Atheism and Moral Values

[Ruminator]

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

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.

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.

I agree, if one believes that.

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.

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

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

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

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

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:

The falsity of the premise is related to the question Ruminator has raised.

... sorry.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

I dare say people could pick them to bits with a bit of effort.

I resemble that remark.


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?
....................................................................................................

The ability to co-operate and form relationships of mutual affection and dependency have been an evolutionary advantage.

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

What we call morality is just an extension of the social rules which were the glue that held those relationships together.

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.

They are no more founded in God than are the greeting and grooming rituals of apes.

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

If we take as a true statement that the universe is "on it's own" with no director.

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

...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 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.

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

If your actions physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of another or are dishonest or misleading, they are wrong.

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.