Christian historian Dr. Wallace Marshall and I are debating whether or not enough evidence points to the existence of a god. For background and format, and Dr. Wallace’s opening statement, see entry one. For subsequent entries, see index.

We’re now discussing the Moral Argument for the Existence of God. Now below is my latest response to Marshall’s recent defense of that argument.


That the Evidence Points to Atheism (XII)

by Richard Carrier, Ph.D.

Dr. Marshall has no evidence.

Irrationality of Retributivism

Marshall ignored my argument that a universal record of retributivist reasoning is not evidence such reasoning is correct, any more than a universal record of other errors of human reasoning is evidence any such reasoning is correct. You must justify any device of human reasoning before declaring it sound. “Everyone does it” is not a justification.

Humans evolved many heuristic short-cuts that are not logically sound but adaptive only because they are better than nothing, like feeling unease at bad people “getting away with it,” which motivates people to regulate behavior communally and in themselves; it just happens that it can also cause the erroneous belief that pointless torment is a moral good. That feeling, however, like feeling the presence of ghosts, does not correspond to anything true. It’s simply an error we picked up because it had a useful effect: to motivate us to loathe misbehavior and thus combat it. It has no function otherwise.

By contrast, cultures also universally adopt consequentialist moral reasoning, which we can verify scientifically is necessary for functional societies and internal health and motivation. [1] Marshall has no comparable evidence retributivist reasoning is logically valid. It isn’t. No rational, informed person would endorse it. Only the ignorant or irrational do. And what Dr. Marshall has no valid evidence is true, cannot be evidence for a god.

Guilt Is Consequentialist

Dr. Marshall incorrectly says I “think informed humans should outgrow notions like ‘transgression’, ‘moral outrage’, ‘guilt’, and retributive punishment.” I only said that last cannot be rationally defended. The rest are consequentialist: our concepts of transgression effect our accounting of the risk a transgressor poses to a community; and guilt and moral outrage motivate moral policing (and self-policing) which likewise, when rationally deployed and activated by true rather than false beliefs, reduces the consequential risks to self and others that misbehavior produces. Marshall has no evidence it’s otherwise. And what he has no evidence for, cannot evince God.

No More Pseudoscience

Dr. Marshall’s moral theories are pseudoscience; and God’s existence cannot be defended with pseudoscience. We have quite a lot of science on the “fundamental features of our moral experience” and they all support the moral theory I’m talking about; not his. [2]

For example, Dr. Marshall wants it to be true that moral imperatives require something “besides” consequences for their truth conditions. He’s never presented any evidence of this. Whereas I’ve presented abundant evidence that consequences are both necessary and sufficient to demonstrate an imperative is true for any rationally informed actor. Marshall has not demonstrated any other kind of imperative to be true. And what he can’t show is true, can’t be evidence for God.

Marshall likewise references “Providence” as training us, but there’s no evidence of this. Nature is actually a messy and inconsistent moral educator; and our evolved moral senses are conflicting and badly designed. Which is actually evidence against a moral God. Meanwhile, Game Theoretic modeling shows that despite these imperfections, statistically, following a reasonably modulated Golden Rule produces the best outcome for all actors. We therefore need no God for this to be true or for us to discover it. [3]

I’ve told Marshall this repeatedly, yet he still thinks this is a “hurdle” we haven’t overcome; we have. He thinks we can’t show it hasn’t “outlived its evolutionary usefulness” when in fact Game Theoretic modeling has proved it not only hasn’t but never can—for any rationally guided social species. Satisfaction living by a rationally ramified Golden Rule is thus “precisely the kind of” thing “evolution would have invented” emotional states to motivate us toward. [4] And science shows evolution has done precisely that. [5] Both externally (in studies of reciprocal altruism, for example) and internally (in studies of moral conscience and the role of self-regard in personal satisfaction). [6]

By contrast, Dr. Marshall says one should “derive [their self-]satisfaction from the knowledge that he is living in accord with the Creator of all things,” but there’s zero empirical data on what that would even be. [7] The Bible, revelation, intuition, all unreliable. [8] No one has access to the information Marshall claims we should be basing our morals on. And no evidence of that, means no evidence for God.

Jacques and the Nazis

Dr. Marshall then tries to use Nazis as somehow evincing his magical extra “something” that consequentialism doesn’t produce. He dismisses the correct observation that Nazis based their morals on false beliefs. (And nothing derived from false premises can be true, except by accidents too improbable to trust. [9]) Then argues he should get to call them evil for no reason.

Nazis can only be evil for reasons. Not “just because.” And those reasons will always be consequences, which the Nazis themselves experienced externally in mass death, humiliation, regret, and defeat, but also in their own consciences, being among the most angry and dissatisfied people on the planet, awash with false beliefs about Jews and others, incorrectly blaming them for all their actual ills, and fallaciously using these false beliefs to rationalize their hatred and anger and other unreflective, base emotions.

In other words, Nazis were just wrong; and were statistically the more miserable because of it, taking actions that were crippling and destructive to themselves and their communities.

