a personal level I will not be releasing any of it.

People I talk with on YT know that I have been thinking of leaving YT for some months now and this has confirmed to me that I ought to. There is no reasoning with unreasonable people. Despite having made my position extremely clear on the recent discussions on Deuteronomy, my position is still constantly being misrepresented. To continue talking with people who have no interest in your actual position but who wish to strawman you constantly is both tiresome and worthless. The vast majority of people on YT are not actually interested in the God debate but only in their popularity and the vast majority simply don't know the subject well enough to say anything worthy of listening to.


Having aid that, I would like to thank the many atheist and theists friends I made whilst on YT.



PS. In reply to why I would close my YT account there are numerous reasons:

1. I think it fair to do so given the comments made by others on channels I helped set up and as some small token of apology to those who received such comments.

2. I am bored of being misrepresented on YT. It's tiresome.

3. DarkMatter has proven in the past that he will make threats which involve doc dropping personal information of my own and my family and friends and has certainly implied he will again. Last year he released my personal docs to a few of his friends and they used this information to do some particularly pernicious things such as threaten the safety of my children. Of course, DM accepts no responsibility for the actions of these friends of his and I doubt he even knows, or wants to know, exactly what they did.    

Questions you might like to ask yourself:

1. If DM was so concerned about the comments he now shows why didn't he approach me about them 12-18 months ago when he took the screenshots (because that's how old they are)?

2. Why wait 12-18 months before releasing such information? If the crimes of bullying were really his sole concern and as heinous as he now implies then why would he sit on them for that long? Who has information like that and sits on it for that long doing nothing? Many of them are actually over two years old now.

3. Why was it released just after he was demonstrably shown to be misrepresenting my views (and the very same month my account got more views than his)?

4. Why did he fail to correct his misrepresentation of me when corrected?

5. If I really wrote those comments (and therefore knew of their existence) and already left YT due to being threatened by DM why on earth would I come back as a channel which could be directly and obviously connected to them? I could have easily set up an account which was completely anonymous and unconnected to the previous 'CartesianTheist' one.

6. If I was really stalking people offline why was this not reported to the appropriate authorities since this would be a serious crime worthy of reporting?

7. You might also like to listen to a comment made by DarkMatter about me at the end of this 'Lying Ghost Show':

"Had Cartesian been okay with me being on the same show as him I would have remained completely civil. I'm not going to attack him or anything like that..."

This was only back in January 2013. Several of the atheists on that show suggest to him that the conflicts of the past can be just left in the past and he says nothing of his real intentions. Why does DM not make it clear he won't be debating with a "scumbag bully" then? What changed between January 2013 and May 2013? The only real interaction we had in that time was his deliberate misrepresentation of my position on rape and my exposing him for lying about me (which, to this day, he is happy to continue to do it should be noted). The truth is nothing had changed. DM was using these atheists and lying to them about his intentions of such a 'discussion' for his own ends.

8. Why could DM not admit he got my position on rape wrong and retract such a 'drama'-seeking video? Ironically DM is the one who has said that there are no moral absolutes and so that means he is the one who must think there are acceptable scenarios for rape (unlike my own position since I stated unambiguously that there is absolutely no acceptable scenario where rape could be deemed morally acceptable prior to his rather stupid contention otherwise). Even after being corrected he still could not admit his error. Pathetic. It demonstrates the desperation of the man.

9. Why choose drama / ad hominem attacks? From the 'hero' of 'dramagate' no less! (Although clearly some atheists have spotted his inconsistencies now.)

10. Why could he not refute any of my arguments? Like.... ever?!


Anyway... I think these are worthy of a little reflection and then I invite you to do what I intend to do. Move on... You have to know when something (someone) is not worth it.

 

 

Rape, the Bible and atheist responses so far...

I'm quite happy to stand corrected but from the feedback I have received from atheists on YT so far, since my discussion with EssenceofThought (EOT), I am yet to hear an atheist tell me they disagree with EOT and they wish to also affirm that rape is something which is morally wrong beyond a personal denouncement.

