Support NeoGAF

[Dr Kaneda]

Nope don't agree at all OP and this a massive blind spot and source of ignorance for a lot of atheists today.

Modern day secular moral values or "liberalism" as it's called have their inception from Enlightenment thinker, chief of all John Locke. When you look at the basis of Locke, his peers and his disciples ideas they are fundamentally based on the idea that these moral values and rights were given to humans by God. The idea is that as God is our creator we are his property God endows us with these absolute rights. It's literally written in the US declaration of independence

"all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Another important element to remember is the anchorage with God allows these rights to be considered self-evident, again this is also mentioned in the US declaration of independence

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident"

What philosophical thinkers like John Locke, the US Founding Fathers and their all knew was that they only to logically arrive at absolute objective morality was to inseparably anchor them with God. From an atheistic perspective it's impossible to arrive at objective morality and basically every atheistic scholar concedes this. This is why John Locke detested atheists, as he understood that logically any moral system they'd adhere to would be entirely subjective and as such no better or no worse than any other moral system. From an atheistic perspective it's impossible to prove objectively why rape is wrong, a moral system that condones rape and one that condemns it are equal. Richard Dawkins for example believes the belief that rape is arbitrary.

What people don't understand is John Locke, the US Founding Fathers etc.. theory of liberalism/morality/rights have been in place in the modern world for over 300 years. And that's not even considering that their theory was based on the Christian theory of morality based on the soul which it's self was in place for ~1600 years prior to that. Which it's self predated is predated by religious morality that literally goes back to the start of human civilisation. Which even further still goes back to pre-civilised man as see evidence of a deep reverence for God and religion for tens of thousands of years at least, probably since human inception.

What atheists erroneously do is that they believe today with all the ideas they already have about morality they can be the foundation for a moral society without God. Trouble is we only arrived at those idea because of the belief in God. It doesn't work. It's like building a house on top of a 2000 ft multistory sky scraper and saying you didn't need the ground.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Of course it doesn't require a god or even religion. I'm non-religious myself, but as I get older, I've been coming over more and more to the idea that religion may be more necessary for society than I thought. It can provide a set of easily digestible stories about how to lead a decent life, and pursue meaning and long-term progress.

 

[MHubert]

It's in the thread title. I tried to make it as straightforward as possible. Let me try to rephrase it in a couple of different ways to try to be clearer.

"The existence of God, a god, or many gods, is not required in order for society to have a positive moral framework"

In other words, we can structure a society with a set of agreed upon behavior (enforced by laws, etc) that doesn't have to use "because god said so" as a justification for why something is good. The reason why something is "good" or "morally good" can be empirically derived. For example, if I consider life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be goals that my society wants to maximize, we can organize our society with mutually agreed upon rules and codes of conduct that will ensure those particular values are maximized.

We can then test this. If we survey our population and see that more people are living longer and healthier lives, then we know that we are maximizing the "life" value, and that the system is working as intended.

If we analyze our population and most aspects of people's lives are free from coercion, the system is working as intended. If we compare our results with other societies who have structured their society differently, and see that our population indeed has more freedoms than others, then we have additional evidence to support our system. If other societies are shown to have more liberty, we can reassess our model, and alter it accordingly.

If we survey our population, and most people respond that they are happy, then we have evidence that our organization/rules/laws/moral code is working as intended. If most people respond that they are not happy, then we have evidence to show that our system isn't working and isn't as "moral" as we need it to be.

Nowhere in this entire process did we need to ask god to figure out what's good. We didn't need it written on stone tablets for us. We can just as easily derive "moral" codes of conduct through our own "god-given" (lol) reasoning and intellect. Do you really need God to tell you that "thou shalt not kill"? A society that prioritizes life can figure it out on its own.

So, in order to prove my thesis right, I have to show that you can reason your way to a moral society without invoking god. I just did that. In order to prove my thesis wrong, you have to show me that this was impossible. Some people would argue that since God created everything, and our society is included in "everything", then it must follow that God created the morality to govern it too. Sure you can say that, but that doesn't make it true. First of all you have to prove that God did indeed, create everything, which is another conversation entirely. This is why I wrote in my OP that I didn't want to delve into the realm of "does god exist" because that just complicates things even more. I can prove my thesis without needing to resort to proving or disproving god. Both "god-based" and "not god-based" societies have space to coexist, in my framework. Just because you CAN structure a moral society without appealing to a god, doesn't necessarily mean that those who do are wrong, immoral, illegitimate, or otherwise. We just came to a similar conclusion with different reasoning.

I have given examples of societies that either

1) Don't have a religion that includes an all powerful god who strongly dictates morality (which means they aren't relying on their gods for their primary source of morality)
or
2) Have written laws or other such codes of morality/ethics/conduct that don't have the phrase "because God said so" or any such language with that same effect

These would be such societies as:

Ancient Norse society, Greece or (pre-Christianity) Rome. They have a pantheon of gods, but some of them are assholes, and are mainly there to make cool stories or explain how the world works. They don't necessarily dictate morality as a divine edict. Additionally, Greece and Rome are famous for their contributions to the foundations of Western Civilization, due to their concepts of democracy and liberty. These concepts were debated on by philosophers in a forum, not handed down by Zeus.

Japan. They do have gods in one of their religions (Shinto), but again, these aren't gods that dictate morality. They just hang around and make things spiritual. Their other main religion, Buddhism, doesn't even have gods. It has a very enlightened mortal as its main focus (detail may differ depending upon sect, of course). You could possibly argue the case of Amaterasu, since in Shinto that god sorta created the Sun and everything, but again, you don't see any "because Amaterasu said so" in the way the Japanese have historically written their laws or structured their society.

Ironically, the one time in history that Japan was considerably IMMORAL, was when they deified their emperor, so that he was a god and that his word was moral and final and the ultimate authority. They promptly turned into a shitty totalitarian nightmare, and got nuked for it.

5 Things to Know About Japan’s Emperor and Imperial Family (Published 2016)

The oldest continuous monarchy in the world, extending back to 600 B.C., has had an unbroken hereditary line of 125 emperors.

www.nytimes.com

The United States of America, and most other modern nations. The United States Constitution is a great document. It still holds up after all these years. It also has zero appeals to god contained within it that justify its codified laws. The only reference to any kind of religion is in the date. It also specifically and clearly delineates a separation between religion and government. References to God, a god, or the divine are more ubiquitous in the individual 50 state constitutions, but even then those are more like cultural markers and less like "do this because God said so".

If you look around the world, the amount of countries that explicitly reference god in their constitutions isn't that many, and even the ones that do would hardly be called theocracies, with some exceptions.

Constitutional references to God - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is also why we refer to our system of government as a "democracy", and not a "theocracy". We are ruled by the people, not by a god, and we derive our code of laws accordingly.

I think I did, and that's not a fundamental problem. It is for you because you're viewing it through a lens of metaphysics, whereas I am not.


It's right there, as I said. It's good because I start with the idea that I value life, and devalue suffering. Therefore, any action that contains those two qualities is probably more good than not. That is why.


Sure. And via a moral framework that values life and devalues suffering, those barbaric practices are deemed "not good". Very simple.

You know what history also tells us? That societies that based their morality on their religion also have the capacity for barbaric practices.

You know what The Bible tells us? That even God Himself condones barbaric practices too. So much for divine morality.


Nope. Why would I? I value life and devalue suffering.


A society with immoral values (according to me). Ironically, it was also a religious society. Not that it matters a lot.

OK, so what? What does that have to do with what I wrote? Does that disprove my reasoning at all? I don't think so.


You'd have to refer to polls to really get into the fine details of that, but generally speaking and in my opinion, I feel that American society thinks that life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are all good. I don't think you'll find many Americans who would say that those aren't good things.


You sure about that? The kinds of questions you are asking me tells me that you don't.


I suspect I have.

It's not a matter of "want". It's a matter of determining "is this possible"

I can skip that entirely (in terms of generating a "godless" morality), because that point is completely irrelevant to my thesis.


Please elaborate within the context of how I am or am not doing that, as it pertains to my thesis.

To make my response as clear as possible, I will address what I believe to be the central points of your argument in your (long) post (first your notions on 'what is moral' - later, your points about religion and society):

• Life (to which your ascribe the attributes longivity, health, (pursuit of) happiness) and liberty is, in and of itself, good (according to you).
• Because of that, what can be considered 'morally good' can also be derived through empirical data.
• These datasets can be measured (controlled) against surveying the population whether or not they feel happy, thus constituting the body of your moral.
• If everyone in society is in agreement about your two core tenets (life and liberty), then your have succesfully created a solid morality based in 'realism' and not 'divine assumption'.

