Atheism and Moral Values

[Undertoad]

WTF my head just exploded

pie you need to help me clean this up

[Pie]

I'll get out the lysol.
:p

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

It's very easy in my book.

If your actions physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of another or are dishonest or misleading, they are wrong. If they do not, they are not wrong.

End of story.

[Cicero]

There is also the issue of using moral guidelines dictated by a faith, and never putting them in practice. That's why I like the direction of the human nature theory that Zen is suggesting.

Maybe morality should be based more around natural law, cause and effect, and human nature rather than some loose principles stemming from antique books that may not serve in this day and age?

I'm not a christian, but I read my fair share of books on ethics and morality that are aged. When I apply them directly to my daily reality, for the most part they serve, but don't quite cut the mustard. What helps me a lot is remembering human nature, and causes and effects. I am flexible. Yes, I am morally flexible, and tend to take things on a case by case basis.

Example: I don't think it is right to randomly steal from victims.

Example II: It's ok for people to loot and steal during natural disasters especially if it's my family that needs to get water.

None of these decisions were based on god, jesus, buddha, or the antichrist.

Those were decisions I made all by myself because I know human nature. And I add a touch of cause and effect, and voila!!

There were nuns in court that got sentenced to "community service". They balked and turned it down flat. What's good for one, may not be good for the other. Morality and justice often do not go hand and hand. I prefer things on a case by case basis. Everything else just seems a little lazy.

[Pico and ME]

Morality in civilization is nothing more than a matter of hierarchies. Those in the lower hierarchies have less moral standing to those in higher hierarchies.

[Cicero]

Well OJ didn't get the message.

[Pico and ME]

Well it is a constant power struggle.

[Cicero]

I was trying to discuss maybe future possibilities to base moral guidelines around, though really loose. I know how things play out now.....And that's what's with the frustration with it and the need for better ideas.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Pie

This has been addressed many times before. You might want to do some homework before you claim that Nobel! One cogent argument is called Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem, to wit:

Also, see references to quantum mechanics, Rice's Theorem, and many, many popular books.

In another similar thread I've already posted a link to Godel's theorem in it's entirety. I really don't want the Nobel, I was really being sarcastic.

[DanaC]

Maybe morality should be based more around natural law, cause and effect, and human nature rather than some loose principles stemming from antique books that may not serve in this day and age?

I think that's exactly what morality is based on. Religious tenets are based on social/species level needs; they have been processed through human brains, however, so they've been infused with class/gender/race inequalities and irrationalities and personal/class biases. They've been fed through millennia of social and political development, and in some instances moralities have petrified, but at their core they began as simple survival strategies.

Don't kill, don't steal, and even don't loot in times of disaster are rules based in survival at a societal level. At an individual level, looting is just a matter of survival, and concepts of ownership vary wildly through human history; but looting means a breakdown in social order and that is a potential threat to a society's (tribe's/family's) survival.

[Ruminator]

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

Not only possible Flint, but logically necessary. The same would be true for any illusion that someone clings to.
But to make a judgment that the basis of christianity is an illusion is not possible today to be proven. It requires an act of faith to adhere to the belief.

If one believes that the body of religious writings is simply a summary of man's theories of morality, then it isn't necessary to accept the supernatural aspects of religion to continue to use the practical moral constraints as a guideline. Even if they are absorbed indirectly through secular contact with other civilized peoples, and their religious sources are outright rejected.

I agree, if one believes that.

What is the purported connection between religion and morality, anyway? In one interpretation, religion simply employs a supernatural enforcement division to punish people for not following the laws that they themselves thought of to begin with.

Flint, the interpretation you've included has no way of being proven and requires faith to believe it. I find it more logical to believe a primarily literal understanding of the Bible.

The "purported connection" between morality and christianity is that a loving, caring, God who is incapable of anything other than being perfectly loving in His relationship toward us is the final Judge of Everything; guaranteeing an ultimate justice one day toward all of His creation.
In His creation He is the ultimate definition of what is right and wrong. Only a being of perfect love is qualified to judge with zero discrimination. Any being less than perfect love is not qualified to be the judge of others. That alone guarantees true ultimate fairness to each of His creation.
.....................................................................................................

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

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

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

Zen, it sounds like some of it might be. But if it is, it sounds too easily arguable.
Though I agree with your opening statement, it is a bad argument.
But I didn't follow you with this:

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

... sorry.

Fact: once a human dies, their death is permanent and irreversible. Moral consequence: killing humans is a serious matter and should not be done lightly.

This is illogical in itself. It needs a presupposition of a human life being valuable. And that is the question its trying to answer. This is circular reasoning, therefore illogical.

Notice that almost all moral codes ban killing humans, although many then add in some exceptions: war, self defense, judicial execution, etc. but in most cases, killing a properly behaving member of one's group is forbidden. (Human sacrifice is about the only exception I can think of).

Logically the number of occurrances may point to a truth, but do not in themselves establish a truth. The number may well point to a common value that they are all based upon however.
So the question is, where did the common value come from?