Instead there have been a few complaints that I was 'out of order' to ask EOT his personal view on rape during our discussion about it.

One reply to the discussion which has appeared is this one by the user 'CheekyVimto08' (CV). Although he does not mention me directly and so might have some other people in mind I think it's fair to assume it's aimed largely at me since it's linked to my discussion with EOT and appeared shortly after.

 

CV tries to suggest that theists are being underhanded by asking atheists about their metaethics (ohhh-ahhh - how dare they?). Clearly on this point he failed to even listen to my discussion with EOT since I made it very clear I was only asking EOT out of interest and that it would not be part of my defence of Deuteronomy. I made it quite clear what my own view was and, if you listen carefully you will hear EOT claim this is highly significant to the discussion. So if I am stating my view clearly up front from the beginning it is surely a matter of interest what EOT's views are? But even so I made it painfully clear that a counter metaethical attack was not going to happen once we got onto the biblical passages and it did not. CV fails on this criticism therefore.

At around 1 minute CV states that "objective oughts are a very difficult notion" which is a very interesting thing to note given that he is lecturing his audience on the oughts of proper discourse. That sounds very much like giving instructions in ethical behaviour to me. Is CV simply stating his preference for discussion etiquette then? Well his language certainly sounds otherwise. He appears to be suggesting the theist is doing something objectively wrong and that they OUGHT not ask the atheist their view even out of interest.

[A small aside. Whilst I accept that the atheist might cause a problem by pointing to an internal inconsistency in the theist's worldview, please note that this is atheistic presuppositional apologetics of the very kind they so often complain about when done to them. They stand back and insist they have a null hypothesis whilst the other person must defend their worldview. This is using the kind of Hovind basterdized presuppositional method in many ways. Notice the advice given in the blurb to his video:

"Turn any challenge to your moral ontology on its head. Don't try to discuss honestly with propagandists, as your explanations will be ignored."

Does that not sound like the very tactics employed by the likes of Hovindites?]

CV then complains that the theist fails to appreciate that a subjective or quasi-subjective moral ontology cannot be "meaningful" [c.1:30] but this is not relevant to the discussion I was having with EOT in the slightest and I never suggested one could not have a meaningful ethic if it is not a morally realist one. So why CV brings this in I don't know.

At around the 1:40 mark CV complains about appeals to emotion (oh the irony) but this does not happen in the discussion and so my head scratching continues.

At 1:58f. he says:

"It also seems amazing to me that our fundamental sense of morality should stand or fall with our success in giving a philosophical explanation of it as though philosophical problems are solved every other day."

This is a very curious sentiment and one which I doubt he would extend to a Christian arguing for moral realism!!

Then he gives a very curious complaint that he feels theists never really explain what they mean by 'objective' or their claim to moral realism. Perhaps CV is unaware that I have bothered to do exactly this in my following video which was dedicated only to such definitions in order to be as clear as possible in my ethical discussions with people:

CV then chides anyone who dares question the metaethics of people who do not "make pretentions" to have philosophical knowledge! (3:30 ish) Surely CV cannot be talking about his mate EOT at this stage? Not the same EOT who made a four part series on morality entitled respectively:

1. The Morality Of The Godless: Episode 1 - The Development of Morals, Values and Social Norms.
2. The Morality Of The Godless : Episode 2 - The Biological & Evolutional Explanations behind Society.
3. The Morality Of The Godless : Episode 3 - The Socio/Psychological Explanations behind Society.
4. The Morality Of The Godless : Episode 4 - Explanations For Social Conflicts & Wars.

Ironically the previous 'Therefore God' show had been on the very subject of metaethics as well. Suddenly, when rape is the issue, metaethics is now not allowed to be talked about! When it was an atheist on the show that was different.

CV then makes the ridiculous claim that I was repeating "You think rape isn't objectively wrong" for emotional effect. The reason this is ridiculous is that he could not personally know my motive for doing that in the first place. Secondly it would mean not taking me at my word during the discussion where I explicitly said the purpose was to find out if we were both in agreement on the matter. Ignoring what people actually say in a discussion and attempting to project motives on them there is no evidence for is not good form. How ironic that CV continues to take the tone of a moral sermon at this juncture.

