Of Morals, Evolution And Atheism/Agnosticism

06.13.2008 · Posted in apologetics

In an exchange a few days back a comment was made about morals being determined by what is good for society.

Here is the issue:

If there is no Creator, but we all evolved, that means there is no absolute. All is changing. Everything is in a constant state of flux. (Of course that would mean that change was the absolute.) That also means that there is no ultimate authority.

Where, then, does the meaning and determination of “the good of society” come from?

How can we reach a consensus on what is good for society when every opinion is just as valid as the one opposing it?

It seems to me that unless you have a Creator who is the absolute authority you have no ability to determine what is good without borrowing from His moral standard.

Just musing…

Geocentricity, Heliocentricity, Or Relativity? Bible believers are often ridiculed because it is assumed that...
Alleged Biblical Inconsistencies GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: agnosticism, amorality, atheism, creation, evolution, immorality, intelligent design, moral law, morals

Ubiquitous Che

Heh. The user name is actually a bit misleading.

My surname - I hope it would not be viewed as overly paranoid if I choose not to reveal it's actual spelling online - has two syllables. They are pronounced along the lines of 'Che-La'. About four years back one of my mates pointed out that Che La sounds like Che Fu, which he thought was funny since Che Fu is a big, black, cool rapper and I'm a scrawny, white, dorky computer geek (now a software developer).

So the nickname of 'Che La' stuck in real life, and I started using it online. However, since 'la' is a feminine suffix in many languages, it led to a host of embarassing misunderstandings, so I resolved to drop the 'La'.

It was only at this point that I really discovered who Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was, and learnt a bit of his history. He struch me as a pretty cool guy, although I remain highly skeptical of his political position. Still, since I'd adopted the same nickname as him - albeit for different reasons - it seemed only fitting I bought a coupld of the ever popular 'Viva Guevara' t-shirts.... Also known as the 'Ubiquitous Che' t-shirts.

It just so happens that when you register online for a username, anything that's intellibile and less than five letters will usually already be taken. 'Che La' was always vauge enough to get me in, but as I mentioned I had already dropped the 'La'. So I started using 'Ubiquitous Che' instead. I've been using it for a few years now, and it's pretty much stuck to the point that if you Google for 'Ubiquitous Che' you get more links from my posts than you get links to information about Guevara.

/story>

As for the taking your time to respond thing, that's totally good with me. Arguments like this on the internet are little more than a sign of the times... They're not likely to really decide much. I argue online for pleasure, not purpose - and I reccomend and support you in your endeavours to do the same. :D
pastoralmusings

Ubiquitous Che ,
Thanks again for writing.
Do me a favor and explain your unusual user name, as I have no time to look it up right now.
My pile is four shelves three feet long out of a library of 120 feet full out of 160 feet of shelving.

"this is getting too long, so I’ll take pity on you and stop with the frantic drunken typing already."
Let's see if we can agree on one thing: I will address this gradually over the next few weeks one paragraph/issue at a time. Each one will be a separate blog post. How is that? It will give me more time to study your objections as well as formulate an answer to them.
As of now I must go to my former home, finish cleaning it up so that I can sell it.
Jason (The Pastor)
Ubiquitous Che

Glad to know you're enjoying it - it's good to have someone to argue with that doesn't need the kid's gloves. :D
I can at this point only wish that I had a basic knowledge of the philosophers. I hope to apply myself and learn more, but it will be a slow process as my reading time is slim and my reading pile large.

I can sypathize with the pile thing. My pile's getting a bit deep myself - 12 books is really pushing it, even if a few of them are pretty thin.

I'm home now, but I was writing my earlier posts while I was at work. I'm a software developer, so I spend most of my time glued into my computer anyway. I was actually listening to an audio book today - The Portable Atheist, compiled by Christopher Hitchens from himself and a collection of authors throughout history. So I literally had two different authors speaking to me while I was writing my last two replies.

