Atheism and Moral Values
 

In the Ouija board thread in the parenting forum Radar posted this and I didn't want to hijack that threads topic so here is the post and my question.

Radar, I'm really at a loss to understand any logic in your saying that as an atheist you have "strong ethics and an accurate sense of what is right and wrong."

"Accurate" in relationship to what as an absolute value?

What can you base any moral value upon as an atheist that is absolute and should apply to everyone, or even just all other atheists?

Thanks for the help in understanding this.

How can you have a value of "right" or "wrong" that should apply if there is nothing absolute?

So are you saying that for you only God can give an absolute value, Ruminator?

Isn't it also possible that cinging to the illusion of an absolute morality gives you a false comfort?

If one believes that the body of religious writings is simply a summary of man's theories of morality, then it isn't necessary to accept the supernatural aspects of religion to continue to use the practical moral constraints as a guideline. Even if they are absorbed indirectly through secular contact with other civilized peoples, and their religious sources are outright rejected.

What is the purported connection between religion and morality, anyway? In one interpretation, religion simply employs a supernatural enforcement division to punish people for not following the laws that they themselves thought of to begin with.

This is the argument: What came first, the chicken (morality) or the egg (religion)?

Much the same way that religious people decide which god provides the absolutes in their life. But without the middleman.

This is a well explored field in philosophy, but I never specialised in it.
Nevertheless, there is a frequently recurring (but bad) argument that we need religion to give us moral guidance, therefore god must exist. Not only is the inference invalid (needing something to be true is no reason for believing it to be true), the premise is false. The falsity of the premise is related to the question Ruminator has raised.

Is there some source of moral values which does not involve a god? Several sources have been suggested, the one I find most plausible is based on human nature.

There are some facts about humans that are true regardless of whether anyone believes them. I'll give some examples and show how they can lead to moral guides.

Fact: once a human dies, their death is permanent and irreversible. Moral consequence: killing humans is a serious matter and should not be done lightly.
Notice that almost all moral codes ban killing humans, although many then add in some exceptions: war, self defense, judicial execution, etc. but in most cases, killing a properly behaving member of one's group is forbidden. (Human sacrifice is about the only exception I can think of).

Fact: human children have a long period of dependency on adults. Likewise very old people need care from capable adults, but are worth keeping as a store of cultural lore. Moral consequence: family bonds are important and parents and children have various duties of care to each other. Likewise, to the degree that families are kept together by the sexual pair-bond of the parents, that pair relationship has a special value and is not to be betrayed.

Well that was two quick, rough and ready examples and I dare say people could pick them to bits with a bit of effort. They were just some examples I made up on the spot to illustrate the concept of humanistic naturalism.

Is this the sort of thing you're thinking of, Ruminator?

The ability to co-operate and form relationships of mutual affection and dependency have been an evolutionary advantage. What we call morality is just an extension of the social rules which were the glue that held those relationships together. They are no more founded in God than are the greeting and grooming rituals of apes.

I don't believe in religion, but I have pretty high moral values although in some ways I have very low moral values, such as the fact that I don't believe sex is really a 'sacred' act between two people.

I maintain that to if it is true that there is no God, then there cannot be free will. Therefore we cannot make up our own beliefs or come to our own conclusions in any kind of morality.

Why would we need free will to form morality...if it's just an evolutionary by-product (as posited above)?

If we take as a true statement that the universe is "on it's own" with no director. Basically all can be brewed down to processes. Atomic to chemical reactions. It's too simple, all is predictable. Free will is simply an impossibility. The chemical stew and electrical apparatus that is our brain is just the result of a long line of processes with nothing intelligent behind it. There could be no such thing as morality. Morality implies the ability to make a decision using this so called free will, a decision which will lead to consequences, good or bad, perhaps in relation to our survival at least. No God, no Universal Director, no free will. No need for morality.

I am saying that if this is indeed true, we cannot take any credit for what we believe or do what we might call think. In fact this conversation is just a cog in the universal wheel, it has no meaning beyond that.

Hmm, Flint, I've just proven that we have no need for morality, in fact there can be no such thing. Wow, can I get a nobel prize for that?

All is not predictable; though it may be understandable.

It's all processes and that's wonderful. That out of directionless processes, events and reactions, out come we. Marvellous. truly marvellous.

god you guys are nerds.

*hugs* :)

...but I would say that those physical and chemical reactions (and more importantly, the complex patterns of their interactions - the software running on the nerual hardware) just are "you". That is all there is to being a conscious, thinking, feeling person. So if they are what is determining your behaviour, then you are, in the relevant sense, free.

I admire the clarity of this post, but the first inference has me stumped.

Why not?

There is an argument which says that if there is a God then there cannot be free will (since divine omniscience implies perfect foreknowledge which seems to entail determinism).
There are also arguments that if we don't have free will, then there is no God (since the blame for the existence of evil in the world can then be attributed to the free will of humans, rather than God).

What's your reasoning, Joe?