From about the fourth minute onwards he attempts to give the atheist a few easy quips to equip the atheist in a discussion on morality with a theist. I encourage atheists to try them out and see just how helpful they are. However, coming up to the seventh minute in, he then suggests that atheists don't even bother getting into discussion on metaethics at all. A very interesting tactic CV!

He then finishes with some bold assertions about what theistic ethics can and cannot achieve without giving any real justifications for these conclusions. This is a poor way of finishing a video. It would be akin to spending an entire argument arguing for x and then claiming, in your conclusion that you have demonstrated y. The careful listener will spot this but some who might be lacking in such skills might not notice this at the end of this nearly 9 minute sermon.

To finish I think it is worth noting that despite all his talk of insisting the job of the theist was to show there is no internal contradiction his video did not once admit I had done that very thing and that the vast majority of the discussion was about this. On such matters he had absolutely nothing to say in his video. EOT completely failed in his burden of demonstrating ANY such contradiction existed in the Christian worldview. A Christian is not contradicting their view on rape as being objectively wrong even when they are conservative in their view of scripture since there is absolutely zero evidence of rape being advocated as something other than a wrong act in the entire Bible. EOT was shown to be using a contentious passage with various possible readings as a proof-texting venture and to be arguing from silence when, in pure desperation, he attempted to use Lot at the end.

I suggest theists keep asking atheists to justify their metaethics. The clear message is they have problems in this area and wish to avoid it by always throwing it back on the theist. The default setting of the You Tube atheist is that he will only want to attack your views. Don't allow the atheist to do that. Ask them to explain what they are proposing. If atheists are finding rape a difficult issue to explain in terms of its wrongness then this is one reason to have doubts about atheist ethics I think.

The Bible and Rape

 

You don’t have to look too hard on the internet to see that atheist and anti-Christian apologists have largely convinced themselves that the Bible advocates rape. I found myself on a thread discussing this very point and I asked for one specific example of the Old Testament advocating rape. Most voices fell silent but one atheist apologist, ‘Essence of Thought’ decided to step up to the plate.

I want to make some remarks, firstly, before commenting on this matter.

If you have no respect whatsoever for properly understanding a book then it’s almost inevitable you will find things you think are wrong. You will dip in to certain passages with no concern whatsoever for authorial intent in favour of finding token sound-bites which fit with your prior assumptions in going to the book in the first place. Clearly this is something we can all be guilty of and this is the reason why biblical hermeneutics is such an important subject. Furthermore, when reading ancient texts we need to be even more careful and make some serious attempt to understand the culture of the time.

 Take Seth Andrews who calls himself ‘The Thinking Atheist’. He has a video entitled ‘Morality without God’ in which he thinks the mere mention of something in a historical narrative is an endorsement by God. He cites the story of Lot as if God approved of what Lot did just because it’s recorded in the narrative. This is an incredibly naïve way of reading the text.
 

 

 

Yesterday evening Essence of Thought and I had a discussion on the issue and you can find a link to the video on my You Tube profile page or by visiting the channel ‘The Atheist Hub’ [the video is titled: 'Therefore God- Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Discuss Rape?']. What appears below are some of notes I made in preparation for the discussion and a few thoughts I had after it.

 

So, in order to answer my challenge for a verse in the Old Testament which condones rape ‘Essence of Thought’ (EOT) offered up this verse:

Deuteronomy 22:28,29
 

Hermeneutical Issues
 

1. The first hermeneutical problem for EOT is that he is attempting to make a very serious charge based on a text which is debated and not perspicuous. A principle of doing hermeneutics in any work of literature is to go from the clear passages first and then interpret the more obscure ones in the light of those. Clear passages which describe a rape taking place are dealt with by making the punishment death.