Reply #9 was written when I had the words of Lucretius whispering in my ear. Reply #11 was written whilst listening to Hitchen's personal, blistering form of argument. It's interesting to see them both reflected in what I'd written.

But as for the moment, I'm sitting at home with a bottle of good red wine and listening to Harry Connick Jr - so while I'm just as pretentious as I ever was today, at least I'm mellow about it now. :D

If you really are keen to read up on the philosophers, I would really reccomend you to have a look at Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Knowingly or not, you share a lot of his ideas. He's steep and he doesn't mess around. Kant defines things very precisely, and if you muddle a single term you'll get lost. It's not a task for the faint-hearted, but it's worth it.

If it's not in your pile yet, shuffle it in. If it's already in your pile somewhere, bump it up a few notches.

Also have a look at the online videos of Dinesh D'Souza;s debates for a very good example of how not to apply Kantian philosophy in an argument.

I'm pretty much gonna ditch everything else and focus on one key thing: "What sort of evidence-based reasoning would you expect to find in support of special revelation?"

That's a tricky question to answer. It would take a weight of evidence. A little weight could persuade me from vitriolic atheism to reserved agnosticism, and a strong weight of evidence could then persuade me from reserved agnosticisim to theism.

So no one thing on its own would do it. It would take a combination of things, and I hope it would not be seen as evasive were I to admit that what in all likelihood such evidence would take me entirely by surprize - and as such, I can't predict it in its entirety.

However, I can come up with a few examples.

Take prayer, for instance. If it could be proven in a double blind test that there was a statistically significant increase in the recovery rate of hospital patients who are prayed for as opposed to those who are not prayed for, that would lend serious weight to the argument that an interventionist deity exist that is capable of answering prayer.

Now, I'll grant you that the absence of such evidence doesn't neccesarily disproove God. But at the same time, the absence of such evidence doesn't exactly stand out in God's favor as opposed to the naturalistic worldview. This very absence is a prediction of the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, and the existence of such evidence would be powerfully falsifying for the atheistic/naturalistic worldview. And on the other hand, the theistic worldview makes no falsifying prediction in this case whatsoever.

Another such example would be a holy man that could, repeatedly and under the harshest testing, perform a miracle. There's lots of ways that stage magicians can 'magically' pour a clear acidic substance into a glass laced with a PH sensitive chemical that will turn red, and thus turn 'water' into 'wine'. But if you got a holy man that could actually turn real, drinkable water into real, drinkable wine, and that could do all that whilst being tested in a laboratory environment, that would be extremely persuasive and would probably win the researcher involved a Nobel prize. In short, a repeatable and testable miracle worker would do the trick.

Once again, the absence of a testable miracle worker doesn't disprove God either. But this very absence is a prediction of the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, and the existence of such a miracle worker would be powerfully falsifying for the atheistic/naturalistic worldview. And on the other hand, the theistic worldview makes no falsifying prediction in this case whatsoever.

The right kind of prophecy would be persuasive, but I need to add a criterion to this. There are a great many prophecies in the Old Testament relating to the life of Jesus. I've read quite a lot of them, and I find them about as convincing as the predictions of astrology.

One of the problems common to both biblical prophecy and astology is that they will usually make very vauge and noncomittal predictions about human behavior. In the case of Jesus, a very good argument can be made that eventually, by the laws of chance, someone would have come along that fit the initial birth prophecies of the old testament. From there, it's not too big a jump to see how such a person could then, with foresight, intentionally fulfill the prophecies with the purpose of cementing their claim, and in this way the prophecies would become self-fulfilling.

Now, the fact that this could happen doesn't neccesarily prove that this is what Jesus did. It's just an alternative explanation, and I find that in the absence of hard physical evidence it is much more plausible to accept this sort of an explanation than that of an interventionist deity.