This has been addressed many times before. You might want to do some homework before you claim that Nobel! One cogent argument is called Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem, to wit:
Also, see references to quantum mechanics, Rice's Theorem, and many, many popular books.
:cool:

http://cellar.org/2008/exploding_head.jpg

WTF my head just exploded

pie you need to help me clean this up

I'll get out the lysol.
:p

It's very easy in my book.

If your actions physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of another or are dishonest or misleading, they are wrong. If they do not, they are not wrong.

End of story.

There is also the issue of using moral guidelines dictated by a faith, and never putting them in practice. That's why I like the direction of the human nature theory that Zen is suggesting.

Maybe morality should be based more around natural law, cause and effect, and human nature rather than some loose principles stemming from antique books that may not serve in this day and age?

I'm not a christian, but I read my fair share of books on ethics and morality that are aged. When I apply them directly to my daily reality, for the most part they serve, but don't quite cut the mustard. What helps me a lot is remembering human nature, and causes and effects. I am flexible. Yes, I am morally flexible, and tend to take things on a case by case basis.

Example: I don't think it is right to randomly steal from victims.

Example II: It's ok for people to loot and steal during natural disasters especially if it's my family that needs to get water.

None of these decisions were based on god, jesus, buddha, or the antichrist.

Those were decisions I made all by myself because I know human nature. And I add a touch of cause and effect, and voila!!

There were nuns in court that got sentenced to "community service". They balked and turned it down flat. What's good for one, may not be good for the other. Morality and justice often do not go hand and hand. I prefer things on a case by case basis. Everything else just seems a little lazy.

Morality in civilization is nothing more than a matter of hierarchies. Those in the lower hierarchies have less moral standing to those in higher hierarchies.

Well OJ didn't get the message. ;)

Well it is a constant power struggle.

I was trying to discuss maybe future possibilities to base moral guidelines around, though really loose. I know how things play out now.....And that's what's with the frustration with it and the need for better ideas.

In another similar thread I've already posted a link to Godel's theorem in it's entirety. I really don't want the Nobel, I was really being sarcastic.

I think that's exactly what morality is based on. Religious tenets are based on social/species level needs; they have been processed through human brains, however, so they've been infused with class/gender/race inequalities and irrationalities and personal/class biases. They've been fed through millennia of social and political development, and in some instances moralities have petrified, but at their core they began as simple survival strategies.

Don't kill, don't steal, and even don't loot in times of disaster are rules based in survival at a societal level. At an individual level, looting is just a matter of survival, and concepts of ownership vary wildly through human history; but looting means a breakdown in social order and that is a potential threat to a society's (tribe's/family's) survival.

Not only possible Flint, but logically necessary. The same would be true for any illusion that someone clings to.
But to make a judgment that the basis of christianity is an illusion is not possible today to be proven. It requires an act of faith to adhere to the belief.

I agree, if one believes that.

Flint, the interpretation you've included has no way of being proven and requires faith to believe it. I find it more logical to believe a primarily literal understanding of the Bible.

The "purported connection" between morality and christianity is that a loving, caring, God who is incapable of anything other than being perfectly loving in His relationship toward us is the final Judge of Everything; guaranteeing an ultimate justice one day toward all of His creation.
In His creation He is the ultimate definition of what is right and wrong. Only a being of perfect love is qualified to judge with zero discrimination. Any being less than perfect love is not qualified to be the judge of others. That alone guarantees true ultimate fairness to each of His creation.
.....................................................................................................

Happy Monkey, you didn't explain how, only made a vague comparison. I'd like to understand your reasoning.

Zen, it sounds like some of it might be. But if it is, it sounds too easily arguable.
Though I agree with your opening statement, it is a bad argument.
But I didn't follow you with this: ... sorry.

This is illogical in itself. It needs a presupposition of a human life being valuable. And that is the question its trying to answer. This is circular reasoning, therefore illogical.

Logically the number of occurrances may point to a truth, but do not in themselves establish a truth. The number may well point to a common value that they are all based upon however.
So the question is, where did the common value come from?

Your inclusion of war in your example is interesting... it can readily be used as an example of a despicable aspect of human nature in some circumstances.
I'm thinking not of self-defense, but rather when a greater power desires something from a weaker party from simple greed. Unless there is a recognized value of human life, it can be argued that their desire, or need for it is no greater than mine, so if I can, theres no moral value preventing my taking it and killing them in the process if I so desire.
I'm not understanding how this conclusion can be avoided.

I don't know that there is a "moral value" here. Your example simply shows why a selfish motivation exists here.

;) I resemble that remark. :D


I don't understand how someone who truly believes in no God can live their life other than in a totally selfish manner. It all has to come back to what works for you. Doesn't it?
....................................................................................................

Exactly, the perfect example of selfish motivation unless there are additional moral values at work.

To believe this, one must presuppose that there is no other possible explanation when there actually are other possibilities that cannot be disproven. The most you can do is propose this as one possibility.

Again, this is no more than a statement of a belief, not an actual provable fact any more than its antithesis.
Dana, these seem to require as much belief/ faith as a belief/ faith of any other type.
......................................................................................................

regular.joe, you realize of course that this is an unprovable statement.
Belief, ie.- faith is needed to accept it as truth. ;)
......................................................................................................

I like this Zen. It would be true if it did accurately and totally describe our life.