First of all, these moral pillars are essentially modern western (U.S) values, and you assume that 'life' and 'liberty' has pure forms of operation, as in, there is a straight line from their respective concepts to their application in reality. You try to hide your appeal these fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions by disguising it as a kind of ' transcendental modus operandi' - ie. they are self evidently obvious (they are transcendant, purely appeals to physics) as long as you act them out. To take this heavy responsibility away from the sole individual, you suggest a method or system to divide these concepts down to their ontological components to maximize their benificialities according to the individual (yet extrapolating it to society), which is where you would rapidly stumble upon inherent paradoxes, or, absurdities.

Liberty, which is an ideological syncretization of the term 'freedom', needs to have certain constraints to have value at all, lest you would like it to become a perverse version of itself. Obviously, you would need to dial down the individual freedom component in order to maximize its potential to any given individual - keep doing that ad nauseam, and you are starting consume your own concept from the inside out: welcome to the dark world of blind dogmaticism.

Does life have intrinsic value? I think most of us feel that way, but it is in no way self-evident. If pursuit of happiness is a necessary aspect of the good 'life', then what about the ones that find meaning and happiness in acting out deeds that might be considered evil?

Now, is it reasonable to assume that 'life' and 'liberty' is an axiom of universal value? Well, yea, but in this case they take the form of boiled down political agendas, and thus might be too universal to actually be applicable in a given context, unless you treat them as merely political dogmas.

You points about society and religion:

• There are societies that have moral values secularized from their respective godheads and religion (Romans, Japanese, old norse etc.).
• Said societies are perfect examples of a functioning morality without said beliefs.

I don't have much to say to these points, other than they are blatantly wrong on almost every concievable level. ALL of your examples have cultures and behavioral codes tied to some kind belief system - If not a god that has set out specific rules, then at least a god or gods (spirits, if you will) that set examples for you how to live and live your life.

What is fundamentally 'good' or 'ideal' is basically what god or any other gods represents. In Chistianity, god is the Logos, the Word: True being. Acting according to truth is the realization and embodiment of Jesus Christ, as he is carnation of the Logos. This is the DNA that makes up what is essentially current western culture and personality. Likewise, in cultures with a pantheon of godheads, or spirits, these function as the basic archetypes of how to behave and who/what to be.
Why do you think that we have so clear examples of societies that actively sought to destroy religion and eraze their past, for there only to be some kind of crazy personality popping up to fill out the role of a personified deity?

Nowhere in this entire process did we need to ask god to figure out what's good

Appealing to the the status quo of the ego instead of 'god' doesn't solve the problem.

The reason I brought up the story from Iceland is because it fits with your logic + alludes the apparent 'absurdity' of being thrown into a volcano. This was mandated by their society. What, so you think that the Vikings wouldn't agree with the concepts of life and liberty? What makes them morally wrong, if this is what kept their society (their 'life' and 'liberty') together, and being thrown into a volcano is such an obvious moral atrocity, according to you?

This is my critique and what I think about your moral inquiry.

You:

• Are more or less arguing about politics, and not what constitues morality. I suspect that you are an American libertarian (to a European, this is painfully obvious) that believes political values can transcend basic metaphysical problems, and that they can be applied as axiomatic moral rules.
• Fail to answer (as in, you just assume) what makes said concepts fundamentally good, by boiling the terms 'life' and 'liberty' down to mere linear functions and disguising what are current western values as transcendental knowledge (as in, they are 'self-obvious').
• Wish to believe in a fine tuned system, or machine, to tell you what is right, and then expect to have maximum liberty and be able to pursue happiness just the same.

Look, I have been studying philosophy for 4 years and I have lost count of how many times new students come about claiming the exact same ideas as yourself (that optimal morals can be instigated by a perfect machine, with conceptual components that, somehow, conveniently mirrors themselves), and they either: A) Suck it up and admit that their "Mr. happy goes lucky" feel-good-attitude doesn't hold up as a basic assumption on what is good, when trying to answer tough and complex questions regarding the concept of a moralistic framework, and move on so they can actually learn, or B) They blame the professors and other students of not 'seeing clearly' and usually drop out.

 

[Rentahamster]

Thanks, that does clear it up. The reason I asked is that you've referenced religious societies as examples of non-religious morality.

No I didn't.

I referenced certain religious societies as examples of societies who don't view their gods (if they even have any) as the ultimate source and arbiter of morality. This is why I worked so hard to make that distinction and why I worded the title the way it is. No GOD is required. Specifically, no god that is the ultimate judge of right and wrong. I'm not talking about religion. Those are two different things.

They still believe(d) in a power or powers higher than man, so I would have to disagree that their morality would be entirely based on public opinion, which is what you are advocating for.

They (some, not all) still believed in some form of supernatural stuff, but that doesn't mean they derived their entire moral structure from that. I am also not advocating for morality based on public opinion. If I were, I would have used those words. This is morality based on specific goals that society values, and being able to measure and test the results in order to improve that model. Life expectancy can be measured, and is not a matter of public opinion. Poverty can be measured, and is not a matter of public opinion.

If you're advocating for morality based on opinion polling or general perceived "happiness", would not North Korea be a good modern example?

Nope. Let's use my aforementioned framework to analyze this. NK's life expectancy is below average. Fail. NK's freedom index is low. Fail. It's hard to survey the opinions of North Koreans, but I think it's a fair assumption to make that living under an authoritarian disaster of a country where you starve, get brainwashed, get shot if you try to escape, or get put into gulags for the smallest of crimes does not engender a happy population. Fail number 3. Therefore, from my stated moral framework, how NK organizes their society is not very moral. Their government does specific things that very clearly violate those values that I hold dear. This isn't a form of moral relativity that I'm advocating for. There is a real and objective standard that I hold.

Their society isn't "religious", either.

Yes it is. They think their supreme leaders is a god.

I know you aren't advocating for that; I realize it's a cheeky example...but who watches the watchmen?

Everyone watches the watchmen. By using their brains to verify that our standards are being upheld via testing and observation. The issue of "who watches the watchers" is an important one, but that's not the issue I'm addressing here. That's an issue of enforcement. I'm talking about the process in which we come into agreement on what the rules are.

How would such a society be run in a way that it would be 'free of coercion'? I don't think such a thing has ever existed.

You don't think the United States of America has done a decent job of that? Relative to recorded human history.

If the morality of a society is determined solely by a political process (opinion polling), is there not then every incentive for individuals within a society to spend resources (lobbying) toward warping the opinion of the public?

Are the values enshrined in the Constitution a result of opinion polling? They are a result of reasoned debate and political process though. Individuals have a right to debate their viewpoints, as is afforded in a society that values free speech and free expression. Sounds moral to me. This is more or less how the process is done in the USA. Would you consider a more theocratic model like Iran more effective because they are basing their laws on "objective, god given, morality"?

My personal belief is that we humans need something higher than ourselves to strive toward.

Sure. Humans are emotional beings, after all.

I mean this both in terms of humans as individuals, and as a group or groups. Having "something" beyond/above ourselves to bind us together seems necessary to create a functioning state. It could be religion, nationalism, race, language, or cultural practice. You need "something" to belong to.

This is a reasonable statement. A sense of identity and culture is important for social cohesion.

A state based on ever-shifting 'morality' would by design not be unifying, as a good percentage of people within the state are never going to agree with w/e the 'morality' of the day is determined to be (as we humans never agree about anything).

Again, I wouldn't describe my position as "a state based on ever-shifting morality". It's a society based on clearly stated rules and objectives, with a means to test itself to ensure that it is working as intended. Yeah, humans are a disagreeable bunch, but why is this a counter argument to what I'm saying? You could just as easily say that god given morality is useless because a good percentage of the people are never going to agree with what god said. That's not a good reason.


I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Rentahamster]

You can say that because you live in a post-WWII society where human life has been recognized as something of the highest value, after a time in history where it was treated as the most expendable thing.

No, I can say that because I'm a decent person and I validate my position every day because I value my life and and I value the lives of my family and friends. That's the thing about valuing human life. It's so easy to do, one sometimes forgets how easy to do it is.

