I remember hearing some of Fry's argument, which was basically an
argument from outrage fallacy, which included the phrase, "how dare you" in regards to the sufferings of children in the third world, IIRC. In this example the relative moralist basically shouts or is outraged, almost like a mother of a murdered victim, and this gives the sense that the responder or the one who disagrees, is flustered and tends to feel GUILT to the point of silence. Usually this type of fallacy probably isn't intended or the person is not conscious that they are taking the position of being
all-righteous, without proving they in fact are.
Of course intellectually this is absurd, so he can't be that smart, IMHO, because from the point of view of a person with a finite mind and a relative grasp of morality, how could that frame-of-reference be valid when questioning an omniscient God? So then a hidden assumption is that God isn't all knowing, and doesn't know what he is doing in allowing negative circumstances, which again, is patently absurd, intellectually for if He is God, how could He not be aware of such things and the reasons He has allowed them?
This basically means the recipient of the moral attack, is silent. As we know, God doesn't answer to puny humans, but nevertheless where an accused person cannot or will not give a defence, it is unfair to expect the absent party to automatically be deemed guilty, especially if that party has the ability to think on a far superior scale to the accuser but is silent.
This is always the problem with arguments from morality, if there is no real basis for morality to begin with then the argument fails, because to refute the argument you only need two words from the same equivalent, relative standpoint; "I disagree". Essentially Fry's argument was one of moral outrage, but with his atheist position, essentially he is
sawing off the branch he is sitting on. That branch is, "morality". If the universe is an accident and there ultimately is no right or wrong objectively speaking, then how can you indict someone with wrongdoing, when that would only be your relative version of it? In other words to refute Fry I need two words; "I disagree".
Conclusion; it's easy to basically arguing from an outraged, self-righteous position, but logically the person that argues from this position assumes moral purity, and basically moral perfection, for if they are not perfect examples of righteousness, and their mind is not a perfectly all knowledgeable mind but a finite, limited one, then why should we listen to that particular persons
subjective frame of reference?
Why for example, is a theists frame of reference of less worth? So then the whole thing becomes a matter of opinion.
As for explanations within the bible, the Christian God of the bible has given answers to some of the questions we may all ask, for example if there aren't consequences for a fallen world, and there are no negative effects, then what would that say about what the serpent said? It would suggest the serpent was correct, and God wrong, and that it would all be wonderful, so then from that perspective, theologically it makes sense that if mankind chooses a Godless path, that God is obliged to show the full horrific consequences of that sinful path. If the world was a paradise, that would then be God "okaying" the sinful nature.
But Fry's ignorance of the bible wouldn't have him think that far.
™ Version 4.2
