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!

[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.

[DanaC]

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.

[Trilby]

god you guys are nerds.

*hugs*

[Undertoad]

WTF my head just exploded

pie you need to help me clean this up

[Pie]

I'll get out the lysol.
:p

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

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.

[Cicero]

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.

[Pico and ME]

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.

[Cicero]

Well OJ didn't get the message.

[Pico and ME]

Well it is a constant power struggle.

[Cicero]

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.

[DanaC]

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 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.