I don't know enough details about it to get involved into you and joe's and Pie's discussion.

.....................................................................................................

Radar, I agree based upon my value system derived from the Bible, but from what do you get your value of what is a person's "rights'? There must be an absolute something that determines them.
Thats why I started this thread, I want to learn more of it.
......................................................................................................
Cicero, it sounds like you are also flexible on what to use as the absolute for your morals. That doesn't sound too absolute...

Pico is onto something I'm a thinkin'.

..........................................................................................


I need to look into Godel I guess?

Since its hard to get a good "read" on a person and their intentions, I want to make it clear that I will never attack, or belittle anyone in my posts and I apologize if anyone felt this from this post.


Man..., this took too long, now my wife's upset with me. Drat it all, I just love these discussions.

There's been a good deal of work done in this area of research and study. Given that I am pretty sure in my own mind that there is no God, and given the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the growing body of evidence for genetic predispositions and 'hardwired' systems, i honestly feel no more inclined to hold a place for God in my thinking than I do to hold a place for the tooth fairy. I've seen no convincing arguments for the existence of a creator God; therefore there is no reason for me to factor in his possible existence when i examine a question like this. Because my worldview does not contain a God, arguments which hinge on the necessity of a God don't really weigh much with me.

I am too tired to start digging out the Pinker books, but the evidence for a genetic/born propensity to particular moralities and political persuasions (within each culture's spectrum) is compelling and growing more extensive. In the meantime, the evidence for God's involvement in morality seems to hinge on an inability (or unwillingness) to see us as the biological organisms that we in fact are. What evidence is there that morality requires an agent beyond our humanity to function or exist? I don't mean what philosophical arguments can be posited, i mean what evidence is there? Because there's a whole slew of evidence for the more mechanistic view.

Anybody got that link to TED's talk on political morality? It's very interesting and expresses much of this stuff (though specifically regarding political persuasions) much better than I am able to.


Unless? The two are not mutually exclusive. Altruism is fundamentally selfish and morality is society's act of self-preservation.


God did not make us, and he did not make our moralities. We made God/s and we made the moralities variously ascribed to him/her/them. Most likely to explain how the world works and to maintain social stability, amongst other things, codifying sets of behaviours which we'd evolved a predisposition towards.

I can't say much about Atheism, but I can say that devout religious belief is not a guarantee of moral values.

Cases in point.

Jack Abramoff
Bernard Madoff
John G. Bennett Jr. (New Era Foundation Ponzi Scheme)

Some of the most distasteful people I have ever met have claimed to be devout. I'm not saying that all religious people are. I am saying that religion does not automatically guarantee ethics. This is especially true when dealing with 'outsiders'. Native Americans and African Americans can certainly give a good account of their encounters with some 'devout' individuals.

Just to clarify my playing-field, I start with a blank slate. So why should Christianity be any more logical (or faith-worthy) than any other set of unprovable postulates?

Why the bible?

1. That's not unique to Christianity
2. why is judgment a necessary or provable end-state?

It is all we have. Therefore it is "important". I dare you to prove otherwise!

And as such, you have no right to judge me. I live an exceedingly moral life, even by your christian standards. I hold myself to a higher standard -- my own.

So, if I told you that the FSM existed, you'd go along for lack of proof?

Not to speak for Radar (he's quite capable of speaking for himself) -- absolutism is unnecessary. All one must do is observe. Look around you. We are hard-wired for the rest of it; evolution over millions of years weeded out those who can't cope with the rest in a fair manner.

Not unless you like math.

I appreciate that.

Now, there's the ultimate moral authority! :thumb:

I learned it by watching you!

It's part of natural law. It was well-known that things like murder, theft, rape, assault, etc. were wrong thousands of years before the bible was ever thought of.


In short, we are born with the right to do anything we want as long as our actions do not physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of another.

Our rights are unlimited other than by the rights of others. One might ask, "How do we determine what is or is not a right."

Nobody has the right to use force against another person other than in our own defense. Let's say I want to mow my lawn naked. You don't want to see it. You have no right to physically prevent me from doing it or even to make a law against it, but you do have a right not to associate with me, or to ask me to stop, or to picket in front of my house, or put up flyers throughout town telling everyone else to do the same. Eventually, I'd either have to drive to the next town for groceries and friends, or I'd have to move.


Your rights don't entitle you to use force to make others act in a way that makes you feel comfortable. Your comfort is trumped by the right of freedom of expression of others.


You have a right not to be physically harmed or endangered. So my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. A gay person's right to marry any consenting other they choose is more important than the desires of a billion people for them not to marry.

You have the right not to marry someone of the same gender or to think that such a union is illegitimate, but you do not have the right to create a law against it. Nor do a billion more of you. Our rights are never up for a vote and do not come from government. This means they can't be taken away by government.

Obviously we can each only judge a matter by what we've been exposed to concerning it.

Wow Dana, if you think the evidence for evolution is overwhelming; you should see the weight of evidence against evolution.

As statements these make perfect sense, and "arguments which hinge on the necessity of a God don't really weigh much with me" is enlightening and helps me understand.