70 years after that, do you not see the growing effort to consider pre-birth life not human and therefore, worthless and expendable?
Do you not see hundreds of thousands of human lives that could come into the richest, healthiest world there's ever been, with the highest life expectancy humanity has ever achieved, being aborted like their potential - the highest ever in human history, because of the conditions of the world they could be born into - is nothing?

Abortion is a very important issue, but this is an issue that's been tackled throughout human history, not just in the last 70 years. It's always going to be a tough debate when two values you hold dear, life and liberty, are at odds because the life of one human is reliant on the other, and yet we must still acknowledge that both have rights. It's a good thing we can debate that and test our society to see what path works the best.

Human life wasn't always considered sacred and valued throughout history. Ancient people would kill and get killed over nothing. War was a constant. Abortion wasn't needed to clean a mother's conscience, because you could literally throw an unwanted newborn off a cliff or into the trash. It was customary to abuse and exploit children; poor people were at the mercy of the rich and strong. Most people wouldn't be considered entitled to life just because they were born, and seeing them killed was business as usual.

Life has gotten much more peaceful over the millenia, I'd agree on that. However, it's not that life wasn't considered sacred or valuable. It was. To an individual, and to that individual's immediate family/tribe. Back then, resources are scarce so it's a matter of survival and competition. It's not that you didn't value life. It's that you valued your own life more than others'. Fortunately, thanks to technology, we can support more people and provide them a comfortable lifestyle, which means resource competition is not an issue anymore for most people. That means we can then expand our tribe to encompass the world. Thanks to technology, we have the capacity to do that now. Without it, we'd still be killing each other over food. We only do that nowadays on Black Friday at Best Buy over TV sales.

Even for Christianity, the absolute sacredness of human life regardless of origin and social condition is something relatively recent. What Popes have been preaching in the last 150-200 years isn't what Popes used to preach and practice before.

What does that tell you about the authority of divine morality if it changes like that at the whims of mortals?

You're right: we shouldn't need scientific proof of the value of human life. But that wasn't the point, was it?

Yeah, it kinda was. You said:

Left unchecked and unbridled, science leads to Nazi experiments on humans, because there's no scientific proof of an intrinsic value of human life

we need a set of moral values to establish something like the value of human life

Agreed, although something as basic as "human life is valuable" is a sentiment that nearly 100% of humans agree upon unless you're a sociopath.

You're right: we shouldn't need scientific proof of the value of human life. But that wasn't the point, was it? The point is, we need a set of moral values to establish something like the value of human life - because scientifically speaking, we are just matter destined to expire and decay. The "value" of our cells isn't greater than the value of plant or animal cells by some intrinsic property. It's we as humans that need to declare that our life has value. And we couldn't do it on the basis of science.

Yes we can. Sapience and sentience can be observed/measured and a value judgement accordingly assigned. There's a reason we care more about humans than we do about monkeys than we do about starfish than we do about dandelions than we do about rocks.

We need to base such a declaration on something else. Now, what was that something for millennia? Where did our moral code come from? In most cases, it was religion - and a very specific, very modern interpretation of religion. Older versions of current religions considered some - if not most - categories of human beings worthless, and expendable for the greater good.

Yes, I based it on sapience, intelligence, sentience, capacity for happiness and suffering, etc. You're also not making a very good case for why religion based morality is such a good alternative considering its terrible historical track record.

What you call sociopathy was just the norm, not that long ago.

If sociopathy is truly the norm, then we go extinct. We're not extinct.

We call it sociopathy today because we have changed the way we look at humanity after witnessing the most catastrophic wars in history.

That's your own opinion. "Sociopathy" has a very clear and deliberate clinical definition.

And those wars were the product of unprecedented scientific advancements, among other things.

You keep saying this but that doesn't make this true. Why are these modern horrors because of science? Science is just a tool. Science doesn't kill people. People kill people.

To establish that human life is the supreme value we had to see millions of lives obliterated with technical marvels produced by a science that had - and never will have - no consideration for the value of life.

Does a hammer have consideration for the value of human life? Does math? Does the Hubble Telescope? Science is, in and of itself, a tool. Those who wield it for good or evil are the ones who should be judged. Your assessment of the cause of human suffering is completely off. We didn't only come to the enlightened position that human life is good after World Wars. The debate about the value of life is a common, and well documented debate throughout history.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

No, I can say that because I'm a decent person and I validate my position every day because I value my life and and I value the lives of my family and friends. That's the thing about valuing human life. It's so easy to do, one sometimes forgets how easy to do it is.

Surely you realize what you're saying here is extremely subjective. Which is something I'll touch upon later.

Life has gotten much more peaceful over the millenia, I'd agree on that. However, it's not that life wasn't considered sacred or valuable. It was. To an individual, and to that individual's immediate family/tribe. Back then, resources are scarce so it's a matter of survival and competition. It's not that you didn't value life. It's that you valued your own life more than others'. Fortunately, thanks to technology, we can support more people and provide them a comfortable lifestyle, which means resource competition is not an issue anymore for most people. That means we can then expand our tribe to encompass the world. Thanks to technology, we have the capacity to do that now. Without it, we'd still be killing each other over food. We only do that nowadays on Black Friday at Best Buy over TV sales.

Exactly. The paradox of modern times is that the bar for living and what we consider the minimum for a "decent" life is so high, we'd rather trample each other over trifling matters, over superfluous things, over vapid "ideals". I think this means that we don't really value other creature's lives when our personal needs and desires are concerned, and that we need a shared moral code imposed from above to establish society's values - together with a system of law and order to keep people in check at all times.

What does that tell you about the authority of divine morality if it changes like that at the whims of mortals?

It tells me that religion is a human construct, and that it changes over time. Just like any other concept of morality ever adopted by man. This doesn't mean that it cannot be useful to make people accept the current morals.

Agreed, although something as basic as "human life is valuable" is a sentiment that nearly 100% of humans agree upon unless you're a sociopath.

I don't share the same opinion, at least not in an absolute sense. Human life may be valuable to nearly 100% of humans, but not to the same degree for everybody, and its perceived value has changed a lot throughout history, as we've discussed already.

Yes we can. Sapience and sentience can be observed/measured and a value judgement accordingly assigned. There's a reason we care more about humans than we do about monkeys than we do about starfish than we do about dandelions than we do about rocks.

This is because we're as selfish as any other living creature. This has little to do with morals, and everything to do with the survival instinct. As I said at the beginning of this post, you have a concept of the value of human life that is completely subjective. It would be a mistake to expect others to share it, especially when in need or in danger. Therefore, the fact that you use that subjective opinion to say you're a "decent person" is quite amusing to me.

Yes, I based it on sapience, intelligence, sentience, capacity for happiness and suffering, etc. You're also not making a very good case for why religion based morality is such a good alternative considering its terrible historical track record.

I don't want to make a case for religion-based morality. It's quite clear that that's something that modern society doesn't find useful anymore. I'm discussing the fact that so far as people could be made believe into an ineffable divinity, to the point that said divinity was as real in most people's minds as kings and policemen, it was much easier to have people conform to a common set of morals. It made it much easier to distinguish the many "us" from the very few "them" who dared oppose the common belief. Today's society is lacking that one center of gravity, and it shows.

Does a hammer have consideration for the value of human life? Does math? Does the Hubble Telescope? Science is, in and of itself, a tool. Those who wield it for good or evil are the ones who should be judged. Your assessment of the cause of human suffering is completely off. We didn't only come to the enlightened position that human life is good after World Wars. The debate about the value of life is a common, and well documented debate throughout history.

The value of human life is just one facet of the debate here, so maybe we should not discuss it any longer than it needs to.

The question here is: is the existence of a divinity necessary to have a positive moral framework? No, it isn't. The postulate of an ineffable divinity was just the easy way out for the elites to impose a moral framework on the masses in the age of ignorance and superstition. I can't change your mind of that. If Christianity hadn't become politically useful at one point during the history of the Roman Empire, maybe it would never have become the cultural basis of western societies for centuries.

My argument here is, it's much harder to establish a "positive" moral framework when no person that could try to do that can reasonably assume the stature of a god in the eyes of their followers. You can create a cult, but you can't create a new Christianity or a new Islam just as easily. There's too much knowledge, too many interconnected cultures, and too many different perspectives on human life and human activity to do that now. No single "prophet" can have that kind of influence on so many people, and for that long, anymore. Therefore, it's basically impossible to achieve widespread adoption of a single moral framework.