 
 

2. A second hermeneutical problem for EOT is his method for doing translation. This was a truly horrendous moment for the supposed logic of his case. EOT outlines the various possible meanings of the word which is fair enough. The T-P-S root means to lay hold of, wield, seize, arrest, catch, grasp, handle (including grasping hold of the Torah to use it/apply it). Taphas (tar-phas) has a semantic range for sure but it is never used in the rest of the OT to mean ‘rape’ and this is a significant objection to those who wish to translate it thus. Unfortunately EOT’s method, at this juncture, is merely to claim that since it is possible to translate the word ‘rape’ that is should be translated ‘rape’. This is an incredibly weak argument because all the other words are possible translations as well! So what is EOT suggesting? That all logically possible translations are the right translations? If so the word means loads of different things all at once! This approach to translation is absolutely absurd. He suggests that there are more words which could imply force (such as 'seize', 'arrest' and 'catch') and therefore we should weigh the word in favour of these readings but this is not how real translation works. Context is the most important determining factor rather than basing everything on individual etymologies.

3. The third hermeneutical problem for EOT is that the immediate context prior to this verse does talk about rape but uses a different Hebrew word. The writer could have made it clearer he was talking about rape simply by using the same word. Instead the writer opts to change words here for one he never elsewhere uses to mean rape; a very odd thing to do if he was talking about the same action. In Jeremiah 2:8 tarphas is used to mean “handling” the law and in Genesis 4:21 it is used as the term for playing a harp or flute. It is therefore quite clear that the word does not have to have the sense of a violent seizure on its own. It would require something in the context to make it clear that such a meaning was intended and yet no such thing is said. Many OT scholars note these usages of the word which makes EOT's dismissal of them all the more damaging to his case.

4. The fourth hermeneutical problem for EOT is that some scholars think this a repetition of a law first found in Exodus 22:16 where it says:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.”

 The influential Old Testament scholar Gordon Wenham takes this view in his article, ‘Bethulah: A Girl of Marriageable Age’ Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972) 326-348.

One again, the fact that so many OT scholars, even non-Christian ones, often find a link between these two passages means that EOT's mere dismissal of the connection all the more bizarre.

 

EOT’s hermeneutical case for his reading was merely that the word can possibly take this meaning and therefore this is the meaning. We have noted what an incredibly weak argument that is and have, in reply, suggested four good hermeneutical reasons for thinking this is not the meaning.

Even in this passage, which seems clearly to be more about seduction and not rape, there is no indication in the text itself that the Father is constrained to accept this arrangement. It clearly states that the man has no choice in the matter and is held responsible and culpable but it never says that the father or the daughter have no choice in the matter. Note that in verse 29 it only stipulates that he may not divorce her. It says nothing about any legal binding on the woman or her father. If, earlier in the Exodus law, the Father has the right to not accept the arrangement to his daughter in the case of a seduction, how much more, would we expect him to have the right to refuse a marriage in this scenario? It makes absolutely no sense that the law would permit a Father’s rejection in the case of seduction but not in the case of rape!

Furthermore, EOT shows no concern whatsoever for the cultural context either and therefore a brief discussion here is warranted.

Cultural Issues

One ought to take into account the reason for these case laws existing. Jesus explains that some of these laws were due to the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites and that they did not represent some moral utopia. Jesus says, in

Matthew 19:8
 

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”

Interestingly, one such passage on this very subject is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Only a few paragraphs after the one we are talking about. This clearly indicates that at least some of the OT laws were not an ideal standard but due to the existing sin in that society.

Another cultural aspect, not commented on by EOT in the slightest, is that these case laws could well be, what the scholar Christopher J.H. Wright calls, “paradigmatic” law. [New International Biblical Commentary p.244] The laws are therefore not intended to have to be taken literally on all occasions but outlining basic principles and precedents upon which to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. 

EOT also fails to explain why marriage would be the lesser of two evils even if the situation were rape due to the cultural context. There was no modern cultural notion of choosing a marriage partner as an individual or couple due to romance and love at that time. Also the woman would find it impossible to be married under any other circumstances now this had happened. This could mean the family facing extreme poverty without the support structure of marriage. This marriage would provide that financial support for the woman by the man. There is therefore no sense in which the woman is being punished. She is not being required to enter into some passionate or intimate relationship with this man but the law is making provision for her to be provided for so that she and her family do not face financial ruin considering what has happened. It is clearly a case of the lesser of two evils in this instance (that is, if the text is even talking about rape in the modern sense of the term and the case against it being so is strong as we have seen). Certainly the text lacks any notion that rape is something acceptable in ancient Hebrew society and yet that is the very thing the atheists are claiming here.