Dana, I wasn't meaning any mutual exclusivity, but rather that additional moral values can remove the selfish aspect.

I'm not used to, and am having a hard time understanding how one makes absolute statements based upon conjecture.
.....................................................................................................

richlevi, ... all absolutely true. There have been a lot of selfish wretches in christianity as well as outside it that have used christianity to abuse the innocent. Some may have been delusional and acted out of fears rather than faith, but all were horribly wrong.
Obviously these people were not following Jesus' teachings, or his disciples in their actions. Jesus' disciples suffered horrendous deaths in the process of teaching others of Jesus' teachings.
On the other hand, people following Jesus' teachings have spent their lives serving others across the world, feeding, clothing, making wells, homes, etc. giving of their resources.

What other religion can come even close to showing their fellow man the love and care that christians have over the centuries?
.....................................................................................................

Pie, you asked excellent questions.

Addressing for now just the first one, the short answer- since modern science and mathematics have disproven the theory of evolution's core premise of species evolving from others, and the christian world view offers a logical, reasonable explanation for where and how the universe, time, etc. came into existence; it bears worthy consideration to prove/ disprove the christian claims of God's desiring to have a personal relationship with us.
Then there is on the side of the biblical proofs, the body of facts regarding the prophecies of the Bible and their impossibility of being intentionally fulfilled by men. And yet we are living in a time when looking around us we see more prophecies being fulfilled as we live and breath. (future discussions possibly?) No other religion has been able to compare, the closest are the occult traditions that contact "spirit guides". (whole other discussion) ;)

The long answer involves: my posting the various mathematical impossibilities that disprove species abilities to evolve from one another, and develop specific characteristics by chance. (future hopefully)
As well as posting other related, detailed specific impossibilities that evolution assumes as true in order to get anywhere.
And we really should get into details regarding biblical prophecies, especially with a literal meaning regarding the current world affairs. (amazing stuff!)

The long answer also includes my sharing the loving physical miraculous healing that God gave me to give to my little brother back when I was in high school. He was healed of leukemia.
This is a part of my personal "experiencial" evidence that I realize is only worth so much to someone else. Experiencial evidence being often unprovable and difficult to understand clearly by the listener. So I prefer to discuss and share the tangible topics. Prophecy does fall into that category for discussion.
Especially since this world is just marching along... toward fulfilling the prophecies in very literal, direct fashion.

Judging you Pie, or anyone is completely out of the question, I refuse to do it.
What I was meaning is that if one believes that there is no God, all of one's life is spent doing what pleases and makes oneself happy, satisfied, fulfilled rather than offering any action or thought to please God. I was just seeing a difference of focus, ie. living one's life for oneself/ living one's life to please God.
Sorry for the confusion.

I don't understand "FSM"?

Now, there's the ultimate moral authority! :thumb: ... LOL :D

I'm tired Flint. ;) What is going on in the pic? Thanks. :cool:


I agree Radar, certainly those concepts existed long before the Bible. That doesn't eliminate God as their source however, since He was in the picture from the beginning. The Bible is just simply the eventual writing down of God's teachings that had been being given to men.
The use of traditional marriage by gays is an arguable point, and I disagree. (for a different thread)

There are several interesting assumptions here. The idea is that if there is no supernatural force behind the universe then the universe must work purely through definite rules, meaning that everything that happens is simply a domino effect of the previous state of things. Supposedly this implies the lack of free will, but let me ask you this: How would your actions differ between such universes? Logically your actions would be exactly the same and the only difference would be the metaphysical "weight" behind them. This "weight" cannot be measured or known, so what difference does it make? In a free-will universe you make decisions because of who you are... and in a deterministic universe you make decisions because of who you are. It is the same thing!

The second assumption is that morality must somehow be supernatural in origin. Such a stance basically says "My belief system is the best, so if I am wrong then nobody can be right!" It is from this that you get the most dangerous element of religion; it isn't the certainty that you are correct in your thinking, but that other people must be incorrect because they disagree with you. This is poor logic in action.

Wow. Umm... really? Because I was pretty sure that punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism were still the premier explanations. I would think mathematical proof of religion would be big news. Here is a hint: Just because something is unlikely does not mean it is impossible. In fact given the evidence that it did in fact happen you should conclude that no matter how unlikely it is... it happened!

Heh. I beg to differ. An explanation without precedent, verifiable evidence, or logical support does not make a "reasonable explanation". You don't see many intelligent people sitting down in labs considering theses concluding "Magic did it!"

The short answer includes this: Your brain works just like many other people's brains. Poorly.

Only through study and practice can you improve your thinking, and this involves providing proper evidence for your conclusions. This is *not* a simple lesson to learn, but it is crucial.

Right. I would suggest that someone pleasing themselves is better than someone making an imaginary communal friend and enslaving themselves to it. That is just me though.

*Blinks* Islam. Islam teaches charitable concern for others. Islamic charities fund schemes to help some of the poorest and most troubled communities in the world. Islamic charity workers risk their health and safety to ensure help gets to earthquake victims, and cross battle lines to give help to injured civilians (the Red Crescent). Islamic charities feed some of the poorest and most troubled communities on the planet.

And, much of that good work conducted by Christians over the centuries, has been an act of imperial and religious domination. Missionaries, whilst well-meaning and probably helpful to some communities, gave their help at a heavy cultural price. Christians have caused misery and distress, bloodshed and horror and the cultural and emotional dislocation of whole peoples. Christian thinkers have used their faith to justify slavery and war, political and intellectual repression, gender and racial hierarachies, and from the 18th century onwards, the right and insurmountability of capital.


Christians are people. Moslems are people. Both of these faiths have encouraged people to do wonderful and humantitarian acts and both have led to appalling acts of violence (literal and cultural).

I stand at what I think is the opposite end of the spectrum from Dana. I've experienced God first hand, my world view cannot be separated from this experience. About free will, the evidence of my life seems to indicate that I can do anything I want, when ever I want. The evidence seems to indicate that I have a free will.

I don't think that my moral and ethical conduct is hinged on my experience with God. I would say that the evidence of my life once again would indicate that the more selfless and less self centered I am, the more fulfilled my life seems to be. This in itself points in an ethical and moral direction of action and thinking.

I agree with some of the discussion so far, at the end of the day, God or no God, free will or no free will, we all will do what ever we do. Most or much of what we do will indeed be motivated by self interest, and perceived survival. If self interest and perceived survival are the only motivating factors for our ethical and moral standards, then I think we are indeed missing out on a great deal of what our life here has to offer us and others.

My last post was an instant reaction to something that stuck out at me. This is a more considered response to the post as a whole:)

*Smiles* I've seen quite a lot of that evidence actually. It was unconvincing to me, founded as it appeared to be, on misunderstandings of evolutionary biology and repeating, as it appeared to do, tropes which have been thoroughly answered and debunked by evolutionary biologists. You seem to make an assumption that because I have fallen down on the side of evolution, this is because I have only seen the evidence for it. I have studied a good deal of the 'evidence' put foward against evolution.

But please, if you have something you consider particularly compelling, I'll happily look at it.


Why would you want to remove the selfish aspect? We are, by our very nature 'selves'. This is the beauty in human civilisation: look what we have built through our selfish need to co-operate; look at the art we have made with our self-absorbtion; look at the great kindnesses we have offered through our selfish empathy.


I have posited what I think to be true. I think this based on the evidence I have encountered and my own human instincts and reading of the world I am in. It profits the discussion not one jot if I start including caveats in every statement to the effect that this is simply what I believe to be true.

There is no difference between the 'absolute' statements I have made and this one from yourself:

You don't appear to be having any difficulty with absolute statements there *smiles* but then it would have made a much clumsier post if every assertion of 'fact' as it appears to be in your worldview was couched in caveats of belief


On the other hand people following Jesus' teachings (as they understood them and as preached by the Holy See, the suppsed direct inheritors of St Peter) have supported and carried out some of the most appalling atrocities in human history against non-Christians and Christians alike and done so under the banner of the Cross. Ask the Jews of 15th century Castile if they saw any great humanity in the followers of Jesus.

And which teachings of Jesus are you following incidentally? The accepted texts were only finalised hundreds of years after Jesus' death. The Aryans thought they were following the direct teachings of Jesus...and so did those who condemned them as heretics. The monks who oversaw the wholesale slaughter of the Cathars were directly following Jesus' teachings, living as they did an apostolic life.

Those who follow Jesus' teachings have also done much good in the world. The equality of all God's children and the special care shown to those suffering in poverty is a wonderful thing, and has underscored many of the most progressive and marvellous movements of human understanding in our long history. But so have many of those who follow Mohammed's teachings, reviling as they do the iniquities of usury, compelling as they do to the care of the poor, insisting as they do on an equality of God's children.

Religions (all the major religions) have been used to justify appalling inequalities and wonderful equalities, acts of cruelty and acts of kindness. Because we have made them and they reflect us.

.

I think you may be misunderstanding the nature of that selfishness. The selfishness of altruism doesn't necessarily feel selfish. One's conscious focus may well be on pleasing another, or even pleasing God. My own focus is a consciously selfish one some of the time and not so at other times. I dont spend my whole life pursuing what pleases me and makes me happy. I also go out of my way at times for someone elses benefit, at a genetic level (and some might say also a pyschological level) I am pleasing myself when I act with another in mind, but that isn't necessarily how it feels in the moment.

If you act with God as your focus, then (in my worldview) you are doing so selfishly: to get closer to God, to earn his approval/a place in heaven/an assuasion of guilt, to feel pious, to feel chosen/special/planned for, to elevate yourself by submitting. To me there is no more value in this than any other reason to dig deep for your fellow man and try to make the world a better place.

I think that was an excellent post Joe. I would slightly take issue with the idea that it is about perceived survival. It's not as conscious as that I don't think. It's perceived as something else, it is survival at an unconscious level. Something carried in our genetic makeup, the way our brains have evolved. When we fall in love we are not usually thinking at some conscious level: brilliant now my genetic code can replicate itself into another generation. When we give a dollar to a homeless guy we're not usually thinking: brilliant, this reflects the instinct to empathise and reciprocate which is allowing our species to thrive.

Rumi, I have liked what you have said in other threads, so in order to preserve what kindness lingers in my heart for you, I will depart this conversation. Really, it's in both our interests.
:bolt:

The issue has always been whether Christianity is the church of Christ or of his followers. Paul's teachings have always been the most controversial and, intentionally or not, the cause of the most grief to women and non-Christians. Here is a good article on that.

Um, Buddhism? Being Jewish, I have to say that the 'love and care' of Christians is a double edged sword. Your argument seems to be that essentially any bad behavior by Christians is by definition 'un-Christian'. This is the crux of the apology given by Pope John Paul II - that even if bad acts were committed by church leaders using church resources and followers, the church is a construct of G-d and by that definition incapable of error, and the responsibility for those acts falls upon individuals.

By this reasoning, no religion or religious organization is ever wrong. This is actually true if one considers that to be the view of the followers. Faith has a dark side, as the people who didn't drink the Kool Aid will tell you.

One argument for having no religious institutions is that it would validate the Pope's statement by truly putting responsibility for the relationship with man and G-d with each individual. There would either be no religious wars because no religious or secular leaders could lay claim to any faithful, or there would be a huge melee as individuals 'defended' their unique vision of the divine.

FSM = :"Flying Spaghetti Monster" a satirical construct intended to demonstrate the folly of attempting to confuse faith with science. In short, the existence of G-d will always remain unproven by any scientific measure. Therefore, any one view of any deity is equally valid. G-d could be a white haired Caucasian, a woman, or a flying Spaghetti Monster.

A combination of societal and family influence with introspection and consideration. How did you pick your religion?
There isn't any.Just about any of them can, and many of them have, especially during some of Christianity's low points.This is simply false.If that is evidence for God, then people dying of leukemia is evidence against.

Neither are evidence.

Humans get ethical values from their environment. So, no, it doesn't matter whether a person is religious or not because their environment is the same and therefore they have the same chance (there are other factors involved) of being equally "moral".

I don't believe in absolute morals and I believe they are all completely made by society and history backs me up.


But, Since religion has played a huge part in the creation of sociological values and ethics in our society today, everyone, no matter the religion of lack of thereof, still is greatly affected by religious ethics.


You are being biased because you can say the exact opposite. Hell, the largest genocide and imperialistic gains in history were justified under Christianity.

~What I was meaning is that if one believes that there is no God, all of one's life is spent doing what pleases and makes oneself happy, satisfied, fulfilled rather than offering any action or thought to please God. I was just seeing a difference of focus, ie. living one's life for oneself/ living one's life to please God.
Sorry for the confusion ~

Oh that isn't what God wants? Yea that's fucking confusing.

Yes that confuses me. When you meet him ask what he wants, and we'll talk about it.

Offering thoughts or actions for something or someone, that I can not validate the existence of, seems a little kooky. Not that I am not a kook and wouldn't try it at least once, but c'mon! Living my life out of an idea rather than something that can be verified, and pulling it together from there, seems a little odd. And the older I get, the more odd I think this is. I am sorry. I think this idea in it's very essence, is insane. Of course I can be a little crazy and have chanted to buddha etc. etc. But I know what I am doing. Being crazy. It's really just me, sending good vibes and energy out there, and unfortunately, that is probably where it ends.

Just the facts. I like the facts now and rarely rely on something I deem to be utter bullshit. Everything people did for others came from people, not god. Everything that people did to harm each other came from other people, not god. To say any action or lack thereof pleases god assumes too much, and makes you look like a dork.

Do stuff because it's in you to do it. If it were in you to be kind, wouldn't that please god more than a "big show" of your obedience?

*grins*

Served!

cite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny


http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600093.html

I believe he was referring to the Crusades. In Europe, political leaders doubled as religious leaders and vice versa. In addition to the Crusades, the 30 Year War was ostensibly an intra-Christian war. The irony, as with any war, is that with involvement of mercenaries and the general breakdown in social order, a great deal of violence was committed by Protestants and Catholics against people within their sects.

This may be one reason why so many 'old Europe' countries are lukewarm about most religion and why states have either taken over religion (England) or have a real separation between church and state.

Those are very large numbers but don't measure up to the 20th century genocides of the non-christians Attaturk, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler (although Christian bigotry was one of his tools).

I disagree that genocide should be measured purely by numbers killed. Genocide is more of the elimination of a culture than people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide


In that case, the genocide of all the natives in both American continents was the largest. It lasted directly for around 400 years, affected two entire continents, and the effects are still largely felt to this day.

To stay with the topic, genocide can happen with any group and is a social force that has no relation to religion. In the 1400s to this day, Christians have had the best weapons, more effective economic doctrine to get power (capitalism), best centralized power setup (the state), and a religion that can be very imperialistic depending on the interpretation. This combination led to the most effective imperialistic genocidal campaign in human history.

Do I consider the intent much different than the brutal Islamic expansion in the 800s? No, but that Islamic campaign and the numerous others by different religions never had the power or capabilities of the Christians.