So vauge, open-ended and easily stretched prophecies are, as far as I can see, in the same category of plausibility as the horoscopes in the weekly Times. I add to this the point that the entire idea of divine prophecy is that God is meant to be giving us an authoratative reason to believe - but if that were the case, why are the prophecies so flimsy? One would expect the authorative proof of a divine creator to be... well... authoratative.

An example of such an authoratative prohecy would be a prophecy about a celestial event that was significantly different to the predictions made by astronomy. If the event took place as the prophet fortold this would prove astronomy wrong, and be a big validator for the authenticity of the prophet. If the prophet actually had a success rate that was statistcally validating (i.e. very nearly always accurate) then this would be very strong evidence on behalf of the prophet.

Now, mabye the celestial event thing is a bit off, but consider the point in its general form. Give a prophet that can make precise, measurable predictions that almost always stack up, and that on the occasions where the predictions made by this prophet disagree with the predictions of science, it is the scientific prediction that turns out to be wrong and the prophet that turns out to be right.

The idea here is to get a prophet that can convincingly and significantly out-predict reason. This would make a pretty strong case on behalf of an interventionist creator.

Nothing I've ever come across on the subject of prophecy has ever come close to this. Once again, I grant that this lack of a strongly validated prophet doesn't, in and of itself, disprove the existence of God. But at the same time, the absence of such evidence is a prediction of the naturalistic/atheistic worldview, and if any such evidence were found it would be powerfully falsifying to the naturalistic/atheistic worldview.

I'm sure by now you can see where I'm going with this. I accept that there could be an interventionist deity at large in the cosmos... But if He/She/It/They aren't making Him/Her/Its/Their presence felt in a significant way, what good reason can we really give for accepting the extraordinary claim of the existence of such a deity?

In other words, if the universe acts and behaves exactly as we'd expect it to if God didn't exist, then we have no good reason to believe that God exists... And to the best of my knowledge and understanding, the universe really does behave exactly as we would expect it to if there were no such thing as God.

I just read over all of that... BIG WALL OF TEXT. Damn. I didn't realize I'd written so much. Methinks I'm a touch too drunk for this. I'm halfway through the bottle since I started writing, by the way.

Anyway, that gives a pretty rough outline on my objections to theism and some of my justifications of atheism/naturalism onj the basis of - as Kant would criticise - pure reason. Obviously there's a lot more going on than just this, and I daresay that when you find some little hole to pick at I'll have more to say on that particular subject... But this is getting too long, so I'll take pity on you and stop with the frantic drunken typing already.

Looking forward to your response.
pastoralmusings

Ubiquitous Che,
Thanks for responding. I am enjoying this. This blog is here for several reasons. One is to hone critical thinking skills. I have relatively little education, and in addition to reading I find that this sort of interaction moves me to think in ways I'm not accustomed to thinking...which is good for me.

"He screeched, yelled, ranted and raved with a fervor that any preacher would envy. "

Nah.....I get a little excited when I preach, but I do not envy that man's abilities as a speaker. Preaching isn't all about volume, contrary to popular opinion. Much of it needs to be half as loud and four times as deep 8)

"A real commitment to reason does not permit such excuses."
Which brings me back to the fact that you seem to embrace reason as the absolute standard by which all other things are to be judged. Thus we have an absolute and some sort of basis for morality.
Where does reason come from? How does one's studies arrive at this absolute?
If reason is not absolute you cannot rightly condemn anyone whose reasoning is contrary to your concept of reason.

"you have my apologies."
They are certainly accepted, although I am neither offended nor hurt by the misunderstanding.

"Your argument smacks of Kant (whom I respect) and Dinesh D’Souza (whom I despise), and from this I have mischaracterized it."
I can at this point only wish that I had a basic knowledge of the philosophers. I hope to apply myself and learn more, but it will be a slow process as my reading time is slim and my reading pile large.

"And I’m yet to find any sound evidence-based reasoning that supports the case that any given alleged revelation was in fact genuine."
I have never encountered this issue before (at least not in these terms). What sort of evidence-based reasoning would you expect to find in support of special revelation?
I'll be busy the next couple of days, but I'll try to be back to interact with you.
Thanks again for stopping by.
Jason (The Pastor)
Ubiquitous Che

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you, though you seem to be somewhat vitriolic in tone. I think that I recollect having read on your blog that you intend to tone that down a little 8)

Yeah... I wrote my 'Rebranding' post just after reading Dennett. More recently, I've been reading Hitchens. I guess it shows. :P
From whence reason? “The power of human reason” has determined in one society that Jews were dirty animals to be annihilated. In another society “reason” deemed Jews to be human and worthy of life. Whose reason is right?

Here I can tell that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You say that 'reason' is responsible for anti-semitisim in certain societies, both modern and ancient. I've seen the 'reasoning' used in these cases. It's almost always religious 'reasoning', and in those few cases where the arguments aren't couched in religious trappings they are so thin and transparent that they constitute not sound reasoning, but instead straw-clutching excuse-seeking by a cluture desperate to validate the opinions and actions of an inherently racist and hateful majority.

Because the fact remains that reason has, if nothing else, shown the common descent of humanity and thus fully exposed how untrue the entire concept of racisim really is. This is the reasoning that is right, because it is the reasoning that is most supported by the evidence.
Respect? Human intellect and reason have produced the Holocaust, genocide, racism, hatred, fanaticism, murder, lying, cheating, an unconstitutional and unjust war waged by the USA on two once sovereign nations, and many other ills/evils in this world.

Once again, I can tell you don't understand what you're talking about. I'll pick on your use of the reducto ad Hitlerium.

Are you seriously telling me that you think that the Nazis were reasonable? Hitler was many things. Reasonable was not one of them. Have you ever actually seen one of the videos of his speeches? He screeched, yelled, ranted and raved with a fervor that any preacher would envy. He did this precisely because his arguments were not reasonable; instead of reason he was forced to rely on the most banal and despicable of the sophist's arts.

In fact, his tantrums at the podium are so transparently disgraceful that the only rational conclusion is that the crowds he addressed could not possibly have any kind of respect for reason, because if they had they would not have been persuaded. They must have wanted to agree, which would imply that they knew full well that their position was unreasonable and circumvented this by clutching to the straws of Adolf's despicable rhetoric by way of an excuse.

A real commitment to reason does not permit such excuses.
Ubiquitous Che, this is no game of postmodernist drivel, as you call it. I am not a modernist, neither am I a postmodernist. I am a Christian/Theist. I believe in absolute Truth.

Then you have my apologies. Your argument smacks of Kant (whom I respect) and Dinesh D'Souza (whom I despise), and from this I have mischaracterized it.

Since you believe in both absolute truth and - I presume - the theologian's understanding of 'special revelation', how then do you approach the problem that there is no subjective means that can distinguish between an alleged revelation and a convincing self-delusion?

It is my understanding that there is no way - based on subjective experience alone - that we can distinguish between that which is true and that which only seems to be true, and that we instead have to trust in emprical, third-person investigation involving sound evidence-based reasoning... And I'm yet to find any sound evidence-based reasoning that supports the case that any given alleged revelation was in fact genuine.
pastoralmusings

Ubiquitous Che,
Thanks for stopping back by.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you, though you seem to be somewhat vitriolic in tone. I think that I recollect having read on your blog that you intend to tone that down a little 8)
You said:
"Consider now, in light of this, my utter scorn for your words; ‘That all opinions are equally valid unless there is a standard by which to judge them.’

The standard by which to judge opinions is reason, and the standard by which to judge reason is the results thereof. Though I think this will prove a trifling obstacle - mere reality has rarely been a concern when it comes to the opinions of the faithful."
"Not all opinions are equally valid, and the simplest and most effective measure of validity is evidence-based reason. The justification of evidence-based reason is it’s successes and predictions."

Uh-oh....you have contradicted your argument. You have heaped scorn on me for stating that all opinions are valid unless there is a standard by which to judge them. Now, however, you tell me that "reason" is the standard by which we must judge things.
Is "reason" absolute? Is "reason" immutable? If so, we have begun to agree.
If not, you must go back from whence you came and attack the issue in another manner.
You cannot judge my opinion as invalid unless you have a standard that is considered valid. You have posited "reason" as that standard.
From whence reason? "The power of human reason" has determined in one society that Jews were dirty animals to be annihilated. In another society "reason" deemed Jews to be human and worthy of life. Whose reason is right? Unless there is a standard, each of these is an equally valid opinion, which I do not (and I imagine that you do not) believe to be true.

"human intellect and reason are the most potent forces that our small and fragile planet has ever seen. You would do well to award them more respect."
Respect? Human intellect and reason have produced the Holocaust, genocide, racism, hatred, fanaticism, murder, lying, cheating, an unconstitutional and unjust war waged by the USA on two once sovereign nations, and many other ills/evils in this world. Each perpetrator of these evils had his "reasoning." Each society in which these things have been approved had its collective "reasoning." Are they right, or are they wrong? That is the question.

" The question is: how do you define “health” and “power.” Without something absolute behind it all words have no settled meaning.

'The body knows these things well - it does not need to be told by stale and apocryphal scripture penned by mortal men long dead and buried.' "

How does the body know anything without its antithesis existing? One cannot understand and appreciate health apart from the realization that there is sickness. We understand sickness because we know what it is to be well. Thus, our ideal of perfect health is the standard by which all other states of health are judged.
How can one know and appreciate power except they know its antithesis which is impotence? What is the standard of power by which we judge all other degrees of force? Of course, a perfect antithesis to impotence is omnipotence. I guess you probably don't want to go there, do you?
Ubiquitous Che, this is no game of postmodernist drivel, as you call it. I am not a modernist, neither am I a postmodernist. I am a Christian/Theist. I believe in absolute Truth. That is the standard by which all other things are judged. I do not know what you've misunderstood that leads you to believe otherwise.
On the other hand, rationalism leads us down many different roads, but all of them are dead ends. "Reason" is not king.
Sincerely,
Jason (The Pastor)
Ubiquitous Che

All opinions are equally valid unless there is a standard by which to judge them.

Such. Utter. Nonsense.

I can hold my clasped hands in front of you, and state my opinion that there is a pixie inside. You can ask me to open my hands and show you the pixie, and upon so doing my hands would appear empty. Upon this I could then state a further opinion that pixies are, by definition, utterly transparent to all the base senses such that the inability to show you the pixie is not, in and of itself, a disproof of my original opinion of the pixie's existence. Would these opinions be as valid as what would surely be your own reflection - that there was never any such pixie, and that I was some kind of raving lunatic?

Similarly, you could hold up what looks to be a stone, and state your opinion that, because it looks and feels like a stone, it very defnitiely is a stone. I could then state my opinion that our senses were deluded, and that the stone was truly just a feather. Were you then to strike the object against my head, and were my head to cave in from the impact, would my opinion that the object in your hand was not a stone but instead a remarkably heavy feather be a valid one in your eyes?

Do we really have to play this tiresome and inane game of semi-literate postmodernist drivel? Not all opinions are equally valid, and the simplest and most effective measure of validity is evidence-based reason. The justification of evidence-based reason is it's successes and predictions. What prophet or soothsayer or oracle has ever predicted the motions of celestial bodies with anything near the accuracy of reason in the service of astronomy? What holy man has ever cured so many lepers as reason in the service of medicine? What miracle-worker has ever performed such a feet so as to create a construction of several tonnes of metal and rubber and let it soar through the sky and across oceans as is done, reliably, demonstrably, and repeatedly as by reason in the service of aeronautical engineering?