Also, you must surely realize that what you consider "positive" isn't necessarily what most people see as positive. I'd wager it's far from it. Haven't you seen the slate of articles from mainstream media, trying to turn what you'd probably consider the pillars of a positive moral framework into surefire signs of toxic white supremacist culture? I consider myself a decent person because I believe, among other things, in the importance of good grammar and of being on time. Now some people are trying to argue that I'm racist for believing in that, and a decent person surely wouldn't be racist, soooooo...


Looking back to your OP, I've noticed something there:

A sense of right and wrong is something that most humans have even as toddlers, before any of them can even be capable of understanding what God is. Therefore, even a belief in a god or gods is not necessary for the foundation of morality. God's word is static and absolute, so why are there so many denominations of the same religion with their own takes on what is and isn't moral? Why is it that over time, our sense of morality has changed (e.g. slavery, women's rights, war, genocide, eating habits, animal husbandry, etc) whereas the instructions from God have not? That indicates to me that the main driver of what's moral is culture, not theology.

A toddler would basically kill you over ice cream if he or she could. There's a reason they're weak. Adults are expected to put some sense and experience into them before they can become fully-grown sociopaths who'll kill anybody over ice cream.

About the second bolded sentence, well, let me quote you again from your previous post:

What does that tell you about the authority of divine morality if it changes like that at the whims of mortals?

The instructions from God have changed constantly over time, and you've admitted that yourself. I'm afraid this makes your premise a bit shaky, even if it's pretty clear what you want to discuss in this thread.

 

[Bogey]

Either I don't understand the premise, or it's a very nonsensical notion. Why, even theoretically speaking, would religion be some sort of premise for moral? Where exactly is the connection between those two?

The main interpretation I can come up with is that you're assuming people are displaying moral standards because religion tells them to. Which is a nicer way of saying 'they believe they'll go to hell, if being immoral'.

But that is not really a great moral framework. If you're only behaving nicely because you fear punishment otherwise, then are you really a good person in the first place?
And either way, religion in that context would still not be required. The threat of a non-religious institution (aka, the police/order of law) punishing you for immoral behaviour is pretty much the same thing.

 

[Mohonky]

You don't need a God, it's a basic survival mechanism. Humans and many other animals have a very low chance of survival when isolated; in numbers they have a much better chance of survival and potentially finding another to mate with. Someone who is counter productive to the groups benefit is useless and will be quickly ostracised, a punishment that might as well be a death sentence.

We also have a hardwired reactions to things like facial expressions; we instinctively recognise fear, compassion, happiness, anger etc. It's hardwired into our brain to produce a physiological and psychological response that either repulses or encourages behaviours.

Even animals do this. Predatory animals don't just roll up and start eating one another outside of sheer desperation, the need to remain a part of the pack is life or death. We've developed more complex societies and relationships but it all comes back to the same basic needs.

 

[Soodanim]

Nope don't agree at all OP and this a massive blind spot and source of ignorance for a lot of atheists today.

Modern day secular moral values or "liberalism" as it's called have their inception from Enlightenment thinker, chief of all John Locke. When you look at the basis of Locke, his peers and his disciples ideas they are fundamentally based on the idea that these moral values and rights were given to humans by God. The idea is that as God is our creator we are his property God endows us with these absolute rights. It's literally written in the US declaration of independence

"all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Another important element to remember is the anchorage with God allows these rights to be considered self-evident, again this is also mentioned in the US declaration of independence

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident"

What philosophical thinkers like John Locke, the US Founding Fathers and their all knew was that they only to logically arrive at absolute objective morality was to inseparably anchor them with God. From an atheistic perspective it's impossible to arrive at objective morality and basically every atheistic scholar concedes this. This is why John Locke detested atheists, as he understood that logically any moral system they'd adhere to would be entirely subjective and as such no better or no worse than any other moral system. From an atheistic perspective it's impossible to prove objectively why rape is wrong, a moral system that condones rape and one that condemns it are equal. Richard Dawkins for example believes the belief that rape is arbitrary.

What people don't understand is John Locke, the US Founding Fathers etc.. theory of liberalism/morality/rights have been in place in the modern world for over 300 years. And that's not even considering that their theory was based on the Christian theory of morality based on the soul which it's self was in place for ~1600 years prior to that. Which it's self predated is predated by religious morality that literally goes back to the start of human civilisation. Which even further still goes back to pre-civilised man as see evidence of a deep reverence for God and religion for tens of thousands of years at least, probably since human inception.

What atheists erroneously do is that they believe today with all the ideas they already have about morality they can be the foundation for a moral society without God. Trouble is we only arrived at those idea because of the belief in God. It doesn't work. It's like building a house on top of a 2000 ft multistory sky scraper and saying you didn't need the ground.

What this post does is:

• Suggests that an atheist view cannot have an objective opinion on what is right or wrong
  • I did that in post #2 of this thread, so not that impossible
• Suggests that God is the reason people are good
• Mis-quotes someone from the "enemy" side to prove a point

Religions, over the course of millennia, became a refined conduit through which whichever chosen set of values, beliefs and the resulting laws were dispersed to masses. This entire thread is about that, essentially. To reframe the question of the OP: "Do societies need forms of mass control to align the people?" That's a much less divisive argument in the sense that you cut through the endless back and forth of theist vs atheist and gets down to the crux of the matter.

The post treats religion as an extension of one God (or some mix of a/some gods that created all religions, it's unclear), rather than an extension of man who created all religions. It uses this view to assert that religion is therefore a precursor to all developed society, but I would disagree and say that it is merely a result of human imagination + the need for answers that became a tool (one of many) with which societies were developed. If it's about belief in god throughout history, why have values changed so much? Could it be that it's because it's all written by humans who wanted to convey their value system to move their society in a particular direction? It could easily have started as wondering about the mysterious sun, personifying it, things happening, and early man not knowing that correlation does not imply causation and running with the patterns because they didn't know any better.

I looked up that Richard Dawkins point, and I think the point has been massively misunderstood and cherry picked as people often do in this sort of discussion. Richard Dawkins does not believe that "Rape is arbitrary" based on what I could find. When asked if humans evolving to consider rape bad is as arbitrary as evolving 5 fingers instead of 6 and he agreed, he is right - biologically speaking, which is the perspective that Dawkins speaks from as it's what he does. We could have evolved to not have the capacity to feel that way, and we could have evolved with 6 fingers. As a species, it wouldn't have stopped survival to have either of those. Remember that evolution by way of natural selection is simply "Survival of the good enough to survive". It's irrelevant to the discussion anyway, because the fact of the matter is we are this way. I predict a response saying "An atheist could start a society where rape is okay", which is true. A religious person could also do that. A non-religious or a religious person could also start a society where it's not okay.

In terms of society, religion is nothing more than marketing.

 

[Blade2.0]

I have a problem with people saying the morals given to them by a god are objective. Wouldn't they still be subjective? The subject in question is the diety.

 

[Ornlu]

I have a problem with people saying the morals given to them by a god are objective. Wouldn't they still be subjective? The subject in question is the diety.

That is entirely correct. But, if the deity is your creator, then you would be beholden to their wishes or standards.

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

I appreciate yours as well. Anybody who can ask detailed questions and work toward backing them up with thought is always worth talking to.

I don't think we'll come around to each other's thinking on this topic, as I think we look at cause and effect a little differently, but I always appreciate a good thought exercise thread like this one.

 

[Blade2.0]

That is entirely correct. But, if the deity is your creator, then you would be beholden to their wishes or standards.

Still isn't objective though.
Especially since this deity purports to have given us free will. Our own morality doesn't have to agree with his rules. It's still as subjective as any other sentient being's moral compass.

 

[Ornlu]

Still isn't objective though.
Especially since this deity purports to have given us free will. Our own morality doesn't have to agree with his rules. It's still as subjective as any other sentient being's moral compass.

Sure! If we're talking a Pantheon style creation narrative, then the God or Gods would behave according to their own whims. With your reference to free will and Him, I'm assuming you're talking about the Abrahamic God, though, who lays out what you need to do to hang out with God after death.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

What this post does is:
Suggests that an atheist view cannot have an objective opinion on what is right or wrong

Yes, that's exactly right. Atheists can have subjective opinions/frameworks/systems etc.. of morality but they can never be objectively true.

I did that in post #2 of this thread, so not that impossible

Treat otherwise how you would like to be treated?

Eh?????? How is that objectively true? Do you actually know what the term "objective" means?