The only legitimate argument that exists, to my knowledge, that can argue the superior imperialistic and genocidal justifications in Christianity to other religions is that in Christianity, God (or Jesus) tells its followers to actively convert non-Christians. That process usually leads to imperialistism or genocide when practiced by a militaristic group. But, I don't really use that argument because militaristic religious nuts will forcefully spread their religion whether it tells them to are not so it really doesn't matter. All in all, strong nationalism causes problems....

Mao's Great Leap Forward was a cultural genocide. I fully acknowlege that Christianity was/is guilty of this but I wanted to remind everyone that communism and nationalism are skilled murderers as well. From my under-grad days, I remember the campus lefties were in denial about their heroes and were happy to lay all evil on religion's doorstep. I just want to be sure you're not in an environment producing moral blind spots.

Heck, the Old Testament is about the Jews escaping slavery and committing genocide several times over at the instruction and with the assistance of the Judeo-(and now)Christian God. Plus, Noah's flood would probably be the greatest genocide in history (percentage-wise, at least, in the lower population), and the Tower of Babel disintegrated a culture.

But those only count if you believe the Bible.

:D

Pierce is obviously a heathen. May he be exorcised in the blood of jesus christ, and his soul be saved miraculously from most inevitable damnation!! A wandering star, if you will, for whom it is preserved; A blackness, a darkness forever!!!

God is going to get you. *condescending shake of head side to side* That's all this is about.




"Born great the first time, kthnxbai." :)

Haha. I am fully aware. Even though my political views are towards the left (it has become more diverse as of late), I do not idealize any leftist leader. Keep in mind that the left is as diverse as the right. My idealization of leftist authoritarian leaders such as Mao, Stalin, Chavez, and such are strong as Radar's idealization of George W Bush.

As I said in my last post and you seemed to have reinforced, strong nationalism tends to be the major problem and that can happen in societies of both left and right, religious or atheist. Even though many political views do have a right or wrong, the vast majority is completely subjective and by declaring your subjective view as the "right way", it will only lead to oppression down the road. This includes my own views as well.

Nicely put.

Pie, thank-you for your input and now thoughtfulness.

I appreciate both.
..........................................................

As far as I know they still are the primary evolutionary theories from which to choose Phage. Though my understanding is that punctuated equilibrium is more of an observation based on the fossil record than it is a theory in the usual sense.

Taken at face value, a true enough statement. However it does fail at being able to cover all scenarios. For example in the application of the laws of chance there comes a point where although the stated formula is 1 chance in so many, it is also a point at which the possible becomes no longer possible.
Emile Borel, an eminent French expert on probability stated it this way, "Events whose probability is extremely small never occur."

Phage, its not a fact that any species have evolved from another species, let alone all species, but a presumption. Were it so, there there would be countless transitional specimens found throughout the fossil record between all of the species and their ancestors.

Thank-you for the words of wisdom.
And you are correct, I have not yet gotten to the evidence for my positions.
....................................................................................................

Thank-you Dana for your helpful responses.
I have no disagreement about the social advantages and accomplishments derived from our selfishness.

Thank-you again Dana, when given the time I would like your, and the others thoughts on some of the scientific evidence against evolution.

Thanks a lot richlevy(FSM), I'll check it out as soon as I can with the holidays and all. ;)
Regarding religious organizations, its my belief that men have made far larger than God has desired. Small community groups that can care for individuals needs is the largest I would like to see them.

I agree with your point.

mmmmmmmkay.

I've avoided this thread, and it looks like for good reason. If I may, let me jump back to the original question.

There are two dominant perspectives on what moral values consist of. I'll call them "from above" and "from below". All of the other moral systems, utilitarianism, natural law, divine command ethics, moral relativism, nihilism, they all fall into one of these two categories.

The "from above" view does NOT require some big in-the-sky deity. All it states is that moral value exceeds individual acts, and individual acts can have the property of the value. In other words, there is something external to an action that can either apply or not apply, and that something is not determined by the act itself. An act can be "good", and that "good" means something apart from the act itself.

The "from below" view holds that there is nothing that exceeds the act itself, and that all moral language is only just language - it is a way of grouping together a bunch of features about certain kinds of acts, and referring to them by common characteristics.

Natural Law ethics is a "from above" perspective. It holds that there are universal values that exceed individual acts (the value of human life, the inherent dignity of sentience, the rights of persons, etc.), and individual actions may be judged by that external standard. In order to make sense of this, we should recognize that "the value of human life" is not a moral argument. It is a value premise, and moral arguments then proceed from it. There is no moral argument for the value of human life - it has to be taken as a given, and then arguments about how we ought to act proceed from it.

Utilitarianism (maximize pleasure, minimize pain) is also a "from above" view, I think. It takes as its starting premise that the suffering of sentient beings is bad, and then develops from that a system of ethics. But, it takes as a given the starting premise that suffering deserves primary place in our decisions about how to act. There is no argument as to why pain and pleasure should be the starting grounds for moral argument (many other moral systems, including eastern religions, do not include these as starting premises), it's just a given, and then argument proceeds from that point.

All arguments from evolutionary psychology are "from below" ethics. If we argue that certain actions become codified as "moral" because they had evolutionary advantage, we are using moral language to group together "things that had evolutionary advantage." There is nothing that exceeds the acts themselves, only a set of features that they share in common. To use the word "good" can never mean anything more than "this action is similar to other actions that, taken together, helped sustain human society."

Whew.

So, here's how this fits. I think it is impossible to get from naturalism (atheism, lack of any non-material or non-natural dimension to reality) to any of the "from above" view on morality. If you deny that there is anything higher than brute physical interactions of molecules and forces, then there can be nothing that exceeds individual transactions of energy. In a naturalist worldview, it's nonsense to say that an action has a property (rightness, or goodness) apart from the very physical properties of the actual transaction. When I strike someone on the face, there is only the complex physical interaction of my hand meat striking their face meat, and the electro-chemical interactions of their nervous system producing something that their brain meat perceives as pain. There is nothing in that transaction that matters, apart from the physical interactions. It's nonsense to presume otherwise.

Many people are fine with that. "We don't need a superseding property of morality" they say, "the physical descriptions are enough." That's fine.

But if all of moral language is "from below", there is a greater problem, I think. If moral language is merely descriptive of evolutionary advantage, then we have no reason to continue to act "morally".

We have no moral obligation to evolution. That's all fine and dandy that the moral prohibition on killing got us this far, but what is that to me? I'm here. I have no obligation to the scheme that got me here, and no obligation to whatever members of my species might follow me on this planet. Why should moral notions that evolved to promulgate our species continue to have any sway over my decisions?

And now we come down to it. I know many atheists and naturalists who are extremely ethical people, generous and kind, thoughtful and selfless.

I do not think that belief in something non-natural is needed in order to be a good person.

But I don't think atheists have any good reason for being good.

I am with you up to your hitting someone in the face analogy. Then I honestly have no idea where you are going with it. The best guess I have is that you assume morality from the "bottom up" is individual based, which I strongly disagree with.

First, I would like to point out that morality in humans is environmentally produced. A persons morality will be based upon the society around them.

Lets think about this for a second. Ever wonder why people in rural America tend to have a different moral code than the people in urban America? Ever wonder why people in Western societies have a different moral code then, lets say, Indonesian hunter gatherers?



Because morality is so constricted within groups I find it really hard to argue that morality comes from anything besides the society a person is raised in. It makes sense as well. How does a child learn right from wrong? From the teachings of their parents and observations from society, not some genetic or god-given force. A child does not have to be religious or not to observe that stealing or cannibalism is deemed wrong in a certain society.

Obviously there are disagreements about morality in certain societies as well. Sex is a good example. Some people, mainly religious, think that all non-reproductive sex is ethically wrong. Many others, disagree with that strongly. While there is a variation with sex in our population keep in mind that even the "sexually liberated" people will still look down on prostitutes and think they are "whores". This shows that even though there is small variation within populations, there are still constrictions that very few people stray from (also keep in mind that prostitutes do not look at their job with pride and only do so because they have very limited options).

This also explains why we can have different views on where morality comes from. Because of nationalism, many will think that their society's morals are the "absolute" morals for the "top down" thinkers because they have been taught from birth that their way is the correct way. Others, who tend to stray from religious doctrines, feel that they have a choice over their morals (the small ethical variations still accepted by society) and go for a more "bottom up" approach.


Morality comes from society and whether an individual takes the "top down" or "bottom up" approach, it does not change that fact.


So, atheists have the same reason to be moral as theists do. That reason is because we really do not have a choice. I was raised in an environment where many actions are deemed wrong and no matter how hard I try, I do not think I can break that social conditioning.

And even if I could, I do not see the point. If I do not have morals I will be quickly rejected from society and my evolutionary instincts tell me that is bad because until recently, it would have greatly increased my chances of death. So maybe morality evolved to allow better interaction and sustainability between humans. Acknowledging that, I still do not see how my breaking of morality will help me in any way. Being in tune with my society is my greatest chance of survival and keeping my morality in check is one great way to ensure that I stay in tune with my society. So yes, I do have a good reason to be moral.

It might be stated as a given, but I would not say there is no argument for it. An individual can through personal experience determine that pleasure is good and pain is bad, and then infer from observation of others that they generally hold the same views. At that point you simply need to determine that you care about the wellbeing of others and you have your start for Utilitarianism.

Indeed! Such a moral system has no looming force which will punish for bad behavior so there isn’t any force holding you back from being evil (ineffectual as it might be). Instead people determine their own morals and hold themselves to them purely through their own merit. For many people this would mean that between an ethical atheist and the ethical theist, the atheist would be worthy of much more respect.

In fact you could argue that switching from a religious viewpoint to a godless viewpoint would be a dramatically selfless act. Not only do you give up an assumed “worth” to your spirit or consciousness or whatever, but once given this moral freedom you decide to use it for the betterment of others rather than becoming a hedonist. I mean think about it: Even Jesus’s sacrifice wasn’t his will, it was obedient. He was also assured that he wasn’t giving up anything terribly important because there was life after death.

More than that: Even people who end up believing in a "from above" view have to use a "from below" methodology to decide which one to follow.