I have a limited study of philosophy, and of topics like objective vs. subjective morality. As such I can appreciate the desirability of an objective moral reference point at my current stage of exposure to this topic.
As the eloquent speaker relayed, it certainly appears to make downstream concepts like accountability have something more concrete – whether real or imagined – to attach to.
But we must zoom out. Fundamentally, we should not form our beliefs about reality because they are convenient or lead to desirable and manageable outcomes. Rather, we should form our beliefs about reality because of the evidence. We should form beliefs about reality because they are true.
The entire morality argument here could be flipped around by considering the classic ‘Problem of Evil’ through an unconventional lens: we could argue that since there is evil in the world and we only want to believe in a God that is good, we’d rather not believe in God because we don’t want to believe in a God who could permit evil. Theists would rightfully object that just because there is evil in the world, making it harder to conceive of God as “all good”, doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist.
What we’re talking about here is the difference between “is” and “ought”.
This entire presentation defending theism from an Ahmadiyya Muslim perspective is focused on the benefits of using religion as an objective moral standard. However, the benefits are downstream from the question of theism, “Is this religion, or any professed religion for that matter, actually true?”.
If theism cannot be defended, then the convenience and benefits of an objective moral standard are irrelevant insofar as they themselves do not hang onto to any true structure.
If theism is a lie, we do not serve humanity by trying to prop up this lie just because it appears to confer some benefits to society; assuming that we could even get a society to earnestly believe in it.
Even if we are in the philosophical infancy of our species’ ability to derive and devise morality through social constructs, I would submit that dealing with reality is going to serve humankind better in the long run than a nice idea predicated on a lie (if we take the position that no religion can pass the test of evidence and that all religions are a lie).
Put another way, just because the presenter makes the case that objective morality would be nice and give us an external reference point for the purpose of life, that does not make religion true. At most, it makes it a desirable construct, all else being equal and provided religion was actually true.
In terms of promotion, I understand the marketing reasons for the title, “Muslim Speaker Dismantles Humanism in front of Atheist Crowd”. However, without this video clip sharing anything but the Muslim speaker’s own presentation, it does seem premature. I would have liked to see the other side of the debate before I’d claim who “dismantled” whom.
I for example, cannot tell if the Muslim speaker dismantled straw men positions, because I couldn’t view the entire debate. To be fair, a full debate link was given in the description. I do not believe the intention was to hide the video of the event in its entirety. However, as at June 10, 2016, the link to the full video does not work.
Finally, I believe the most interesting discussions we can have on these topics arise from when we address the best arguments out there in a systematic way, even if our response is, “I don’t know”.
Speaking of which, I’d be keen to see Ahmadi Muslims tackle Qualia Soup’s three-part series on Morality. Here’s the playlist, and individual videos are linked below.
- Part 1: Good without Gods
- Part 2: Not-so-good books
- Part 3: Of objectivity and oughtness