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.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

It requires an act of faith to adhere to the belief.

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?

Originally Posted by Ruminator

I find it more logical to believe a primarily literal understanding of the Bible.

Why the bible?

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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.

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

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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.

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

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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.

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

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

I need to look into Godel I guess?

Not unless you like math.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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.

I appreciate that.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

Man..., this took too long, now my wife's upset with me.

Now, there's the ultimate moral authority!

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

I learned it by watching you!

[Ruminator]

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

given the overwhelming evidence for evolution

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

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.

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.

Quote:
The ability to co-operate and form relationships of mutual affection and dependency have been an evolutionary advantage.
Quote:
Exactly, the perfect example of selfish motivation unless there are additional moral values at work.
Unless? The two are not mutually exclusive. Altruism is fundamentally selfish and morality is society's act of self-preservation.

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

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'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.

-So why should Christianity be any more logical (or faith-worthy) than any other set of unprovable postulates?
-Why the bible?
-why is judgment a necessary or provable end-state?

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruminator
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?

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.

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! ... LOL

I'm tired Flint. What is going on in the pic? Thanks.


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)

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

... since modern science and mathematics have disproven the theory of evolution's core premise of species evolving from others...

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!

Originally Posted by Ruminator

...and the christian world view offers a logical, reasonable explanation for where and how the universe, time, etc. came into existence...

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!"

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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.

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.

[DanaC]

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

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

*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.

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

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

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

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.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

I don't understand "FSM"?

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

A combination of societal and family influence with introspection and consideration. How did you pick your religion?

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

There isn't any.

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

Just about any of them can, and many of them have, especially during some of Christianity's low points.

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,

This is simply false.

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.

If that is evidence for God, then people dying of leukemia is evidence against.

Neither are evidence.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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.

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.