I think it is fairly clear that there is really no case to answer. The clear general punishment for rape in the OT is death. This makes it clear how seriously it was taken. It affirms the status of women as people and not property since death was not the punishment for violating someone’s property but recompense. The OT laws were also much fairer than most laws in surrounding nations of that time. In Assyrian laws of that time the punishment for rape was simply that the rapist’s wife was, herself, raped! Hebrew laws were far more judicious.

PS. A little post-script on the discussion itself.

Please listen to the beginning carefully. I made it very clear that my position was that rape is always and everywhere absolutely wrong. I went out of my way to be extremely clear on the matter. Please listen to what EOT says when I ask him to state his position clearly. Not only does he appear to not know what moral realism is but he is extremely vague about his own views on rape. It’s not even clear that he thinks rape is always wrong subjectively. I find it extremely odd that someone should be criticising the moral code of another worldview on a matter he cannot even be clear on himself and I think that is damaging to his criticisms. I also failed to find any atheist on the thread who questioned him over this either. It appears that many atheists are quite uncertain themselves on whether rape is actually morally wrong or not!

Also watch out for a very desperate attempt to appeal to the story of Lot toward the end of the discussion. Not only was this a complete appeal to silence but he used a highly dubious analogy of a classroom and appeared to ignore the fact that Sodom was being judged for its immorality quite clearly in the text. There is no vindication of Lot’s desperate attempt to save his guests from being violated and the angels rescue the daughters from that situation. The Bible is full of examples of God saving people who are not worthy of being saved. In fact, that is clearly one of the central messages of the Bible.

 

 

 

Arguing for moral realism

 “Moral realism is the theory that moral judgements enjoy a special sort of objectivity: such judgements, when true, are so independently of what any human being, anywhere, in any circumstance whatever, thinks of them.”

Russ Shafer-Landau ‘Moral Realism: A defence’ p.2

“I do not believe that morality is a fiction. I think instead that morality is objective in a very strong sense.”

Russ Shafer-Landau ‘Error Theory and the Possibility of Normative Ethics’

“The wrongness of cruelty is inescapable, and cannot be dislodged by any human act or desire. Such facts are part of the reason why the truths of mathematics and morality were traditionally called the ‘eternal verities’: their timeless, necessary, objective and authoritative (or ‘normative’) status is beyond our reach to tamper with. Hence the initial appeal of the traditional metaphysical picture that regards them as stemming from an eternal and necessary being – God. Such a picture… seems more ontologically satisfying than the positing of goodness as a kind of abstract property that somehow exists independently of any substance.”

John Cottingham ‘Why believe?’ p.29 

“…although intuitionism was a much-derided position for much of the twentieth century, recently some people have tried to rehabilitate it as providing an important account of how we can know moral truths. Strictly intuitionists claim that there is at least one moral claim, and possibly many, that are self-evidently justifiable. This does not automatically mean that they think that there are no other ways of justifying moral claims, for example, nor that they think that people are infallible.”

Andrew Fisher and Simon Kirchin ‘Arguing about Metaethics’ p.27

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the second video in my ongoing series on morality. If you have not yet seen Part 1 where I define what I mean by ‘moral realism’ please watch that first as I shall not define it again here yet it is imperative not to confuse what I mean by it. 

I would like to preface this part of my series by stating that I think the case for moral realism can be made without appeal to theism directly. At this stage we are merely exploring reasons why realism is a superior account of the phemonema of morality and moral discourse. I consider the moral question to be similar to epistemic questions in that, in order to justify being a realist, I do not believe one need appeal to theism in order to justify one’s view. The theist can use all the arguments available to argue against anti-realism and need not restrict herself to purely theistic ones. Where theism will come more into focus will be discussing what the best ontological foundation for objective morals is and that will come in the last of these morality videos.

