Atheism and Moral Progress (2)

Jack - My claim was not that the majority of philosophers were atheistic moral realists. I said atheism and moral realism were both majority positions, and that many of the main contemporary defenders of moral realism are atheists. There are clearly a great many philosophers who are both atheists and moral realists, if the two were incompatible I would really expect the experts to have noticed.

I never suggested that divine command theory doesn't have the most adherents, but I seriously doubt it since divine command theory has some pretty significant problems, like that moral facts don't seem to supervene on facts about divine commands (when, on the other hand, they do seem to supervene on natural facts like those about well-being). Not to mention that there's no real evidence for divine command theory in the first place!

Donahue - Baring extraneous discussion, the main point is that the Chalmers and Bourget survey does nothing to suggest that atheism (or moral realism, for that matter) is the dominant position among philosophers today. I explained that because (1) only 1,000 philosophers completed it, and (2) non-secular departments were not surveyed, the results of Chalmers and Bourget cannot be trusted. So, have the experts "noticed" that atheism and moral realism are incompatible? Who knows! Either way, it does not matter. It all comes down to the arguments for a position, not the number of adherents, a point I don't think you've really come to grips with.

As for your complaint about the lack of evidence for divine command theory (DCT), the moral argument just is an argument for it. In any case, I don't wish to debate DCT. I need to study the literature further and come to grips with the theory, its implications, and potential objections to it. But I have met my one goal: to push you to give actual arguments rather than belittling minority positions. The fact is, arguing from numbers is the lowest level of philosophical thinking, and I don't think even the supposed majority who stand behind you would approve of your argumentative tactics. You want to persuade and debate effectively? Give arguments. That is where true philosophy begins.

Jack - That the departments surveyed were all secular only makes my case stronger: people from secular departments are more likely to be atheists, and yet the study still produced a great many moral realists among them. Look even if you can't accept the statistics given, at least you can see that what I said is obviously true: there are a great many atheists who are moral realists among the experts; it's surprising they haven't noticed that the two are incompatible.

And you keep mentioning that only the arguments matter, well I keep pointing out that there are no arguments for divine command theory. Craig's moral argument uses divine command theory to argue that God is necessary for morality. If Craig's moral argument is an argument for divine command theory, then Craig is committing an obvious fallacy. But no, clearly the moral argument is not an argument for divine command theory.

Donahue - The claim here is that the majority of philosophers today hold to (1) moral realism and (2) atheism. From this observation, you infer that (1) and (2) must be compatible, for surely "the experts would have noticed" otherwise. I gave two main responses.

1. There is no evidence that (1) and (2) are actually held by the majority of philosophers. The only data that might support your claim is the Chalmers-Bourget survey. That survey, however, is defective on a number of counts. First, a total of 1,000 philosophers completed the survey. Who knows how different the demographics would appear if a more sizable number of philosophers were represented? Any answer is pure speculation. Second, only secular philosophy departments were asked to participate. Your response here is confused. I agree that a great many atheists are moral realists, but how does that suggest "the experts haven't noticed" the alleged incompatibility between (1) and (2)? What about all the theistic philosophers who see a problem with atheistic groundings of morality? Are they not experts too, Jack? Perhaps you might maintain that this group is a minority and therefore negligible, but how do you know that? What survey can you cite? If your point is merely that not all philosophers think (1) and (2) are incompatible, then nothing of significance follows. There is no philosophical consensus on anything, much less God and morality. Third, the survey had about a 48% response rate, and is therefore invalidated. So then, your appeal to authority is groundless.

2. There are no experts in philosophy. It does not matter what the majority believe; it only matters what arguments they give. In response, you quietly try to shift the burden of proof onto my shoulders, claiming that I need to give arguments for divine command theory (DCT). But sir, you are the one making the claim: namely, that DCT is false. Therefore, you are the one with the burden of proof, not I. Even if there were no evidence for DCT, that fact would not indicate that God is not the ground of morality. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

For all these reasons, it's time to stop belittling those who see a tight connection between God and morality. And even if I were to concede that most philosophers do not agree with me, so what? At the end of the day, I have to form my views based on what seems plausible to me; it is not rational to base my views on what seems right to others. The moment you own that is the moment you'll stop obsessing over the opinions of experts. Read them, study them, take advantage of their insights, fine. But when push comes to shove, you must make up your own mind, and I think the experts would agree with me here.

Part One