Suggests that God is the reason people are good

Unless you can go back in time and convince humans at their very inception that God does not exist and prevent them from forming cultures, beliefs systems, laws, societies etc.. with morality being tied to God then you have no way literally of proving this false. You haven't even suggested an objective framework for morality to use in the world TODAY, which is far simpler than proving what atheistic anchorage for morality humans had many ten of thousands of years ago.

Mis-quotes someone from the "enemy" side to prove a point

I quoted Dawkins perfectly accurate.

Religions, over the course of millennia, became a refined conduit through which whichever chosen set of values, beliefs and the resulting laws were dispersed to masses. This entire thread is about that, essentially. To reframe the question of the OP: "Do societies need forms of mass control to align the people?" That's a much less divisive argument in the sense that you cut through the endless back and forth of theist vs atheist and gets down to the crux of the matter.

The fact you re-framed the question in the way you did proves you literally don't understand what's being argued here. Stalin/the USSR, Mao/CCP etc.. are examples of atheistic individuals/powers managing to successful mass control a society. You hypothetically can control a society by sheer force. But you can not LOGICALLY make an argument for why their forms of morality were objectively true. If I hold a gun to you head and say that you need to believe 1+1=3 does that mean it's true?

"Control" has nothing to do with logic.

Can a society at the inception of humanity/in it's early be embers be logically developed morally in a positive manner using an atheistic paradigm? That the question that's essentially being asked here.

The post treats religion as an extension of one God (or some mix of a/some gods that created all religions, it's unclear), rather than an extension of man who created all religions. It uses this view to assert that religion is therefore a precursor to all developed society, but I would disagree and say that it is merely a result of human imagination + the need for answers that became a tool (one of many) with which societies were developed. If it's about belief in god throughout history, why have values changed so much? Could it be that it's because it's all written by humans who wanted to convey their value system to move their society in a particular direction? It could easily have started as wondering about the mysterious sun, personifying it, things happening, and early man not knowing that correlation does not imply causation and running with the patterns because they didn't know any better.

You're not getting the point at all. A discussion about why moral system A with God as it's anchor and moral system B with God as it's anchor differ is an entirely different discussion to why both moral system A and moral system B both have their anchors in God. The point is not about which religious moral system is right, or why we have differing religious system (within the theology of every major religion their are clear explanations for this phenomena anyway) that is an entirely different discussion as I stated. The point is why these moral systems have all grounded themselves in God. It's because logical that is the only way to arrive at objective morality.

If tomorrow I started a brand new religion and said that God had told me that rape was good that does not mean that my religion is OBJECTIVELY TRUE but my moral framework is logically grounded in objective morality. IF you chose to believe in my religion you can successful make the logical argument as to why it's morals are objective. You can not do that with atheism, you can not chose to be an atheist and make a logical argument as to why your moral beliefs are objectively true. This is crucial point that atheists miss all the time. In an argument about whether a religions morals are objective or not they instead conflate it with whether the religion itself is objectively true or not. I don't know if it's because some atheist genuinely don't understand the distinction or if it's because they do understand the distinction but can't argue with the logical and instead want divert to a red herring and shift it to theological polemics which is what new atheism seems to be about these days.

Just to give you a simple example to highlight this vital nuanced distinction. A Hindu does not believe that a Muslims religion is objectively true, they believe it is made up. And a Muslim does not believe that a Hindu's religion is true, they believe the Hindu's religion is made up. But on a logical and philosophical level they both agree that each others beliefs are grounded within objective morality. You do not need to believe in a system to see that it is logically consistent with objectivity.

I looked up that Richard Dawkins point, and I think the point has been massively misunderstood and cherry picked as people often do in this sort of discussion. Richard Dawkins does not believe that "Rape is arbitrary" based on what I could find. When asked if humans evolving to consider rape bad is as arbitrary as evolving 5 fingers instead of 6 and he agreed, he is right - biologically speaking, which is the perspective that Dawkins speaks from as it's what he does. We could have evolved to not have the capacity to feel that way, and we could have evolved with 6 fingers. As a species, it wouldn't have stopped survival to have either of those. Remember that evolution by way of natural selection is simply "Survival of the good enough to survive". It's irrelevant to the discussion anyway, because the fact of the matter is we are this way.

You do realise that your explanation of what Richard Dawkins said and my quotation are exactly the same. You've literally just explained that Richard Dawkins said rape being wrong is arbitrary. You said I "massively misunderstood and cherry picked" and "Mis-quoted" him but then never once highlighted where I did that in the slightest and in your explanation of what Dawkins said you agreed with what I quoted.

I predict a response saying "An atheist could start a society where rape is okay", which is true. A religious person could also do that. A non-religious or a religious person could also start a society where it's not okay.

This defensively insecure "prediction" once again proves you do not understand in the slightest what type of logical is being discussed here. The argument is not about the individual morals themselves, it's about the framework they reside in within.

A Jew says it's objectively morally wrong to eat pork. You disagree. Each are asked to explain why their beliefs are objectively true.

A Jew can say "we'll God created morality and when he created morality he made eating pork morally wrong". This is LOGICALLY OBJECTIVELY MORALITY. You don't need to be a Jew you see this.

Now how do you or any other atheist explain why eating pork is not objectively morally wrong?

Also you've seen above I already coincidentally posited a hypothetical scenario where a religious person starts a religion where rape is Okay.

In terms of society, religion is nothing more than marketing.

Given that you don't understand the logical arguments being made here it's not surprising you saying something neck-beard like this.

 

[Soodanim]

Yes, that's exactly right. Atheists can have subjective opinions/frameworks/systems etc.. of morality but they can never be objectively true.



Treat otherwise how you would like to be treated?

Eh?????? How is that objectively true? Do you actually know what the term "objective" means?



Unless you can go back in time and convince humans at their very inception that God does not exist and prevent them from forming cultures, beliefs systems, laws, societies etc.. with morality being tied to God then you have no way literally of proving this false. You haven't even suggested an objective framework for morality to use in the world TODAY, which is far simpler than proving what atheistic anchorage for morality humans had many ten of thousands of years ago.


I quoted Dawkins perfectly accurate.


The fact you re-framed the question in the way you did proves you literally don't understand what's being argued here. Stalin/the USSR, Mao/CCP etc.. are examples of atheistic individuals/powers managing to successful mass control a society. You hypothetically can control a society by sheer force. But you can not LOGICALLY make an argument for why their forms of morality were objectively true. If I hold a gun to you head and say that you need to believe 1+1=3 does that mean it's true?

"Control" has nothing to do with logic.

Can a society at the inception of humanity/in it's early be embers be logically developed morally in a positive manner using an atheistic paradigm? That the question that's essentially being asked here.



You're not getting the point at all. A discussion about why moral system A with God as it's anchor and moral system B with God as it's anchor differ is an entirely different discussion to why both moral system A and moral system B both have their anchors in God. The point is not about which religious moral system is right, or why we have differing religious system (within the theology of every major religion their are clear explanations for this phenomena anyway) that is an entirely different discussion as I stated. The point is why these moral systems have all grounded themselves in God. It's because logical that is the only way to arrive at objective morality.

If tomorrow I started a brand new religion and said that God had told me that rape was good that does not mean that my religion is OBJECTIVELY TRUE but my moral framework is logically grounded in objective morality. IF you chose to believe in my religion you can successful make the logical argument as to why it's morals are objective. You can not do that with atheism, you can not chose to be an atheist and make a logical argument as to why your moral beliefs are objectively true. This is crucial point that atheists miss all the time. In an argument about whether a religions morals are objective or not they instead conflate it with whether the religion itself is objectively true or not. I don't know if it's because some atheist genuinely don't understand the distinction or if it's because they do understand the distinction but can't argue with the logical and instead want divert to a red herring and shift it to theological polemics which is what new atheism seems to be about these days.

Just to give you a simple example to highlight this vital nuanced distinction. A Hindu does not believe that a Muslims religion is objectively true, they believe it is made up. And a Muslim does not believe that a Hindu's religion is true, they believe the Hindu's religion is made up. But on a logical and philosophical level they both agree that each others beliefs are grounded within objective morality. You do not need to believe in a system to see that it is logically consistent with objectivity.


You do realise that your explanation of what Richard Dawkins said and my quotation are exactly the same. You've literally just explained that Richard Dawkins said rape being wrong is arbitrary. You said I "massively misunderstood and cherry picked" and "Mis-quoted" him but then never once highlighted where I did that in the slightest and in your explanation of what Dawkins said you agreed with what I quoted.