So what is the case for moral realism? Well firstly, and gladly, that case does not stand or fall with me. What I can outline, however, is why I think the case for moral realism is stronger than any other proposal.

My case for moral realism is as follows:

1.      Moral intuition

2.      The failure of anti-realist theories

3.      The case from moral disagreement  

I consider the second and third of these to be the strongest arguments for moral realism but, in this video, will begin with moral intuition since I think it to be the most logical place to start reasoning about morality. Please note that this video is primarily about the first reason and not all three. Therefore this video, on its own, does not constitute my entire case for moral realism.

One thing I should make clear before beginning is that my appeal to intuition is not an endorsement of the type of intuitionism often defined in the literature as the claim that there is at least one moral claim which is self-evidently justifiable. I do not think I hold to that since, by the end of this series at least, I will have argued that the best foundation for objective moral truth claims is a theistic one. Instead, my appeal to intuition is merely as an epistemic heuristic device against hyperbolic moral sceptic. I'm certainly not sure that any specific moral claim is "self-evidently justifiable" and therefore it's questionable whether I can be labelled an intuitionist given the definition by Fisher and Kirchin. Labelling aside, I think human intuition is a good place to begin an enquiry into whether morality has any objectivity or not.

Whose burden?

Anyone who reads any philosophy knows that appealing to intuition is not an uncommon reason for holding to moral realism. Moreover this is a starting point often used by atheist philosophers as well.

In the paper ‘How to be a moral realist’ by Richard Boyd he states:

“In the sciences, we decide between theories on the basis of observations, which have an important degree of objectivity. It appears that in moral reasoning, moral intuitions play the same role which observations do in science: we test general moral principles and moral theories by seeing how their consequences conform (or fail to conform) to our moral intuitions about particular cases.”

Robert Boyd, ‘How to be a moral realist’ in ‘Essays on Moral Realism’ ed. Geoffrey Sayre-McCord pp.184,185

The atheist philosopher Russ Shafer-Landau says that moral standards “just are correct” – they are a “brute fact about the way the world works” (‘Moral Realism’ pp. 46,48).

E.J. Wielenberg in ‘Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe’ says that moral facts are simply a “part of the furniture” of our world. [p.52]

Think about the consequences of taking the opposing view - the view that our moral intuitions count for nothing. One might rightly ask where such a person will even begin talking about moral issues at all. Perhaps they will claim logic and reason. But I would suggest this is a semantic game. Usually what such a person means by ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ is not some formal philosophical version of such disciplines but what they mean is what appears rational and right to them. Well that is a very similar idea to what it means to have an intuition about something.

Now if, like me, you find yourself wondering why some people are suggesting that the moral realist bears the burden of proof here you are not alone. There are actually numerous atheist philosophers who also reject the burden of proof is on the moral realist and I find myself in deep agreement with them.

The atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen states:

"It is more reasonable to believe such elemental things [as wife beating and child abuse] to be evil than to believe any sceptical theory that tells us we cannot know or reasonably believe any of these things to be evil… I firmly believe that this is bedrock and right and that anyone who does not believe it cannot have probed deeply enough into the grounds of his moral beliefs.”

Kai Nielsen ‘Ethics without God’ pp.10,11

In ‘The Cambridge Companion to Atheism’ David Brink says:

“Our moral thinking and discourse might be systematically mistaken. But this would be a revisionary conclusion, to be accepted only as the result of extended and compelling argument that the commitments of ethical objectivity are unsustainable. In the meantime, we should treat the objectivity of ethics as a kind of default assumption of working hypothesis.”

David Brink ‘The Autonomy of Ethics’ (The Cambridge Companion to Atheism) p.149

Later he adds:

"We may be uncertain about some particular moral judgements and rules, but surely there are some particular judgements and rules of which we are very certain, much more certain than we are about any recondite first principle. For instance, I am much more certain that the Holocaust was wicked or that genocide is wrong than I am about the truth of utilitarianism or Kant's categorical imperative."

David Brink ‘The Autonomy of Ethics’ (The CambridgeCompanion to Atheism) p.156

I agree with both Brink and Nielsen on this. I think this tactic of shifting the burden, used by some moral anti-realists, is due to the fact that such people realise how inadequate their own arguments are when attempting to argue against moral realism and so they attempt to place all the burden on their opponents. A similar tactic is used by many atheists in the debate over the existence of God as well. An interesting observation to be made is how moral realism is on the increase amongst philosophers in modern times. Anti-realist proposals have been shown to have serious flaws and non-cognitivism has suffered a serious blow from logic.

What is interesting is that some anti-realists almost sound like the realist has some moral obligation to provide the evidence which, if you think about it, is a rather self-defeating position to take. For if the anti-realist thinks there is an objective moral obligation to be met by the realist then they are already a realist themselves and not longer require converting. If they mean it subjectively then there is no reason for me to think I have any duty to meet such a requirement and it can, quite reasonably, be ignored. This may be one reason why moral subjectivism has fallen on hard times of late.

As the philosopher John Cottingham points out:

“…it is very striking how the popularity of these subjectivist creeds has faded in more recent times. Relativistic views of truth turned out to be self-defeating; while in ethics, subjectivism ran into a host of logical difficulties and is now on the wane, eclipsed by a growing number of neo-objectivist theories. To everyone’s surprise, the growing consensus among philosophers is that some kind of objectivism of truth and of value is correct.”

John Cottingham ‘Why believe?’ p.27

So the uncomfortable question for those who would claim the burden of proof rests on the moral realist is – why? Why should it be entirely, or even mostly, their burden? Both the realist and the anti-realist are making truth claims about the nature of morality. Only one of them is supported by our natural intuitions and that is moral realism. Now this is where our moral sceptic will jump up and complain about trusting intuitions. They will point out that sometimes our intuitions are misplaced and surely they are correct to say this. However, this is also true for our senses. Our senses can also be shown to be mistaken more regularly than we would like to admit. Does having a blind spot mean we throw sight out as a reliable way of perceiving our world? Of course not! Does the fact that our sense of taste renders completely differing experiences mean that food can no longer be judged? Given the sheer volume of cookery competitions on the television of late it appears we don’t think so! So it appears to be completely ridiculous to claim that our intuitions are a poor guide to reality merely on the basis that sometimes they can be wrong. All this means is that they require further supporting evidence and are not enough on their own.

But perhaps our moral sceptic will claim that all realist claims bear the burden of proof and that anti-realism is the default position. Well then the reply ought to be why morality is singled out in this methodology. After all, I seriously doubt such people take anti-realism as their default position in their theory of reality. Is it more reasonable to assume we do not exist until it is proven that we do? Do such people take their intuition that they live in a real world and subject it to the same degree of scepticism?

Or take reason. Is it more reasonable to think that there is no such thing as objective truth until we have had such a thing proven to us?

So clearly this person has a huge problem in their methodology since they won’t apply it in these areas. What they are actually doing is claiming that morality is a special area of study which requires hyperbolic scepticism whilst not applying it to other philosophical questions and this is clearly without warrant. It certainly appears to me that some people only choose to disregard their intuitions when it conflicts with something they do not wish to believe, for some other reason, rather than following some rational methodology.

So, for these reasons, it appears quite clear that taking the moral realist position is justified in being taken to be the default position until it is overthrown by some more coherent subjectivist account of it. I would like to remind the moral sceptic that this position is not just a theistic position but that, as I’ve shown, there are atheist philosophers who take this position also and a good many of them are non-naturalists too!  

Therefore, my first reason [note: not only!] for being a moral realist is moral intuition and that is said without apology. Our intuitions can be wrong of course. They are not infallible. But I think there is something to the fact that most people intuit our existence to be real and I also think there is something to the fact that most people intuit that some things really are morally wrong.

AronRa's credibility

It appears that the request for AronRa to provide a citation for a quote he used has caused him to feel very insecure. In his reply to me on his 'Free Thought Bog' (or 'blog' - don't laugh - they mean well by the title) he begins by stating how willing he is to admit when he has made a mistake. He then writes:

"...it seems my credibility is under attack by some YouTuber who actually thinks he has something worth crowing about.  In the comments on his channel, I see allegations that I am a definitely dishonest coward, deliberately lying in order to further my ‘agenda’."

