Errors in Thinking

https://www.relationshipwithreason.com/tools/bg/Bo/rwr/Ywjo2n9t/Does-Society-Need-the-Threat-of-Hell-and-the-Promise-of-the-Reward-of-Heaven
This article is an example of how a brilliant Atheist leader and a popular Christian leader can both be in serious error in their thinking and in how they present their own lifestances.

Dennis Prager isn't a lucid, careful, rational thinker so I'm not surprised his explanations are so very wrong and historically inaccurate.
BUT I am shocked by the weaknesses in the article by Bo Bennett, PhD, Social Scientist and Business Consultant, since he has a website showing the dangers of biased rhetoric and fallacious thinking.

VERSUS:

#1 ERROR: Bo Bennett claims that "In short, to make a claim of objective morality, we all need to make a subjective call which makes morality only objective in theory and subjective in practice."

No! We don't need to make a "subjective call" to recognize that racism, rape, molestation, slavery, dishonesty, abuse, and the slaughter of innocent civilians, etc. ARE always wrong.

Atheists, even brilliant successful atheists, claiming that ethics are only "subjective" is the very reason to reject atheism as a true, reliable view of reality.

#2 ERROR: Bennett claims that because "delineating murder from "justified killing" is highly subjective...we will never know...morality is functionally subjective."

On the contrary, this confuses the practice of seeking complete objectivity in ethics with a philosophical claim that there is no objectivity in ethics. We as humans may not be able to be totally objective, BUT WE CAN DRAW CLOSER AND CLOSER TO THE GOOD, THE TRUE, AND THE JUST.

For instance, Bennett brings up the fact of the various degrees of killing, which according to him then makes killing subjective!

No, IT DOESN'T.
When courts work to figure out whether a killing was premeditated, intentional, impulsive, accidental, they AREN'T claiming that it's ALL functionally SUBJECTIVE.

On the contrary, the reason that criminal justice systems work at a snail's pace, are very methodical, are so very detailed, do so much onion-peeling, and sometime disagree with other courts, is that the c.j. leaders are striving to be as objective as possible.

One of the last times I got called to jury duty, both I and another teacher were disqualified from the jury because we were "teachers." Evidently, since the suspect was a teenager, the defense attorney or prosecutor thought we would be "subjective" in our bias as teachers.

Just because, humans sometimes can't know for sure in their quest for total objectivity, DOESN'T mean that therefore slavery, molestation, rape, etc. are ONLY "subjective" wrongs!

Not being able to be totally objective doesn't mean therefore all is "subjective."

How irrational!

If we are NASA scientists and plan to send a probe, again, to Pluto, we strive to be as objective in math and ethics as we can possibly be.

If we fall short, IT DOESN'T mean that math and ethics are "subjective,"
but that we didn't attain the complete objectivity that we seek in that particular goal.

We may still have been able to get the probe out to Saturn, even if one scientist and a mathematician were in error, or even worse were dishonest in their calculations!

Besides, Bennett, then even contradicts his own views. In his article he puts up a poster which says, "If the only thing keeping you from being a horrible person is your religion, you are already a horrible person."

Of course, if as Bennett claims ethics are only "subjective," then whether or not a person is ethically "horrible" is subjective!

If ethics are "subjective," then it's rather strange that Bennett who claims to be a rational individual, claims that religion is wrong and reason is good.

It is the view that justice, truth, and goodness really exist which is the basis for various criticisms of religion and secularism failures.

See if you spot some of Bennett's and Prager's other weak reasonings.


In the LIGHT of Truth, Justice, and Goodness,

Daniel Wilcox