This defensively insecure "prediction" once again proves you do not understand in the slightest what type of logical is being discussed here. The argument is not about the individual morals themselves, it's about the framework they reside in within.

A Jew says it's objectively morally wrong to eat pork. You disagree. Each are asked to explain why their beliefs are objectively true.

A Jew can say "we'll God created morality and when he created morality he made eating pork morally wrong". This is LOGICALLY OBJECTIVELY MORALITY. You don't need to be a Jew you see this.

Now how do you or any other atheist explain why eating pork is not objectively morally wrong?

Also you've seen above I already coincidentally posited a hypothetical scenario where a religious person starts a religion where rape is Okay.


Given that you don't understand the logical arguments being made here it's not surprising you saying something neck-beard like this.

Nothing about any of what you said is objective other than it's objectively true that groups of people were exposed to the same subjective teachings, which seems to be the crux of the entire point if you take away all the mythology. You say people not wanting to be harmed or wronged is not objective, but it's the most basic truth you can have in a society. Societies formed when humans realised they work better in groups, and wronging people in a group harms the group. To pretend it's not possible to base a society on that simple principle because Mao was bad might be okay for you, but I'm not buying it. You've claimed to understand Dawkins' quote but it was a misquote (you said "Rape is arbitrary", which was not what was said unless we looked at difference sources) and you've used a comment on evolution in something unrelated which means you either don't understand it or you're intentionally misusing it.

No matter how complex you try and make your argument sound, this is just another "Do you have faith in the unfalsifiable or not", because what you see as the divine gift of a moral compass given by god to man I dismiss as fairytales. Strip away the fiction and you're left with everything you're telling me is inferior. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing accusing the other sheep of being wolves, and I've got nothing to gain by continuing to engage. Especially as what you dismissed as "Defensively insecure" was a response to people not being able to follow a point, which is exactly what you did anyway. I should have known better than to post again when I said all I needed to say on the subject of the thread in post #2 and the resulting replies.

 

[asustitan]

Morals mostly are from life experience. It is simple.

If I steal someones food, and they punch me = Stealing is a bad experience.

 

[Rentahamster]

Given that you don't understand the logical arguments being made here it's not surprising you saying something neck-beard like this.

Please try to make your case without resorting to insults. Thanks.

 

[Blade2.0]

Sure! If we're talking a Pantheon style creation narrative, then the God or Gods would behave according to their own whims. With your reference to free will and Him, I'm assuming you're talking about the Abrahamic God, though, who lays out what you need to do to hang out with God after death.

but his rules are still subjective. not objective

 

[Dr Kaneda]

Please try to make your case without resorting to insults. Thanks.

I'm not insulting him, I'm insulting the statement made. I'm not upset in the slightest either. Whenever I see fedora tipping comments I'm going to call them out.

 

[Ornlu]

Morals mostly are from life experience. It is simple.

If I steal someones food, and they punch me = Stealing is a bad experience.

So if you cast your vote at the ballot box, and you get your teeth knocked out = voting is a bad experience? Thus voting is immoral?

but his rules are still subjective. not objective

If you live under a reality where the rules are determined via a creator deity, does it really matter? What is your argument?

 

[asustitan]

So if you cast your vote at the ballot box, and you get your teeth knocked out = voting is a bad experience? Thus voting is immoral?

If you live under a reality where the rules are determined via a creator deity, does it really matter? What is your argument?

I'm not sure where you are casting your vote?

It would be a repeating behaviour that would give quite consistent results.

 

[lukilladog]

I don´t know, most likely nobody has had a conversation with a real god ever, to see how he handles this stuff, so we could know how to corroborate the claim. But evidence supports that the human set of morals is an evolving construct (with biological roots) which at some point in the past was articulated, explained, and inculcated using fictional deities. Back in the day humans didn´t have a clear differentiation between reality and fiction. You don´t need to have a belief in god to be a moral person, and you don´t need to be an atheist to wipe your ass with morals.

 

[Ornlu]

I'm not sure where you are casting your vote?

It would be a repeating behaviour that would give quite consistent results.

The Jim Crow South is the easiest example.

 

[BluRayHiDef]

Morality comes about naturally due to the mutual desire of everyone in a community to not be subjected to physical or psychological pain, financial loss
or property loss, other unpleasant experiences.

 

[FireFly]

There's something strange about making moral "truth" contingent on the existence of God.

Suppose there is a universe like our own that turns out not to have been created by a God. (To reject this you have to demonstrate that the existence of the universe logically entails an omniscient creator, and that's going to be tough.)

Now suppose that in this universe I go around murdering people for fun. This is not very nice and contrary to established conventions, but no one can claim that it's morally wrong, since we are supposing that moral truth requires the existence of an omniscient being. Now God appears and tells us that what I am doing is wrong, and it was retrospectively wrong to murder all those people. Of course, I have to agree with him since moral truth has now appeared on the scene and I can use that moral truth to evaluate the justness of past actions.

And then God decides to disappear again and it is not only fine to go back to murdering people, but my previous actions were right all along (or at least not subject to moral criticism). Until God appears again...

 

[moose fatcat]

No, we don't "need" God to define our morality. This was one of Nietzsche's biggest points and this is what he meant with "God is dead."

The problem is that religion and spirituality have become seen as inseparable, and the "new age" spirituality is so associated with a type of crunchy granola identity that we get mixed up on what's happening and why.

God is a framework to explain existence in ways we don't understand. It's a way to impose order on chaos. And it can work -- I think you can essentially "find-replace" any religious text with "God" and replace it with capital-l "Life" and everything still has the same meaning. To respect and worship God means to respect and worship Life itself. In other words, "do unto others as you would yourself" and extending that beyond just people in your immediate circle of friends/family/etc.

Western / Enlightenment society has skewed our perception on it more with the idea of the "individual" and what that means; essentially the origin of "identity politics" is the legacy of the Enlightenment.

Humans know, without being told, that it feels better to be seen, validated, respected by other humans, especially peers. Intrinsically we are aware that our actual super power as Humans is in our ability to share and learn from each other. It's not even that we're "tribal" in my opinion, it's just that we are "social creatures" and we're operating in a system consciously designed to manifest anti-social thinking. This is why "politics" is pejorative; the idea of talking to another person with the goal of identifying a solution to a common problem is disgusting to us. We'd much rather simply be told what to do, and then be told that we did it well.

It's no accident that America, based on Christian concepts of God, openly welcomes authoritarianism. Who is the ultimate authority on anything? God, of course, and he's not making decisions democratically. Consider how little "democracy" is in your own life, at work, school, whatever. We want to be told what to do (commandments) and then told we did it well (God loves you).

The basic morality of society ought to be -- "you know more than I do in x, and I know more than you do in y, and together, we are stronger." This is merely applying the Golden Rule principle to society. But in our lived reality, it's becomes "I know more than you do about y, therefore I am superior."

This is also why you never see Western/Americans voluntarily offer "I was wrong, here's what I learned." We're culturally conditioned to view "wrong" as being "morally inferior" when really it's just "adapting." It's the genius of American propaganda. What a brilliant way to self-enforce and perpetuate ignorance than to convince everybody they're always right because they're so special.

 

[Rentahamster]

After a nice relaxing intermission, let's revisit this thread, shall we? I see the poll results have changed further, with "YES" breaking the 60% mark.

I'm not sure what your stance is OP...
Every society has some form of ideology to keep it together. I.e. every society has a de facto God. Some claim that The Law is God, some others - CCP is God and so on.
There is no other example.

My stance is pretty clear. It's the title of the thread.

Yes, every society has some form of ideology/code/government/whatever to organize around. You can't really call it a de facto god though, because "god" has a specific definition, and it does no good to call something "god" when it has a perfectly good original and more descriptive label. Some derive their moral code from God, and call it "Law", yes. Some get it from an authoritarian government, yes. That doesn't really address my point - that you can get a good moral system out without a god.

 

[Rentahamster]

As for morality. Morality comes from god regardless if he is real or not. God is embodiment of moralities people use daily.

Circular argument. You're just saying it's so without giving any good reasons why. I guess it doesn't matter though, because you're banned.

 

[Rentahamster]

Nope don't agree at all OP and this a massive blind spot and source of ignorance for a lot of atheists today.