But what we mean by calling them “evil” is that their hatred and inhumanity, justified (and only justifiable) by a system of false beliefs, causes evil, as in, widespread intentional harm to humanity and even themselves. What people mean by an evil character is a character that generates very negative consequences to others—and does so intentionally, rather than by any justified ignorance of the harm being caused. This only verifies ordinary consequentialism. Which does nothing to evince God.

Everyone, even the Nazis, as a matter of actual fact would have been better off being genuinely moral to each other. As that is an irrefutable fact, there is no possible way to argue we “need God” for that to be the case, or to notice it. [10]

For the same reason, Dr. Marshall still doesn’t understand why his Jacque the Art Thief would actually be statistically worse off than his hypothetical counterpart who was more empathic, humble, and self-reflective. But no other reason need exist for him to prefer the latter version of himself. [11] That people are not perfectly rational nor immune to false beliefs, thus making it difficult for them to see this fact, does not change this fact. That there are irrational people acting on false beliefs to justify their immorality can never justify immorality. Morality only follows from the truth.

-:-

Such is my latest response to Marshall’s Moral Argument for God. 

Continue on to Marshall’s next reply.

-:-

[1] See Richard Carrier, “The Real Basis of a Moral World” (12 November 2018).

[2] Besides what I already listed in Note 3 of my Eleventh Reply (14 July 2019), see, for example: Yu et al. “Neural Substrates of Intention–Consequence Integration and Its Impact on Reactive Punishment in Interpersonal Transgression” Journal of Neuroscience 35.12 (25 March 2015): 4917-25; “Moral Judgments Can Be Altered: Neuroscientists Influence People’s Moral Judgments by Disrupting Specific Brain Region” ScienceDaily (30 March 2010); Borg et al., “Consequences, Action, and Intention as Factors in Moral Judgments: An fMRI Investigation” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18.5 (2006): 803-17; Pascual et al. “How Does Morality Work in the Brain?” Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 7.65 (12 September 2013).

[3] Again see Robert Axelrod, The Complexity of Cooperation (Princeton University Press 1997), which I brief in Richard Carrier, “The Real Basis of a Moral World” (12 November 2018).

[4] That morality is as much discovered as invented (crudely by evolution, and now better by human observers), see Richard Carrier, “How Can Morals Be Both Invented and True?” (21 August 2017).

[5] See, again, Note 3 in My Eleventh Reply (14 July 2019).

[6] For summary see, again, Richard Carrier, “Your Own Moral Reasoning” (19 March 2018). But for examples of surveys of the science see, once again: Roger Bergman, “Why Be Moral? A Conceptual Model from Developmental Psychology” in Human Development 45 (2002); Narvaez & Lapsley, eds., Personality, Identity, and Character (Cambridge University Press 2009); James Maddux, ed., Subjective Well-Being and Life Satisfaction (Routledge 2018); Patricia Churchland, Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality (Princeton University Press 2011); Mark Fedyk, The Social Turn in Moral Psychology (MIT Press 2017). Both points hold even for sociopaths: e.g., Kent Kiehl and Morris Hoffman, “The Criminal Psychopath” Jurimetrics 51 (Summer 2011).

[7] Again see Richard Carrier, “The Moral Bankruptcy of Divine Command Theory: Matthew Flannagan’s Failed Defense” (8 October 2015).

[8] “The Bible endorses the immorality of slavery (even Jesus uses it as a moral exemplar), and says nothing for democracy or human rights or universal suffrage or equality (the New Testament in fact condemns it); nor freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or respect for personal autonomy (all condemned by the Bible),” Richard Carrier, My Sixth Reply (2 June 2019; with which see the corresponding Note 12). “Including God’s vile command that we murder anyone who exercises their freedom of speech, religion, or sexual autonomy (Deuteronomy 12:1-13:16, Leviticus 24:11-16, Numbers 15:32-36; Deuteronomy 22:13-30, Leviticus 20:13), the Lord’s recommendation to mutilate yourself for having disapproved thoughts (Matthew 18:8-9), and God’s failure to correct the New Testament commandment to subjugate women (1 Timothy 2:11-15). And more,” including “God’s commandment to engage in chattel slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46),” Richard Carrier, My Eighth Reply (10 June 2019). And see “What We Can’t Overlook” in My First Reply (17 April 2019).

[9] On the uselessness of accidental knowledge see Richard Carrier, “The Gettier Problem” (5 December 2013).

[10] For the full basis of this whole “what’s wrong with Nazis” point see Richard Carrier, Sense and Goodness without God (2005): pp. 336-37.

[11] See once again my survey of the external and internal reasons a Jacques would, if rationally informed, prefer to be a different version of himself in Richard Carrier, “Your Own Moral Reasoning” (19 March 2018).

§

To comment use Add Comment field at bottom or click a Reply box next to a comment. See Comments & Moderation Policy.

Discover more from Richard Carrier Blogs

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading