Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and ...

Sam Vimes

It boils down to this:

The only explanation you need for why some things are almost universally viewed as wrong is that human beings almost universally care about the well being of at least one group of other human beings. The extent to which people care varies from person to person and the groups that people care about also vary but every sane person cares about the well being of at least one other human being. And even if they don’t they still care about their own well being and they know the things that negatively effect that well being. People who don’t care at all about the welfare of other human beings are considered mentally ill and there are many such people but the vast majority of people feel a compulsion to care for the welfare of their fellow man to some extent.

And the only explanation you need for why we feel this compulsion is that this compulsion was and still is beneficial for survival and so was selected by natural selection. We are stronger as a group than we are on our own but living in a group is only beneficial if we help other members of our group and prevent harm coming to them. A group that tries to live together but feels absolutely no compulsion to avoid murdering other members of the group will die very very quickly

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And such people do exist. Babies have been tortured for fun many many times in the past by people who clearly didn't see it as wrong no matter what, therefore morality in that case is not objective. The test for objective morality is not that a lot of people agree something is wrong, that happens because sane human beings mostly share the same basic goals, ie to avoid suffering for themselves and their loved ones, the only legitimate test for objective morality is if every human being on the planet shares exactly the same opinion on every single moral question but that's clearly not the case.

Not so. What you are describing is a universal agreement as to what is moral. An objective morality can exist whether or not everyone can see it, or agrees as to what it is.

liamw

PDN, would you explain the altruistic and empathetic behaviour of animals (seemingly moral behaviour by our standards) as God given, or just evolved?

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

We didn't "evolve" moral behaviour; rather, behaviour that was appropriate for optimal survival e.g. not killing eachother, was selected for. We now call this "good" moral behaviour but that doesn't mean it's an artifically-applied rule.

Selected for optimal survival! How do you view events of the last century? I've seen figures that place war fatalities in and around 40,000,000 people and democide in and around 260,000,000 people.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's much easier for religious people of course because god has explictly said it's ok to dissociate ourselves from them [animals] and not apply morality to them

Broad brush strokes again, Sam. Not for the first time your lump all religious people in together to make some sweeping statement. I'm curious, can actually back up your claim? And have you ever heard of Hindus?

Perhaps you would enjoy reading Peter Singer and his views on the "speciesism" that you allude to. Though I would wonder what you make of his more controversial views (see wiki article).

Are you a vegetarian?

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Not so. What you are describing is a universal agreement as to what is moral. An objective morality can exist whether or not everyone can see it, or agrees as to what it is.

If objective morality exists but no one can quite agree on what it is, how can you tell that it exists? Is it just one group who are really really really sure that their opinion is the right one?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Selected for optimal survival! How do you view the last century? I've seen figures that place war deaths in and around 40,000,000 people and democide deaths in and around 260,000,000 people.

This instinct was selected for survival millions of years ago. As I keep pointing out, even the Nazis were nice to other Nazis. They still had the instinct but had overruled it and decided that it shouldn't apply to certain groups.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Broad brush strokes again, Sam. Not for the first time your lump all religious people in together to make some sweeping statement. I'm curious, can actually back up your claim? And have you ever heard of Hindus?

Oh dear, the old "not every single person on the planet that belongs to x group falls into that category therefore you're wrong". I know that not every person falls into that category, my point was that it's easier for christians to justify eating animals because the bible explicitly condones it. The whole point being made here by christians is that with god things are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong and the bible says that we have dominion over animals and therefore eating them is fine.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you would enjoy reading Peter Singer and his views on the "speciesism" that you allude to. Though I would wonder what you make of his more controversial views (see wiki article).

Are you a vegetarian?

Peter singer is entitled to his opinion and I have no objection to someone who decides they don't want to eat meat but I'm not a vegetarian

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Selected for optimal survival! How do you view events of the last century? I've seen figures that place war fatalities in and around 40,000,000 people and democide in and around 260,000,000 people.

Fair enough. Throughout this discussion, I have in my head two distinct time periods (although I'm sure it won't be long before someone points out how arbitrary they in fact are).

1. Everything up to and including early man, small groups coalescing to form a primitive society.
2. Late man, the intricate social network we have operated in for the last handful of millenia.

I have set 1 in my head when I talk about the evolution of "good" behaviour. I suspect set 1 didn't concern themselves with world war scenarios. I have set 2 in my head when I talk about how we now have sufficiently massive brains and enough arrogance to sit around and congratulate ourselves on elucidating a moral code of conduct. I think if set 1 were to sit in on these discussions, they'd be scratching their heads, saying "What do they mean by "moral" choices?". It is generally set 2 who have extended "good" behaviour beyond what is necessary for mere survival but that doesn't mean the physical mechanisms that dictate this behaviour aren't rooted in the desire to survive (or more likely, the desire for your children to survive). We also now have extreme cultural pressures to be "good" which set 1 didn't have to deal with.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You need to stop with this idea that for something to be good it must be dictated by an outside source.

That is exactly what I'm not saying. What I'm saying is this: What we call good and bad is only relative to our specie's survival if there is no God. But if there is a God then what He decides is good is good and what He decides is evil is evil. Basically you are right if there is no God and you are wrong if there is. This is true even if it ends up being a non Christian God. By definition He is Top Dog and as such He is the source of all morality and as such He is the One who sets the standard for morality. The only other explanation for the existence of morality in the world is the one you give, which is a great explanation, once you get rid of God, but I think the God explanation make more sense.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is exactly what I'm not saying. What I'm saying is this: What we call good and bad is only relative to our specie's survival if there is no God. But if there is a God then what He decides is good is good and what He decides is evil is evil. Basically you are right if there is no God and you are wrong if there is. This is true even if it ends up being a non Christian God. By definition He is Top Dog and as such He is the source of all morality and as such He is the One who sets the standard for morality. The only other explanation for the existence of morality in the world is the one you give, which is a great explanation, once you get rid of God, but I think the God explanation make more sense.

I think I might be misunderstanding you here. Are you telling me that my explanation that has no requirement for a god for why human beings mostly behave morally and why things often seem to be universally condemned is a great explanation but that you just prefer the "god did it" explanation? That's a far cry from the "rape is no worse than wearing red shoes" position that's normally put forward


Also, I don't see why just because a being created the universe it necessarily must have instilled us with a moral code. We could just be the being's lab experiment

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think I might be misunderstanding you here. Are you telling me that my explanation that has no requirement for a god for why human beings mostly behave morally and why things often seem to be universally condemned is a great explanation but that you just prefer the "god did it" explanation?

No. If I were convinced that God did not exist then I would go with your explanation until a better one came along. As it stands I actually believe that God actually exists, so why would I side with your explanation which doesn't even factor in the existence of the God I happen to beleive exists?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, I don't see why just because a being created the universe it necessarily must have instilled us with a moral code. We could just be the being's lab experiment

Or we could be part of much greater plan that is so great that it is simply incomprehensible to us at our present stage of development?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

No. If I were convinced that God did not exist then I would go with your explanation until a better one came along. As it stands I actually believe that God actually exists, so why would I side with your explanation which doesn't even factor in the existence of the God I happen to beleive exists?

I'm not saying you should side with my explanation but the common position from theists is that atheists have absolutely no rational justification for moral behaviour and if we were honest with ourselves we'd start murdering each other. The fact that we don't is then used to try to argue for god's existence.

What you're saying now is that not only do we have a rational justification for not harming each other but that I have given a great explanation and you simply prefer your explanation because it includes a god. So you're not really using morality to argue for god's existence, you're picking one of two competing theories of the origins of morality because one fits with your presupposition of the existence of a god.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or we could be part of much greater plan that is so great that it is simply incomprehensible to us at our present stage of development?

Could be. Could be anything. We can't really assume anything about such a being, even that it would provide us with a moral code.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not saying you should side with my explanation but the common position from theists is that atheists have absolutely no rational justification for moral behaviour and if we were honest with ourselves we'd start murdering each other. The fact that we don't is then used to try to argue for god's existence.

And the common position from atheists is that theists have absolutely no rational justification for believing in God because we simply don't see things the way atheists see them - that there simply is no God and to believe in one is just stupid. I cannot prove that God exists but when presented with explanations of how we got here, the naturalistic explanations cannot hold a candle to the explanation that a force beyond our comprehension must have had a hand in things.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What you're saying now is that not only do we have a rational justification for not harming each other but that I have given a great explanation and you simply prefer your explanation because it includes a god. So you're not really using morality to argue for god's existence, you're picking one of two competing theories of the origins of morality because one fits with your presupposition of the existence of a god.

And you pick your explanation because it fits in with your atheistic world view. I pick the God explanation because for me it is a much simpler and better explanation. My explanation is not built around atheism being false, whereas yours is constructed with the view that theism is false. Your whole ideology is built around that being a fact. Without theism atheism would not exist. Theism comes before atheism and before both there was just ignorance.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not saying you should side with my explanation but the common position from theists is that atheists have absolutely no rational justification for moral behaviour and if we were honest with ourselves we'd start murdering each other. The fact that we don't is then used to try to argue for god's existence.

I don't think that's a common position among theists at all. You might find a very occasional person who might argue that - but to apply it to theists, or Christians, in general is a ludicrous stereotype.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I don't think that's a common position among theists at all. You might find a very occasional person who might argue that - but to apply it to theists, or Christians, in general is a ludicrous stereotype.

A quote from yourself:

PDN wrote: »

It has also been argued in this thread that, for atheists, there is no reason to believe that Stalin's morality is in any way immoral. His morality may be different from that of a philanthropist - but you cannot say it is worse unless you hold to an objective morality that comes from an outside source (God). The most you can say is that Stalin's morality was different from that of most of us. I don't see that anyone has offered any convincing argument against that.

So, for example, some people believe it is morally correct to kill babies that are weak or sickly. Such a practice can be beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint - it can improve the gene pool and increases the chances of survival for healthy babies. Other species also successfully practice such behaviour.

Therefore, is it necessarily immoral for our society to cut all funding for treatment of sick babies and to invest that funding into better educational facilities for healthy children? Or is such behaviour morally neutral (since there is no absolute morality) and we simply recoil from it because it fails to coincide with our popular, but totally relativistic, idea of what is right and wrong? The Christian would say that such a practice is immoral - full stop. I do not see that the atheist can meaningfully invoke such a moral argument, any more that they can say I am 'immoral' if I choose to wear red shoes when everyone else is wearing black shoes.

You say that to an atheist Stalin was no better or worse than a philanthropist and that you can't see how an atheist can argue against the murdering of sick babies and then accuse me of "a ludicrous straw man" when I say that a common theist position is that atheists have no rational justification for moral behaviour and if we were
honest with ourselves we'd start
murdering each other. Right so

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A quote from yourself:


You say that to an atheist Stalin was no better or worse than a philanthropist and that you can't see how an atheist can argue against the murdering of sick babies and then accuse me of "a ludicrous straw man" when I say that a common theist position is that atheists have no rational justification for moral behaviour and if we were
honest with ourselves we'd start
murdering each other. Right so

Your thinking seems to be rather muddled. What I said in the post you quoted is nothing like your stereotyping.

atheists have absolutely no rational justification for moral behaviour

Atheists have plenty of rational justification for moral behaviour, because there is strong emotional, societal, and even legal pressure for you to do so.

If you're going to ascribe views to me then please try to do so with some measure of accuracy.

if we were honest with ourselves we'd start murdering each other

I never said anything that could even remotely be construed as saying that.

The fact that we don't is then used to try to argue for god's existence.

Again, I never said anything remotely like that. Where did I use your actions to argue for God's existence?

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

And the common position from atheists is that theists have absolutely no rational justification for believing in God because we simply don't see things the way atheists see them - that there simply is no God and to believe in one is just stupid.

That's not my position. I don't believe there is no god and I don't think that anyone who believes in one is stupid

Soul Winner wrote: »

I cannot prove that God exists but when presented with explanations of how we got here, the naturalistic explanations cannot hold a candle to the explanation that a force beyond our comprehension must have had a hand in things.

So you just prefer your explanation. That's fine with me. I'm happy as long as you're acknowledging that I can provide my own explanation for moral behaviour that is logically consistent and in your own words great. That's more than a lot of theists who try to argue that if I don't rape kids there must be a god as if that's the only possible explanation for it

Soul Winner wrote: »

And you pick your explanation because it fits in with your atheistic world view. I pick the God explanation because for me it is a much simpler and better explanation. My explanation is not built around atheism being false, whereas yours is constructed with the view that theism is false.

Eh if what you call atheism (the belief in no god) is true then your explanation is most definitely false and my explanation is not built around theism being false, it's based on scientific evidence, studying behaviour and reason. My explanation of altruistic and empathetic behaviour evolving could still very well be true if a god exists, just not your specific god. My opinion about morality is not an atheistic opinion, it's a rational opinion that just so happens to be supported by a wealth of evidence

Soul Winner wrote: »

Your whole ideology is built around that being a fact.

No it's not. I'm more than open to being proven wrong

Soul Winner wrote: »

Without theism atheism would not exist. Theism comes before atheism and before both there was just ignorance.

The word atheist wouldn't exist just like we don't have a word for people who don't collect stamps but if there was no theism then everyone would lack theism, which would make them atheists. They wouldn't fit your definition of atheists but your definition is the "belief in no god" straw man that little or no atheists actually hold

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Your thinking seems to be rather muddled. What I said in the post you quoted is nothing like your stereotyping.

Atheists have plenty of rational justification for moral behaviour, because there is strong emotional, societal, and even legal pressure for you to do so.

If you're going to ascribe views to me then please try to do so with some measure of accuracy.


I never said anything that could even remotely be construed as saying that.

Again, I never said anything remotely like that. Where did I use your actions to argue for God's existence?

Then please tell me exactly what you are saying because I haven't got a clue. It seems to me that you're saying that if there was no god then atheists still wouldn't go around murdering each other but wouldn't quite be able to explain to anyone else why doing so is a bad thing. You seem to be making out that not murdering would just be a personal choice like wearing red shoes while simultaneously saying that we would be no more likely to actually make the choice to murder people

I'm honestly having serious trouble understanding what people are talking about here, the whole argument is so vague. Please tell me in as much detail as you feel necessary what you think the world would be like in terms of the way people treat each other if there was no god

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then please tell me exactly what you are saying because I haven't got a clue. It seems to me that you're saying that if there was no god then atheists still wouldn't go around murdering each other but wouldn't quite be able to explain to anyone else why doing so is a bad thing.

Well, after several pages of this thread you haven't managed to explain any convincing reason why.

You seem to be making out that not murdering would just be a personal choice like wearing red shoes while simultaneously saying that we would be no more likely to actually make the choice to murder people

No, since I believe morality to be objective, I believe that the real reason why you don't murder other people is because God has given you an innate sense of morality - even though it is somewhat defective and marred by sin.

If you follow the logic of your professed beliefs then not murdering is indeed a choice, but one that has been made by a larger society rather than your personal choice.

I'm honestly having serious trouble understanding what people are talking about here, the whole argument is so vague.

I think the argument is pretty clear. Your assumptions and preconceptions are IMHO what causes you confusion.

Please tell me in as much detail as you feel necessary what you think the world would be like in terms of the way people treat each other if there was no god

I view that as a nonsensical question. If there was no God, then there would be no world and no people.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Well, after several pages of this thread you haven't managed to explain any convincing reason why.

I think the reasons I gave are quite convincing but you are of course free to disagree

PDN wrote: »

No, since I believe morality to be objective, I believe that the real reason why you don't murder other people is because God has given you an innate sense of morality - even though it is somewhat defective and marred by sin.

so you're not using the fact that I don't murder people to argue for god's existence, you're just saying that the reason I don't murder people is that god has given me a sense of morality.

PDN wrote: »

If you follow the logic of your professed beliefs then not murdering is indeed a choice, but one that has been made by a larger society rather than your personal choice.

I said that we have an evolved instinct that subconsciously compels us to help our fellow man. We both recognise that human beings have an innate sense of what we call morality, we just disagree on the source of it. What does that have to do with a larger society making a choice for me?

PDN wrote: »

I view that as a nonsensical question. If there was no God, then there would be no world and no people.

It would really help me out here. Maybe you could try imagining a deistic god that created the universe and its laws but that humans evolved without his input. How do you think the world would be in the way people treat each other in that case?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so you're not using the fact that I don't murder people to argue for god's existence, you're just saying that the reason I don't murder people is that god has given me a sense of morality.

Exactly. And here, I think, is where many disagreements lie. For us, every issue is not about arguing for God's existence.

I said that we have an evolved instinct that subconsciously compels us to help our fellow man. We both recognise that human beings have an innate sense of what we call morality, we just disagree on the source of it. What does that have to do with a larger society making a choice for me?

Because, if you were in a society that subscribed to a very different morality (eg practising infanticide on infant girls as in ancient China, or practising slavery) the odds are that you would go along with what everyone else believed. Your morality, I believe, is more based on sociology than evolution.

As it is you (like most atheiists) live in a Western society which, through long exposure to Christian values and thinking, has become tolerant and compassionate (at least compared to most societies which lack such exposure). Your morality reflects your upbringing.

It would really help me out here. Maybe you could try imagining a deistic god that created the universe and its laws but that humans evolved without his input. How do you think the world would be in the way people treat each other in that case?

Pretty much like chimpanzees (the real ones, not the cuddly ones in adverts for tea bags). It would be nice to think that we'd be more like bonobos - but in that case we'd be spending much of our time hiding from the chimpanzees.

Chimps & Bonobos

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Your morality, I believe, is more based on sociology than evolution.

As it is you (like most atheiists) live in a Western society which, through long exposure to Christian values and thinking, has become tolerant and compassionate (at least compared to most societies which lack such exposure). Your morality reflects your upbringing.

I would agree that my morality is partly based on sociology but I think that the same can be said for everyone, including christians. The prevailing Judeo-Christian opinion has not remained static for the past 4000 years, it's changed with society along with everyone else. The only difference is that at each stage along the way christians have managed to reconcile their sociological morality with the bible.

Evolution doesn't just apply to our physical bodies, ideas evolve too, the good ones eventually get accepted and the bad ones die out. Ideas like "don't murder your neighbour for his shoes" end up so widely accepted that they're taken to be self-evident. A sociological view of morality is thought by theists to inescapably end up in a situation where wearing red shoes is no better or worse than killing sick children but there are certain ideas that are incompatible with social living. They can be tolerated to a certain extent but if they become too widespread society collapses. Societies are self-correcting in that if an idea starts to spread that is totally incompatible with social living there's a backlash against it. This sometimes happens with ideas that are not incompatible with social living but that people just don't like such as not disapproving of homosexuality but as people realise that changing their mind won't actually cause the dire effects they think it will, they come around. That or the old people die leaving the young who are always more open to new ideas.

PDN wrote: »

Because, if you were in a society that subscribed to a very different morality (eg practising infanticide on infant girls as in ancient China, or practising slavery) the odds are that you would go along with what everyone else believed.

If I was dropped into China right now or sent back to a time when slavery was practised then I of course wouldn't but if I was born into those societies I might just. But then the same can be said for christians, it's human nature and not exclusive to non-religious people. It would be nice to think that christians have some special ability to know what's objectively wrong and that they will invariably fight against everything that falls into that category but history suggests otherwise.

Also something to note is that people in China have not decided that there's nothing wrong with killing infant girls, it's a situation that they've been pushed into by a government policy that would stop if the law was repealed. The choice here is not like a choice to wear red shoes. This is also an example of a bad idea that has spread but their society will correct itself because in a few years they'll be massively top-heavy with men at which point they'll have to change. Social evolution in action.

PDN wrote: »

Pretty much like chimpanzees (the real ones, not the cuddly ones in adverts for tea bags). It would be nice to think that we'd be more like bonobos - but in that case we'd be spending much of our time hiding from the chimpanzees.

Chimps & Bonobos

Chimpanzee brains are different to ours, their interactions are far more primitive than our own. I'm talking about people who are capable of putting men on the moon and writing poetry and most importantly who have evolved sense of empathy and altruism, both biologically and sociologically evolved. What works for chimps does not work for animals with social interactions as complex as our own. You don't think that our vastly superior capacities would have any effect on our behaviour no?

And do you think that we would have any subconscious compulsion to care for others if there was no theistic god?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I would agree that my morality is partly based on sociology but I think that the same can be said for everyone, including christians.

I agree. I've never claimed otherwise.

The prevailing Judeo-Christian opinion has not remained static for the past 4000 years, it's changed with society along with everyone else. The only difference is that at each stage along the way christians have managed to reconcile their sociological morality with the bible.

I believe they have often failed to make that reconciliation, often spectacularly. That is why debates (often heated) concerning morality have always existed within Christianity.

A sociological view of morality is thought by theists to inescapably end up in a situation where wearing red shoes is no better or worse than killing sick children but there are certain ideas that are incompatible with social living.

Not so. Again that is an inaccurate stereotype and misrepresentation.

My argument is that, according to your philosophy, wearing red shoes is no better or worse than killing babies in terms of something being objectively right or wrong. It is, however, better or worse in terms of getting on better with your fellow members of society, or feeing happier, or avoiding prosecution etc.

It would be nice to think that christians have some special ability to know what's objectively wrong and that they will invariably fight against everything that falls into that category but history suggests otherwise.

Again, I think you're tilting at windmills. I have certainly never claimed such a thing, nor, as far as I can see, have any others. Our position is that our understanding of morality, including that of Christians, is marred by sin.

Please try to listen and to understand what we believe. Because it seems to me that you are consistently arguing against positions that nobody here actually holds.

Chimpanzee brains are different to ours, their interactions are far more primitive than our own. I'm talking about people who are capable of putting men on the moon and writing poetry and most importantly who have evolved sense of empathy and altruism, both biologically and sociologically evolved. What works for chimps does not work for animals with social interactions as complex as our own. You don't think that our vastly superior capacities would have any effect on our behaviour no?

But now you're discussing a scenario different from what you asked me to imagine.

If we stick with your original scenario, a deistic creator and evolution uninfluenced by God, then forget about putting men on the moon. I doubt if we could manage much more than picking our noses and beating each other to death with bricks.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I agree. I've never claimed otherwise.

I believe they have often failed to make that reconciliation, often spectacularly. That is why debates (often heated) concerning morality have always existed within Christianity.

Not so. Again that is an inaccurate stereotype and misrepresentation.

My argument is that, according to your philosophy, wearing red shoes is no better or worse than killing babies in terms of something being objectively right or wrong. It is, however, better or worse in terms of getting on better with your fellow members of society, or feeing happier, or avoiding prosecution etc.

Again, I think you're tilting at windmills. I have certainly never claimed such a thing, nor, as far as I can see, have any others. Our position is that our understanding of morality, including that of Christians, is marred by sin.

Please try to listen and to understand what we believe. Because it seems to me that you are consistently arguing against positions that nobody here actually holds.

I think I'm starting to get the idea. It's not that there is no right and wrong, it's that there is no "objective" right and wrong. So atheists have a great many very good reasons to avoid harming each other and to help each other out to generally treat other people well but none of these things are "objectively" good or bad by the absolute theistic definition. I have to say that I'm just fine with that. As long as I'm able to live in a society where I can know that the overwhelming majority of people will treat each other well unless forced into doing otherwise then whether this situation exists because there is an objective morality that we follow imperfectly due to sin or because human beings have a great many good reasons to treat each other well and are subconsciously compelled to do so doesn't make that much of a difference. Either way some bad things will always happen but an awful lot of good things will too

PDN wrote: »

But now you're discussing a scenario different from what you asked me to imagine.

If we stick with your original scenario, a deistic creator and evolution uninfluenced by God, then forget about putting men on the moon. I doubt if we could manage much more than picking our noses and beating each other to death with bricks.

So you are a proponent of intelligent design then? You're leaving the realm of religion now and making scientific claims. People like to put forward the idea that there is no conflict between science and religion but there is. Creationists can't see how our bodies could have evolved without intelligent input and they're pretty much universally ridiculed but you can't see how the same process could have evolved our minds. And with the research that's being done in evolutionary psychology and cognitive mechanics etc and with the evidence mounting I think it's safe to say that it's only a matter of time before the idea that our minds couldn't be the way they are without a god is considered no different to any other creationist idea. It's just another gap to stick a god into and it's only a matter of time before this gap is closed just like all those other things that used to be explained with "god did it" because we didn't understand them

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think I'm starting to get the idea. It's not that there is no right and wrong, it's that there is no "objective" right and wrong. So atheists have a great many very good reasons to avoid harming each other and to help each other out to generally treat other people well but none of these things are "objectively" good or bad by the absolute theistic definition. I have to say that I'm just fine with that.

See, we agree on more than we thought.

As long as I'm able to live in a society where I can know that the overwhelming majority of people will treat each other well unless forced into doing otherwise then whether this situation exists because there is an objective morality that we follow imperfectly due to sin or because human beings have a great many good reasons to treat each other well and are subconsciously compelled to do so doesn't make that much of a difference. Either way some bad things will always happen but an awful lot of good things will too

That is true as far as it goes, but what happens when you want to bring change? What if you actually disagree with the general opinion of society.

For example, the primary weapon in the armoury of people like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce etc. was to be able to say, "The commonly accepted way of doing things is plain wrong! It is a moral outrage for this to continue." Do you really think their campaigns would have effected change if they had said, "Our changes will be evolutionary advantageous for the species"?

So, it would seem to me, that those who don't actually believe in objective morality are forced, if they want to actually bring change, to utilise the language of objective morality.

So you are a proponent of intelligent design then? You're leaving the realm of religion now and making scientific claims. People like to put forward the idea that there is no conflict between science and religion but there is. Creationists can't see how our bodies could have evolved without intelligent input and they're pretty much universally ridiculed but you can't see how the same process could have evolved our minds. And with the research that's being done in evolutionary psychology and cognitive mechanics etc and with the evidence mounting I think it's safe to say that it's only a matter of time before the idea that our minds couldn't be the way they are without a god is considered no different to any other creationist idea. It's just another gap to stick a god into and it's only a matter of time before this gap is closed just like all those other things that used to be explained with "god did it" because we didn't understand them

That depends on one's definition of "intelligent design". Last time we tried to discuss this I discovered that some posters had a definition that made discussion impossible.

I believe that God designed the universe, and that God is inteligent. So, as far as that goes, I believe in intelligent design.

I don't see that I'm entering the area of science - no more so than if I say I believe in the resurrection or in answered prayer. I believe that man is created in the image of God, and therefore we have certain abilities and capabilities.

I don't see how I am entering the area of science when, at your invitation, I speculate what mankind would look like in a hypothetical scenario. I'm not saying that we could not possibly have evolved to the stage where we travelled to the moon, no more than saying we could not evolve to be nine feet high and to have blue skin and tails (a la Avatar). I just don't see any reason to suppose that would happen in your hypothetical scenario.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

See, we agree on more than we thought.

That is true as far as it goes, but what happens when you want to bring change? What if you actually disagree with the general opinion of society.

For example, the primary weapon in the armoury of people like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce etc. was to be able to say, "The commonly accepted way of doing things is plain wrong! It is a moral outrage for this to continue." Do you really think their campaigns would have effected change if they had said, "Our changes will be evolutionary advantageous for the species"?

So, it would seem to me, that those who don't actually believe in objective morality are forced, if they want to actually bring change, to utilise the language of objective morality.

The problem here is that you think that someone can't say they don't want others to do something unless they appeal to objective morality but they can. Martin Luther King was fighting oppression, his life and the life of his entire race was being negatively affected by the discrimination of another race. Theists often ask "who's to say something is wrong". Well in that case Martin Luther King was being affected by the actions of another so he needs no authority other than his own. He doesn’t need to appeal to a god to know when he doesn’t want somebody else to do something to him. Whether it was objectively right or wrong in that case doesn’t actually matter. He knew that he didn’t want white people to discriminate against him so he told them as much and left them in a situation where they had three options:

1. Logically justify why their happiness was more important than his
2. Stop doing what they were doing
3. Pick up a weapon and force him to shut up

We see things like this for example where people can refuse medical treatment and no one can force them to take it whether they think it’s right or not. If somebody doesn't want you do to something to them you have to reach one of the compromises listed above

PDN wrote: »

That depends on one's definition of "intelligent design". Last time we tried to discuss this I discovered that some posters had a definition that made discussion impossible.

I believe that God designed the universe, and that God is inteligent. So, as far as that goes, I believe in intelligent design.

I don't see that I'm entering the area of science - no more so than if I say I believe in the resurrection or in answered prayer. I believe that man is created in the image of God, and therefore we have certain abilities and capabilities.

I don't see how I am entering the area of science when, at your invitation, I speculate what mankind would look like in a hypothetical scenario. I'm not saying that we could not possibly have evolved to the stage where we travelled to the moon, no more than saying we could not evolve to be nine feet high and to have blue skin and tails (a la Avatar). I just don't see any reason to suppose that would happen in your hypothetical scenario.

So it’s not that you think we couldn’t have evolved to where we are without a god, just that you don’t see any reason why we would have? Why not? I suppose I should invoke the anthropic principle here and say that any theory you have about what what you think would or would not have happened via evolution must take account of the fact that we are here

I don’t really see a distinction here. Either way you’re saying that god interfered directly with evolution and changed the make up of our brains to give us higher cognitive capacities and a moral sense, which is a scientific claim

Also, since you don’t see any compelling reason why we wouldn’t have evolved to the stage we are at without divine intervention (just that you don’t think it happened that way), could you answer my question about how you think people would treat each other presuming that it happened that way?

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

I think I'm starting to get the idea. It's not that there is no right and wrong, it's that there is no "objective" right and wrong. So atheists have a great many very good reasons to avoid harming each other and to help each other out to generally treat other people well but none of these things are "objectively" good or bad by the absolute theistic definition. I have to say that I'm just fine with that. As long as I'm able to live in a society where I can know that the overwhelming majority of people will treat each other well unless forced into doing otherwise then whether this situation exists because there is an objective morality that we follow imperfectly due to sin or because human beings have a great many good reasons to treat each other well and are subconsciously compelled to do so doesn't make that much of a difference. Either way some bad things will always happen but an awful lot of good things will too

This gets to the heart of the issue. I was not saying - nor was PDN - that atheists do not have reasons for acting morally. Self-interest, achieving desired ends, is a logical reason for such behaviour.

What we mean by them having no rational case for moral behaviour is this: they have no rational defence that makes any behaviour immoral as such. It may be rational for one to be kind to his neighbours rather than oppress them (he gets a good feeling and is treated well by them in return). But it may well be rational for another to oppress his neighbours - his superiority in power is such that it is very unlikely to have negative consequences for him, and certain to have several advantages. So he, with his majority colleagues, enslaves the minority and lives high on the hog. He lives in luxury and dies peacefully in his bed. His slaves live miserably and die early from exhaustion.

Both behave rationally in their self-interest.

But the lack of rationality I refer to is in the atheist saying either of those men are behaving immorally. They are behaving differently; there is no moral content. There is no morality. Kindness and oppression are alike in the materialist world.

The only morality is that which each person ascribes to life. All of it is invented by the person - or accepted by them, having first been invented by another. There is no actual, objective right and wrong.

Hence it is irrational for the atheist to say Hitler or Stalin were evil men in any universal or objective sense. They were different from most of us in their morality, but no morality is actually better or worse than another. It is only better or worse in our preference.

Yet many atheists speak as if Hitler and Stalin were bad men is some universal sense. But all they can rationally mean is Hitler and Stalin were bad in their (the atheist's) system of morality. That is all I am saying - I'm criticising such incoherent thinking. I'm not saying atheists are without personal morals.

Zombrex

Morality is not an objective concept, in the same way a film is not "bad" or "good" independently of an intelligence making a judgement on the movie.

Scary Movie 2 is a bad movie is not a property of the movie Scary Movie 2, in the way name or length or directory is.

It is a judgement made by a person on that movie. The judgement does not exist independently of the person making the judgement and thus you cannot say that it is an objective fact about the movie.

The same with morality. God existing or not existing is irrelevant, morality is never objective. It is bad to rape a person is not a property of the act of raping a person. It is a judgement someone makes on the action, even if that person is God.

Theists and deists have become so used to seeing God's opinion on morality as the only one that matters that they have forgotten that when they say "Homosexual acts are immoral" what they are actually saying is "Homosexual acts are immoral according to God"

It is infallible opinion, but it is opinion none the less.

You can see this with a simple thought experiment. If in a reality where God exists homosexual acts are immoral then they must also be immoral in a reality where God doesn't exist, since to be objective they must be a property of the acts themselves, a fact about the acts. In the same way that a red car is a red car whether God exists or not.

Except this would not make sense. Why would homosexual acts be immoral if God didn't exist to make the judgement that they are immoral? We could imagine a different universe where another God believes riding a bike is immoral, but that has no meaning in a universe where he doesn't exist. Riding a bike is immoral is not a property of riding a bike.

Something cannot be immoral with the reason it is immoral and the reason doesn't exist if there is no one to formulate the reason.

All morality is subjective. We can assign different levels of respect to the different opinions, we can say that God is infinitely wise and therefore we really should listen to his reasons because they are going to be good ones (in our opinion), but that does not make his opinion objective.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

This gets to the heart of the issue. I was not saying - nor was PDN - that atheists do not have reasons for acting morally. Self-interest, achieving desired ends, is a logical reason for such behaviour.

Can you see no rational reason to help someone without wanting something in return?

wolfsbane wrote: »

What we mean by them having no rational case for moral behaviour is this: they have no rational defence that makes any behaviour immoral as such. It may be rational for one to be kind to his neighbours rather than oppress them (he gets a good feeling and is treated well by them in return). But it may well be rational for another to oppress his neighbours - his superiority in power is such that it is very unlikely to have negative consequences for him, and certain to have several advantages. So he, with his majority colleagues, enslaves the minority and lives high on the hog. He lives in luxury and dies peacefully in his bed. His slaves live miserably and die early from exhaustion.

Both behave rationally in their self-interest.

This is all great in theory, atheists can have rational reasons for immoral behaviour but christians can't because nothing trumps the argument from authority that is objective morality. It all sounds wonderful and if that's how it worked in practise we'd be living in a utopia but we're clearly not. To explain it in your terms, humans are sinners by nature so you can say all you want that certain things are objectively wrong but even people who believe in god will go ahead and do them anyway with pretty much the same regularity as non-believers. Pointing out that there is an objective morality is useless unless you have any more means of making people follow it than I have of making them stop doing things to me that I don't want them to do.

My scenario: I say to someone that I don't want him to do something to me so he should stop. he says that he's powerful enough to prevent reprisals so he does it anyway.

Your scenario: You say to someone that you don't want him to do something to you because it's "just wrong" but he has a sinning nature so he does it anyway.

Either way the same bad things happen

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the lack of rationality I refer to is in the atheist saying either of those men are behaving immorally. They are behaving differently; there is no moral content. There is no morality. Kindness and oppression are alike in the materialist world.

You say: "But it may well be rational for another to oppress his neighbours - his superiority in power is such that it is very unlikely to have negative consequences for him, and certain to have several advantages". I will grant you that but there are a few things to consider:

1. No matter how powerful somebody is, the possibility of negative consequences can only ever be "very unlikely", he can never be absolutely sure that there will be no reprisals
2. The vast majority of people on the planet do not fall into that category. Mostly when people do wrong there might be some brute force element to it but afterwards they have to try to stop people finding out what they did (or at least proving what they did) because no matter how powerful someone is they can't fight the combined force of all the people who refuse to accept those who harm others, ie the vast majority of people on the planet.

So oppression and kindness are not alike. One leads to happiness and cooperation for all and the other leads to misery for the victim and constant fear for the perpetrator. And they only come anywhere close to being alike in the case where someone is either strong enough to fight off everyone else on the planet for his entire life or sneaky enough to make sure no one ever finds out what he did. And as long as humans are sinners, telling somebody that something is wrong it little more effective than telling them there will be reprisals

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Morality is not an objective concept, in the same way a film is not "bad" or "good" independently of an intelligence making a judgement on the movie.

Scary Movie 2 is a bad movie is not a property of the movie Scary Movie 2, in the way name or length or directory is.

It is a judgement made by a person on that movie. The judgement does not exist independently of the person making the judgement and thus you cannot say that it is an objective fact about the movie.

The same with morality. God existing or not existing is irrelevant, morality is never objective. It is bad to rape a person is not a property of the act of raping a person. It is a judgement someone makes on the action, even if that person is God.

Theists and deists have become so used to seeing God's opinion on morality as the only one that matters that they have forgotten that when they say "Homosexual acts are immoral" what they are actually saying is "Homosexual acts are immoral according to God"

It is infallible opinion, but it is opinion none the less.

You can see this with a simple thought experiment. If in a reality where God exists homosexual acts are immoral then they must also be immoral in a reality where God doesn't exist, since to be objective they must be a property of the acts themselves, a fact about the acts. In the same way that a red car is a red car whether God exists or not.

Except this would not make sense. Why would homosexual acts be immoral if God didn't exist to make the judgement that they are immoral? We could imagine a different universe where another God believes riding a bike is immoral, but that has no meaning in a universe where he doesn't exist. Riding a bike is immoral is not a property of riding a bike.

Something cannot be immoral with the reason it is immoral and the reason doesn't exist if there is no one to formulate the reason.

All morality is subjective. We can assign different levels of respect to the different opinions, we can say that God is infinitely wise and therefore we really should listen to his reasons because they are going to be good ones (in our opinion), but that does not make his opinion objective.

The red car is a red car because we call it a red car. The colour doesn't change but what we call that colour (red in this case) is a subjective label we put on it. But to someone who is colour blind the car might be brown or green, which would make the actual colour of the car that normal seeing people call red also subjective to the perception of the people who are able to see it, which includes colour blind people.

If a God actually exists who is the creator of the universe and the one who by His Word has established all its laws and constants which hold it together, and who by His Word can also rearrange it if He so pleased. If a God like that actually exists and has the power to do all that, then what He judges as being immoral is what is immoral no matter what we might think of it. We don't have to agree with it but it is what it is. We can try to usurp that objective opinion with our own subjective opinion all we like but as long as He has all the power then what He says is what goes.

But if He doesn't exist then all that exists are subjective opinions of what morality is or should be because not one person or group of people has the right to say that their opinion of what morality is should be the objective opinion because their opinion is only as valid as the next person's opinion in a universe void of any creator, controller and owner.

If I decide tomorrow to set up a company which say, deals in antiques, then as the originator, and sole contributor to its creation I have the right to call the shots on how the company operates as an entity in the wider business community, right? My opinion is the objective opinion and all other opinions within the employee registrar are subjective opinions even if their opinions are better than mine. As the originator of the company I and I alone have the right to say how the company should operate and if it goes bust then it will be my fault and if it succeeds then it will be to my praise. If God exists and is the originator of this universe then what He says is moral is whats moral. When you can muster enough power to create and originate your own universe only then will you have the right to be able dictate the rules thereof. Make sense? You can even create a universe and make anarchy the order of the day and that is the way it will be. My point is that God (if He exists) owns this universe and owns us too and what He says goes no matter what we might think of it, the only really free choice we have is to either accept His right of ownership and submit ourselves to Him or reject it, there is no middle ground, He didn't leave us any.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The red car is a red car because we call it a red car. The colour doesn't change but what we call that colour (red in this case) is a subjective label we put on it. But to someone who is colour blind the car might be brown or green, which would make the actual colour of the car that normal seeing people call red also subjective to the perception of the people who are able to see it, which includes colour blind people.

Ok, if you want to get pedantic about it, the frequency of the reflection of visible light of the atoms of the car is determined by a property of the car.

You are correct how we perceive this reflected light is subjective but that wasn't really my point. My point was about the differences between attributes that are properties of an object or event in an objective sense and judgements made about an object or event by a third-party, which are subjective, even if the third party is God.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If a God actually exists who is the creator of the universe and the one who by His Word has established all its laws and constants which hold it together, and who by His Word can also rearrange it if He so pleased. If a God like that actually exists and has the power to do all that, then what He judges as being immoral is what is immoral no matter what we might think of it.

That doesn't make it objective. It makes it subjective with infinite authority.

You demonstrate that yourself with the clause "If a God actually exists ..."

If "homosexual acts are immoral" was an objective it would be a property of homosexual acts and it wouldn't matter if God exists or not. The acts would be immoral independently of any requirement that someone judge them immoral, in the same way a the car reflects light in a certain way based on the properties of it's atoms, independently of if anyone is around to see it and go "Oh, a red car"

Soul Winner wrote: »

We don't have to agree with it but it is what it is.

Which is the subjective opinion of God. Again the fact that we don't have to agree with it means it is subjective, like God may say "Scary Movie 2 is the worst movie of all time" and you can say "I actually enjoyed it"

Soul Winner wrote: »

But if He doesn't exist then all that exists are subjective opinions of what morality is or should be because not one person or group of people has the right to say that their opinion of what morality is should be the objective opinion because their opinion is only as valid as the next person's opinion in a universe void of any creator, controller and owner.

But why does that matter?

Because someone disagrees with me I don't have to respect their opinion. I subjectively think shooting a 5 year old in the head is wrong. Explain to me why I have to respect the opinion of someone who thinks shooting a 5 year old is ok?

Why do you require a higher authority to tell you want is or is not moral? Can't you make up your own mind? Yes it is only your own mind, but again why does that matter?

Soul Winner wrote: »

If I decide tomorrow to set up a company which say, deals in antiques, then as the originator, and sole contributor to its creation I have the right to call the shots on how the company operates as an entity in the wider business community, right? My opinion is the objective opinion and all other opinions within the employee registrar are subjective opinions even if their opinions are better than mine.

No it isn't. You opinion is still subjective, it simply comes with higher authority than other employers.

This is the point. God's opinion is no less subjective than your opinion, it simply carries more weight and authority because on the principle that a) God has the right to call the shots and b) God is supposed to know everything and thus is far more wiser than us.

But it is still only a subjective opinion.

Soul Winner wrote: »

My point is that God (if He exists) owns this universe and owns us too and what He says goes no matter what we might think of it

Which is irrelevant to whether his opinion is objective or subjective. What you are talking about is a matter of authority.

I would also point out, though it is slightly going down a rabbit hole, that the idea that because God made the universe he can do what he likes with it is a subjective opinion of yours

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I would also point out, though it is slightly going down a rabbit hole, that the idea that because God made the universe he can do what he likes with it is a subjective opinion of yours

Well no, the fact that He can do what He likes is a fact independent of whether I agree with it or not, either that or He doesn't have all power and hence doesn't exist. I can disagree with you that the car is red but the atoms which are there are reflecting the light that is there and it is what it is whether I agree or not. That is what objective truth is. Things are either true or they are not true. Our perception of them doesn't even come into it. If God is the originator of this universe then He is the source of all truth, so what He says is what defines truth. If He doesn't exist then truth is whatever we want it to be and whatever works for us.