Modern day secular moral values or "liberalism" as it's called have their inception from Enlightenment thinker, chief of all John Locke. When you look at the basis of Locke, his peers and his disciples ideas they are fundamentally based on the idea that these moral values and rights were given to humans by God. The idea is that as God is our creator we are his property God endows us with these absolute rights. It's literally written in the US declaration of independence

"all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Another important element to remember is the anchorage with God allows these rights to be considered self-evident, again this is also mentioned in the US declaration of independence

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident"

What philosophical thinkers like John Locke, the US Founding Fathers and their all knew was that they only to logically arrive at absolute objective morality was to inseparably anchor them with God.

Or that they knew at the time that appealing to the only culturally recognized authority higher than King George would be a more persuasive argument than appealing to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on their own merits.

From an atheistic perspective it's impossible to arrive at objective morality and basically every atheistic scholar concedes this.

I demonstrated earlier that you can. It's possible. It's in the OP.

From an atheistic perspective it's impossible to prove objectively why rape is wrong,

That's not correct. It's very easy. You do it like this:

Rape is wrong because it violates the liberty of another free human being and reduces their happiness and quality of life, values which we agree should be upheld in an ideal society.

That wasn't so hard.

a moral system that condones rape and one that condemns it are equal.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but this is wrong too. A moral system that condemns rape is, generally speaking, superior to a moral system that condones it.

Richard Dawkins for example believes the belief that rape is arbitrary.

Citation needed.

What people don't understand is John Locke, the US Founding Fathers etc.. theory of liberalism/morality/rights have been in place in the modern world for over 300 years. And that's not even considering that their theory was based on the Christian theory of morality based on the soul which it's self was in place for ~1600 years prior to that. Which it's self predated is predated by religious morality that literally goes back to the start of human civilisation. Which even further still goes back to pre-civilised man as see evidence of a deep reverence for God and religion for tens of thousands of years at least, probably since human inception.

So what? That is irrelevant to the thesis of this thread, which is that it is possible to make a theory of morality without invoking a god.

What atheists erroneously do is that they believe today with all the ideas they already have about morality they can be the foundation for a moral society without God. Trouble is we only arrived at those idea because of the belief in God. It doesn't work. It's like building a house on top of a 2000 ft multistory sky scraper and saying you didn't need the ground.

Flawed analogy as well as a flawed premise. You can't say that we only arrived at those ideas because of the belief in God because not all societies were influenced by God ("capital G" God), especially the ones that came before 1000 BC.

What are these foundations of Western civilization, anyway? Could it be the concepts of fraternity, democracy, liberalism, and free thought? Concepts that were first developed among the philosophers and debaters of Ancient Greece, which has very little to do with God?

And what of the morality of God, anyway? Are you so sure that whatever God condones is objectively good? As I've pointed out before in this thread, God condones slavery. It's in the Bible. I could also point out areas where He's cool with rape, too. These are things that we've decided are morally wrong. So who's right? Is God right? Are we right? Did God change his mind? But isn't God perfect and unchanging and all powerful? Did God make an exception for the times? But is that really the most optimally moral path to take?

 

[Keihart]

Even from a practical perspective, even if it could help i wouldn't say it's necessary. I mean, look at japan, no? they don't believe in gods as we understand it, never had and they are somewhat functional and good at not going in rampages of crime or anything. Law it's pretty brutal tho and customs are really ingrained in everyone, maybe those are more influential than the invisible boogie man.

This thread reminded me of this scene, great show.

 

[Rentahamster]

Even from a practical perspective, even if it could help i wouldn't say it's necessary. I mean, look at japan, no? they don't believe in gods as we understand it, never had and they are somewhat functional and good at not going in rampages of crime or anything. Law it's pretty brutal tho and customs are really ingrained in everyone, maybe those are more influential than the invisible boogie man.

Relevant example. It's also interesting to point out that the one time in history when Japan went off the rails is when they turned their head of state into an actual god. Coincidence? Maybe.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

it requires a God. but i'm not defining a God as "a deity" more or less the idea that objective Good exists and objective Evil exists. this is an idea shared by all religions regardless of their cosmologies or lineup of deities. you have to think there is REAL GOOD vs REAL EVIL in the universe. moral relativism and nihilism are cowardly incoherent ideologies and would only promote evil materialistic dominance.

it's simply impossible to establish a morality without some kind of higher authority. call it "God". call it "karma". call it "the laws of the universe". call it whatever you want, but you need something. random particles bouncing around doesn't produce meaning.

 

[Keihart]

Relevant example. It's also interesting to point out that the one time in history when Japan went off the rails is when they turned their head of state into an actual god. Coincidence? Maybe.

don't get me wrong tho, i do think that gods can help making a society more functional when other structures are missing, it's a good way to conserve useful knowledge without need everyone to understand it and even keep some of the existential dread at bay, but there are better alternatives so i think it's just not essential but a very useful tool that humans have used because it somehow works even if in limited ways.

 

[Rentahamster]

don't get me wrong tho, i do think that gods can help making a society more functional when other structures are missing, it's a good way to conserve useful knowledge without need everyone to understand it and even keep some of the existential dread at bay, but there are better alternatives so i think it's just not essential but a very useful tool that humans have used because it somehow works even if in limited ways.

True, the existence of a god, or the acceptance of the concept of a god is a historically precedented path to a framework of morality. But it's not the only way. And it's not a necessary ingredient. Which is the thesis.

 

[psorcerer]

Yes, every society has some form of ideology/code/government/whatever to organize around. You can't really call it a de facto god though, because "god" has a specific definition, and it does no good to call something "god" when it has a perfectly good original and more descriptive label. Some derive their moral code from God, and call it "Law", yes. Some get it from an authoritarian government, yes. That doesn't really address my point - that you can get a good moral system out without a god.

What's your definition of a God is then?
I can start with my definition: it's a moral system or ideology that cannot be altered by humans. Ultimate law.

 

[Rentahamster]

it requires a God. but i'm not defining a God as "a deity" more or less the idea that objective Good exists and objective Evil exists.

Changing the definition of an established word/concept is not good debate etiquette. A better way to express this thought would be:

"Creating a positive moral framework for society requires the idea that objective Good exists and objective Evil exists"

this is an idea shared by all religions regardless of their cosmologies or lineup of deities.

Nope. Objective good and evil as a manifestation of God aren't in all religions. Not all religions have deities, either. See this wiki for examples:

Good and evil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

you have to think there is REAL GOOD vs REAL EVIL in the universe.

Why? Based on what reasoning? Who's authority? You don't "have" to do anything of the sort.

moral relativism and nihilism are cowardly incoherent ideologies

Yup. It's a good thing that's not what I'm arguing for.

it's simply impossible to establish a morality without some kind of higher authority

Wrong. I did it in the OP, and many times throughout this thread.

call it "God". call it "karma". call it "the laws of the universe". call it whatever you want,

You're doing that thing again where you assign arbitrary definitions to established concepts. It's not good debate.

but you need something. random particles bouncing around doesn't produce meaning.

Of course you need something. I proposed that you need a shared understanding of values that contribute to a positive society and a shared agreement to work towards maximizing those values. That is how you both establish and measure the performance of your framework.

random particles bouncing around doesn't produce meaning.

This is more of a problem with how you personally derive meaning, rather than a universal rule.

 

[FreedomOfSpeech]

What's interesting about people is that apparently it's not the default setting to: be kind to eachother. They need to be instructed to be nice. Obviously some are going to resist this limitation on their biology.

Regarding religion, I think its power is in enforcing monogamy. Getting a semi-guaranteed mate (and therefore offspring) pacifies the incels.

Remove this structure, women flock to alphas, incel numbers grow. Incels get time to brood about how to shoot as many as they can. Or fly planes in buildings or go out with a car bomb. You know muslims are told they get virgins in the afterlife, for a reason.

I wish more people understood what it means for polygamy to exist.

But in the end we can all rest assured that biology will triumph.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Morality comes about naturally due to the mutual desire of everyone in a community to not be subjected to physical or psychological pain, financial loss
or property loss, other unpleasant experiences.

Milgram experiment refutes this. People will happily inflict pain on others if they are themselves comfortable. People will (maybe not-so-happily) inflict pain on a total stranger if inflicting pain means they will be able to avoid pain / enjoy pleasure. People will definitely inflict pain if they feel they have been wronged. Look around. Vengeance is alive and well.

"Mutual desire" can only be imposed upon a stable culture for several generations before it takes. The other option is to rally everyone in the face of an existential threat.

People do not naturally "get along".

People naturally compete.

Society is the artifice that prevents a group of humans from competing themselves into the ground. If getting along was easier and more beneficial, human tribes would do it more often. At best, we stay loyal to relatives, but that's about it.

My stance is pretty clear. It's the title of the thread.

You've been claiming "it's pretty clear" for seven pages in response to numerous posters. Maybe it is evidence that no, you were not at all clear in your stance. It does not help that you regularly flipped between different terms and different argument tactics (at one point, demanding that people prove abrahamic law was "good") when people do not agree with you.

An intermission? Let's call it what it is: a chance for people to forget how poorly the thread has gone thus far. You have yet to explain how a group of humans would arrive at higher moral ideals without also concluding that a metaphysical being was watching over their behavior. You say it's plausible, and occasionally you'll bring up Japan again (what about the Ancient Greeks? Oh, oh that's right), but that's where the thread has spun its tires for the last several pages.

Humans are axiomatic. They will choose a workable framework before verifying its factuality (or not bothering to verify it at all, depending on how effective it is.) Nothing is inherently wrong with this, as it is our brain's nature to simplify, distill, summarize, etc but it also means that humans are naturally going to come to an axiomatic conclusion about the world around them (a god lifts the fire-ball through the sky) instead of collecting observations and then coming to a conclusion.

Primitive human tribes that live on the edge of extinction are not collecting observations and then coming to a conclusion in most cases. Their survival raises the value of correct axioms and discourages time wasted on observation and experimentation. These are just hobbies to them, luxuries. They need to know how to make sure the sky-god keeps moving the run across the sky, so they make sure not to anger the sky god with deviant behavior in the tribe. This pattern appears everywhere around the world, all through history, in independent tribes that have no connection to one another.

The existence of the "god" in question is a separate debate, but it appears to me that when faced with survival and no information about the nature of the world, a human mind uses a "god" as an ideological / psychological tool to figure out what behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not. When humans form a group, this desire to use a "god" tool is amplified instead of diminished because it allows the entire group to benefit from the axioms.

 

[Ornlu]

Milgram experiment refutes this. People will happily inflict pain on others if they are themselves comfortable. People will (maybe not-so-happily) inflict pain on a total stranger if inflicting pain means they will be able to avoid pain / enjoy pleasure.

"Mutual desire" can only be imposed upon a stable culture for several generations before it takes. The other option is to rally everyone in the face of an existential threat.

People do not naturally "get along".

People naturally compete.

Society is the artifice that prevents a group of humans from competing themselves into the ground. If getting along was easier and more beneficial, human tribes would do it more often. At best, we stay loyal to relatives, but that's about it.

This is 100% true. There's a very obvious reason why most early human cultures were tribal, and led by some version of a "Chief". Having a singular big scary fucker around to rein in people's less desirable tendencies and impose his order is going to result in a tribe that survives more often than a tribe where people can be as petty as they want to be, and can fuck off all day, regardless of the harm done to the tribe as a whole.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

Or that they knew at the time that appealing to the only culturally recognized authority higher than King George would be a more persuasive argument than appealing to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on their own merits.

The fact you made this statements means that It's blindingly obvious you haven't read the theological/philosophical of the likes of the founding fathers nor have you read on other beliefs of "rights/morality" such as the Greek to whom the concept of "individual rights" was completely alien.

I demonstrated earlier that you can. It's possible. It's in the OP.


That's not correct. It's very easy. You do it like this:

Rape is wrong because it violates the liberty of another free human being and reduces their happiness and quality of life, values which we agree should be upheld in an ideal society.

That wasn't so hard.

I'm beginning to see a pattern whereby far too many people in this discussion actually do not even understand what the world "objective" even means at all. What you've posited here is not "objective" morality, it's your own subjective view of morality. To demonstrate this clearly I'll offer a framework of morality in rebuttal to yours:

I believe in a moral framework whereby rape is acceptable because it increases my happiness and my quality of life, and that's the most important thing. I believe that any "distress" that may have been caused to the other party is irrelevant when contrasted to the amount of joy I experience and is so justifiable, furthermore it's been anthropologically proven that humans still grow and reproduce as a result of stressful situation so from a basic biological principle I've benefited the other party.

Now what we have here is your version of morality and my version of morality. What is the basis for your's being OBJECTIVELY right and mine being OBJECTIVELY wrong? How do you go about proving that?

The reason that religion can point to objective morality is that they point to the simple fact that within their belief system the ultimate creator of morality has told them that these specific moral rules are the "right" moral rules. The thing the created morality, God, would ultimately know which morals are right and which are wrong. Again to be very clear here, the point here is not that you need to agree/believe in this belief system, the point is that this belief system does contain a logical explanation of were they derive their objective morality.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but this is wrong too. A moral system that condemns rape is, generally speaking, superior to a moral system that condones it.

The issue is that you're taking the belief in rape to be wrong as "self evidence" in it's objectivity. What I'm asking is based on what? In the atheistic paradigm what "force" from an empirical point of view made rape "wrong". All you keep doing is saying rape is objectively wrong because rape is objectively wrong. You're not explaining why ever. You're saying we need to be happy but not explaining why that's objectively true or why a rapist attaining their happiness from rape is wrong.

Citation needed.

So what? That is irrelevant to the thesis of this thread, which is that it is possible to make a theory of morality without invoking a god.

It's not irrelevant, and you've proved it in this very post. You hold that rape being objectively wrong is "self evident", this is predicated on the fact you say society has agreed upon this belief. But the society that agreed on this belief did so based on religion. You can't invoke societal agreement as the reason for something being objectively wrong without God when that entire societal belief is formed because of a belief in God.

Flawed analogy as well as a flawed premise. You can't say that we only arrived at those ideas because of the belief in God because not all societies were influenced by God ("capital G" God), especially the ones that came before 1000 BC.

Why are you using this argument again? It's already been refuted numerous times throughout the thread. God, Gods, a supreme force or forces etc.. Whatever name you want to give it every society has had one. And you're also wrong about you point about God pre-1000 BC. Yes societies were polytheistic but even within their pantheon of many God they still ascribed a hierarchy with one of them at the top.

What are these foundations of Western civilization, anyway? Could it be the concepts of fraternity, democracy, liberalism, and free thought? Concepts that were first developed among the philosophers and debaters of Ancient Greece, which has very little to do with God?

Hard lol. Actually read about the Greek thought into morality/rights. As I said before they'd find our concept of individual rights and completely and totally alien. And again, the Greeks did believe in God, Gods, a force etc.. The were not atheists which is what this thread is about.

And what of the morality of God, anyway? Are you so sure that whatever God condones is objectively good? As I've pointed out before in this thread, God condones slavery. It's in the Bible. I could also point out areas where He's cool with rape, too. These are things that we've decided are morally wrong. So who's right? Is God right? Are we right? Did God change his mind? But isn't God perfect and unchanging and all powerful? Did God make an exception for the times? But is that really the most optimally moral path to take?

As I said before the biggest problem in this discussion is that you literally do not under what the term "objective" actually means. I'll give you another little hypothetical example:

God creates morality, prior to this nothing is intrinsically "right" or "wrong". Rape being wrong or right is not a inherent thing until God makes it such. If when God creates morality he makes rape right then rape is right. This is a very simple logical property that I'm explaining here. You can't fathom this because we live in reality whereby God made rape wrong. If we live in a reality whereby God made rape right we'd have no problem with it. Again another simple logical statement.

What is also becoming clear in this discussion is that you don't have a solid enough grounding in logic. You can't separate your subjective beliefs or agreements/disagreements between what is logically consistent and what isn't. As I stated in another post, a Jew and a Hindu do not agree with each other's belief system. Each thinks the other is wrong. But when one says "I believe X is right/wrong because my God(s) said so" then even though they don't agree with that belief they still concede that it's logically consistent.

I'm not a Christian by the way but I'd just like to point out that you points about slavery/rape being condoned in the Bible and thus a contradiction based on our current beliefs isn't theological correct in the slightest. I always find bizarre that after over 2000 years of Christian philosophy and theology atheists think remarks like that are "gotcha" moments that no one has thought to address in 2000 years. This is the the difference between classical atheism and new atheism, new atheism is simply polemics whereas classical atheist could actually debate on logical, philosophical and theological terms.

 

[MHubert]

Rentahamster