Consider now, in light of this, my utter scorn for your words; 'That all opinions are equally valid unless there is a standard by which to judge them.'

The standard by which to judge opinions is reason, and the standard by which to judge reason is the results thereof. Though I think this will prove a trifling obstacle - mere reality has rarely been a concern when it comes to the opinions of the faithful.
How do we know “good” when we see it if there is no basic, inherent knowledge of “good?”

Once again, through the might of human reason - that it is clear to all that a society in which mutual aid is freely given is more desireable to all those concerned than a society where mutual harm is delivered.

The difficulty lies in how such a society could be achieved - and I grant that this is a difficulty that can be no means be understated in its magnitude. There will always be the temptation to cheat and recieve the short-term reward, and how this temptation can be countered is a worthy subject of debate and discussion.

Yet the 'how' of this is not the issue at hand. Instead, we are adressing the 'what' is to happen, which is - fortunately - a far easier concern. For to claim that there is no common basis for an understanding of what is good or ill is to dismiss all the marvels of human intellect and reason as impotent, when the reverse is true - human intellect and reason are the most potent forces that our small and fragile planet has ever seen. You would do well to award them more respect.
The question is: how do you define “health” and “power.” Without something absolute behind it all words have no settled meaning.

The body knows these things well - it does not need to be told by stale and apocryphal scripture penned by mortal men long dead and buried.
pastoralmusings

Paul,
Thanks for stopping by. I must acknowledge that I am a flawed human being who is far from perfect. I thus make mistakes. You said:
"Your essential logic seems flawed to me if you lay it out in a bare-bones manner. That is, I don’t see the “therefores” as necessarily following either from your first statement or from each other."
I would be glad for you to demonstrate this more fully. I do not feel that you have satisfactorily proved my logic flawed or incorrect, but am willing to stand corrected.
"determining what’s in a society’s best interest has no necessary relation to whether people believe in a Creator or in evolution. Societies around the world have survived and often flourished without reference to either of these ideas."
I did not state that societies could not exist without a belief in a Creator. I did say "It seems to me that unless you have a Creator who is the absolute authority you have no ability to determine what is good without borrowing from His moral standard."
If there is no Creator and all is changing/evolving there is no absolute.
If there is no absolute all opinions are equally good (if you can ever define "good."). One cannot know what is good, if there is no unchanging standard of goodness.
If all is equally good there will be no ability to achieve a fixed set of morals and ethics.
I am unable to see a fatal flaw in this.
Please lay it out plainly for me.
Thanks,
Jason S (The Pastor)
Paul Maurice Martin

Your essential logic seems flawed to me if you lay it out in a bare-bones manner. That is, I don’t see the “therefores” as necessarily following either from your first statement or from each other.

You can fill in the blanks, but to provide one example: determining what’s in a society’s best interest has no necessary relation to whether people believe in a Creator or in evolution. Societies around the world have survived and often flourished without reference to either of these ideas.

Here’s my stripped down version of your thoughts:

No Creator plus evolution would mean that nothing is absolute in the sense that everything is always changing.

Therefore change is the only absolute there is and therefore there is no ultimate authority.

Therefore there is no way to determine what’s in a society’s best interest.