  I'm not sure how being asked to provide a citation is an attack on his credibility as such. Whilst implying that he might be a coward I have not actually said that he was "deliberately lying". At no point in my previous blog post did I do such a thing and neither did I do so on my YT video. Curious that he would immediately go on the defensive to such a degree.

Still, it might be AronRa's penchant for second-hand sources which led him to such a conclusion since he then admits:

"I haven’t actually seen either of the videos this guy has made about me."

Fortunately he then found my blog and appears to suggest he read my response here.

He then says some very odd things about who has the burden of proof when quoting people. He says:

"So I am accused of misrepresenting Luther, as if he didn’t really say that unless I can prove that he did.  Funny how the burden of proof shifts depending on whether one is arguing for faith vs any other topic."

Sorry to have to be the one to break it to AronRa but this is how genuine scholarship works. If you claim a quotation was made by someone you bear the burden of proof to demonstrate they actually said it. Even if a quote is in keeping with what the author said elsewhere one must be able to provide a citation. Even when the quote is found in secondary sources it's authenticity would still be dubious. So it is good practice to make your citations and make them clearly for all to check. What is the alternative? Taking AronRa's word for it? Is that what he would prefer?

He then cites some passages in Luther which he appears to think establish the same idea as the dubious quotation. Unfortunately they do no such thing! The dubious quote has Luther sounding like he thought there was no natural element to illness and that all physicians are useless. None of the citations AronRa makes from credible sources say those things. Instead what they do say is that Luther thought there was a spiritual element to illness which can sometimes be quite direct and even when it is not it is ultimately behind the phenomena of illness. These genuine quotes also point to the fact that Luther was quite torn on the issue of medical treatment. He bestows great praise on doctors whilst also sounding extremely cautious about some of their practices (which I will note in a moment was a pretty sensible position to take given the century he lived in).

AronRa then goes on to demonstrate he did not read the quotes I gave from Luther fairly. He says:

"In the same paragraph my antagonist cited, Luther criticized medical science as ‘fanciful theories’ in which he has no faith; because he noted that different healers gave different prescriptions for the same maladies."

Does AronRa know what 'medical science' was claiming at the beginning of the 16th century?

Many historians of medical science have documented how it was common for doctors, in Luther's time, to not even touch an ill patient in diagnosis. They were also reliant on ancient Greek wisdom for their techniques (which is one thing Luther wonders about). Medicine was dependent upon the wisdom of Galen and Avicenna the Persian from his work 'The Canon of Medicine'. People frequently died at the hands of physicians who practiced anesthesia by striking the skull with a wooden hammer! Perhaps AronRa is upset that Luther was not more impressed by blood-letting? The phrase 'medical science' is anachronistic to the early 16th century and yet AronRa appears completely unaware of this. He also appears completely oblivious to the Christian doctors of the 16th century who helped to change things for the better. [Which could be an idea for another blog in the future I think.]

AronRa says:

"He said medicine could be replaced with a good diet and an early bed time, and he said that graveyards are filled with those who followed their doctors’ advice."

  Well that is because the graveyards were full of people who went to the 16th century doctor or took their advice!! Also Luther did not say that medicine could be replaced with a good diet and plenty of sleep but rather Luther noted, from his own experience, that this advice had served him well in both avoiding and recovering from an illness. This advice remains quite sound to this day.

AronRa fails to even engage with, or acknowledge the existence of, quotes which upset his narrow reading of Luther. Passages such as:

"I do not deny that medicine is a gift of God, nor do I refuse to acknowledge science in the skill of many physicians."

"Able, cautious, and experienced physicians, are gifts of God."

are simply ignored by him.

He then finishes his overly defensive blog by then returning to the made up accusation of lying. All in all an even more disappointing response than I could have imagined he were possible of. Even now I don't accuse him of being a liar. I would prefer to suggest that he's too ignorant of theology to be a liar.