Therefore all opinions are equally valid.
pastoralmusings

Ubiquitous Che,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I am not merely pontificating here, though I have deeply held beliefs. I am glad to read what you have to say as long as it is said without profanity and ad hominem attacks.
"I call shenanigans: Just because every opinion has the right to be voiced (free speech), that doesn’t change the simple fact that not all opinions are equally valid, and not all opinions are equally worthy of respect. I should hope this is obvious - I can cite plenty of examples if need be."
Have you any idea what gave the basis for the First Amendment in the USA? From where did we get the ideal of free speech?
Never the less, free speech isn't the issue. All opinions are equally valid unless there is a standard by which to judge them. From where does the evolutionist/atheist/agnostic (Choose whichever fits) get this standard? In an evolving society only the fittest survive...including the area of morals and ethics.
"Then you clearly haven’t really thought about it. The non-theistic basis for determining ‘the good of society’ is as obvious as it is simple."
Is it really? I cannot yet acknowledge that, but am willing to consider what you have to say.
"A society where everyone helps one another is obviously a better place for me to live in than one where everyone hurts each other - so it is in my own personal, selfish interest to see to it that ‘the good of society’ is upheld. It’s a giant game of the Prisoner’s Dillemma - and it can be demonstrably proven that Tit for Tat is the best, most stable and most robust policy around."
The issue is that selfishness is the downfall of society. That is how the rich become richer and the poor become poorer in most cases. Selfishness is what causes wars, riots, etc. Benevolence is what is better for society. Thus, I'm not asking what is better for society, but who and what determines what is good for society, and by what standard do we measure "good?" How do we know "good" when we see it if there is no basic, inherent knowledge of "good?"
Jason S (The Pastor)
pastoralmusings

Guys,
Perhaps you could help me.
I am having problems with italics in my comments.
How do I selectively italicize something?
Jason
pastoralmusings

Jason,
Thanks for stopping back in. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue on these issues.
I could answer that question rather easily as it’s a fairly simple thing to see what increases the overall health and power of a society, making it pretty clear that every opinion is NOT ‘just as valid’ as the others. But I have a feeling you don’t really want to hear the answer so I won’t go into detail.
Fire away. I want to see your answer.
The question is: how do you define "health" and "power." Without something absolute behind it all words have no settled meaning.
A more interesting question, I think, is this: Why do you think it matters?
Okay, you think that an absolute moral code would be good for humanity. Great. Fabulous. You’re quite welcome to think that. Now, what about it being ‘good’ means that it must be true?
I'm glad that you allow me the privilege and right to hold my own opinion. That being said, please restate your question. I am not sure exactly what you are asking me here.
I think it’d be good for humanity if everyone crapped gold nuggets they could use to buy food so no one would ever go hungry again. What part of that makes it true?
How is this relevant to the subject? I have not spoken of what is good as being true. I have spoken of what is absolutely true determining what is being good. This is my basic presuppositional standpoint.
Jason S. (The Pastor)
Jason

"Where, then, does the meaning and determination of “the good of society” come from?"

I could answer that question rather easily as it's a fairly simple thing to see what increases the overall health and power of a society, making it pretty clear that every opinion is NOT 'just as valid' as the others. But I have a feeling you don't really want to hear the answer so I won't go into detail.

A more interesting question, I think, is this: Why do you think it matters?
Okay, you think that an absolute moral code would be good for humanity. Great. Fabulous. You're quite welcome to think that. Now, what about it being 'good' means that it must be true?
I think it'd be good for humanity if everyone crapped gold nuggets they could use to buy food so no one would ever go hungry again. What part of that makes it true?
Ubiquitous Che

How can we reach a consensus on what is good for society when every opinion is just as valid as the one opposing it?

I call shenanigans: Just because every opinion has the right to be voiced (free speech), that doesn't change the simple fact that not all opinions are equally valid, and not all opinions are equally worthy of respect. I should hope this is obvious - I can cite plenty of examples if need be.
It seems to me that unless you have a Creator who is the absolute authority you have no ability to determine what is good without borrowing from His moral standard.

Then you clearly haven't really thought about it. The non-theistic basis for determining 'the good of society' is as obvious as it is simple.

Now I'll grant to you that achieving such a society is a lot harder than merely desiring it. But that wasn't the question you asked: 'How can we reach a consensus?'

A society where everyone helps one another is obviously a better place for me to live in than one where everyone hurts eachother - so it is in my own personal, selfish interest to see to it that 'the good of society' is upheld. It's a giant game of the Prisoner's Dillemma - and it can be demonstrably proven that Tit for Tat is the best, most stable and most robust policy around.

End of story.