Your inclusion of war in your example is interesting... it can readily be used as an example of a despicable aspect of human nature in some circumstances.
I'm thinking not of self-defense, but rather when a greater power desires something from a weaker party from simple greed. Unless there is a recognized value of human life, it can be argued that their desire, or need for it is no greater than mine, so if I can, theres no moral value preventing my taking it and killing them in the process if I so desire.
I'm not understanding how this conclusion can be avoided.

Fact: human children have a long period of dependency on adults. Likewise very old people need care from capable adults, but are worth keeping as a store of cultural lore. Moral consequence: family bonds are important and parents and children have various duties of care to each other. Likewise, to the degree that families are kept together by the sexual pair-bond of the parents, that pair relationship has a special value and is not to be betrayed.

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

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

I resemble that remark.


I don't understand how someone who truly believes in no God can live their life other than in a totally selfish manner. It all has to come back to what works for you. Doesn't it?
....................................................................................................

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

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

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

To believe this, one must presuppose that there is no other possible explanation when there actually are other possibilities that cannot be disproven. The most you can do is propose this as one possibility.

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

Again, this is no more than a statement of a belief, not an actual provable fact any more than its antithesis.
Dana, these seem to require as much belief/ faith as a belief/ faith of any other type.
......................................................................................................

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

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

...but I would say that those physical and chemical reactions (and more importantly, the complex patterns of their interactions - the software running on the nerual hardware) just are "you". That is all there is to being a conscious, thinking, feeling person. So if they are what is determining your behaviour, then you are, in the relevant sense, free.

I like this Zen. It would be true if it did accurately and totally describe our life.

I don't know enough details about it to get involved into you and joe's and Pie's discussion.

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

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

Radar, I agree based upon my value system derived from the Bible, but from what do you get your value of what is a person's "rights'? There must be an absolute something that determines them.
Thats why I started this thread, I want to learn more of it.
......................................................................................................
Cicero, it sounds like you are also flexible on what to use as the absolute for your morals. That doesn't sound too absolute...

Pico is onto something I'm a thinkin'.

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


I need to look into Godel I guess?

Since its hard to get a good "read" on a person and their intentions, I want to make it clear that I will never attack, or belittle anyone in my posts and I apologize if anyone felt this from this post.


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

[DanaC]

Again, this is no more than a statement of a belief, not an actual provable fact any more than its antithesis.
Dana, these seem to require as much belief/ faith as a belief/ faith of any other type.

There's been a good deal of work done in this area of research and study. Given that I am pretty sure in my own mind that there is no God, and given the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the growing body of evidence for genetic predispositions and 'hardwired' systems, i honestly feel no more inclined to hold a place for God in my thinking than I do to hold a place for the tooth fairy. I've seen no convincing arguments for the existence of a creator God; therefore there is no reason for me to factor in his possible existence when i examine a question like this. Because my worldview does not contain a God, arguments which hinge on the necessity of a God don't really weigh much with me.

I am too tired to start digging out the Pinker books, but the evidence for a genetic/born propensity to particular moralities and political persuasions (within each culture's spectrum) is compelling and growing more extensive. In the meantime, the evidence for God's involvement in morality seems to hinge on an inability (or unwillingness) to see us as the biological organisms that we in fact are. What evidence is there that morality requires an agent beyond our humanity to function or exist? I don't mean what philosophical arguments can be posited, i mean what evidence is there? Because there's a whole slew of evidence for the more mechanistic view.

Anybody got that link to TED's talk on political morality? It's very interesting and expresses much of this stuff (though specifically regarding political persuasions) much better than I am able to.

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

Unless? The two are not mutually exclusive. Altruism is fundamentally selfish and morality is society's act of self-preservation.


God did not make us, and he did not make our moralities. We made God/s and we made the moralities variously ascribed to him/her/them. Most likely to explain how the world works and to maintain social stability, amongst other things, codifying sets of behaviours which we'd evolved a predisposition towards.

[richlevy]

I can't say much about Atheism, but I can say that devout religious belief is not a guarantee of moral values.

Cases in point.

Jack Abramoff
Bernard Madoff
John G. Bennett Jr. (New Era Foundation Ponzi Scheme)

Some of the most distasteful people I have ever met have claimed to be devout. I'm not saying that all religious people are. I am saying that religion does not automatically guarantee ethics. This is especially true when dealing with 'outsiders'. Native Americans and African Americans can certainly give a good account of their encounters with some 'devout' individuals.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

Just to clarify my playing-field, I start with a blank slate. So why should Christianity be any more logical (or faith-worthy) than any other set of unprovable postulates?

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

Why the bible?

Originally Posted by Ruminator

The "purported connection" between morality and christianity is that a loving, caring, God who is incapable of anything other than being perfectly loving in His relationship toward us is the final Judge of Everything; guaranteeing an ultimate justice one day toward all of His creation.
In His creation He is the ultimate definition of what is right and wrong. Only a being of perfect love is qualified to judge with zero discrimination. Any being less than perfect love is not qualified to be the judge of others. That alone guarantees true ultimate fairness to each of His creation.

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

Originally Posted by Ruminator

This is illogical in itself. It needs a presupposition of a human life being valuable. And that is the question its trying to answer. This is circular reasoning, therefore illogical.

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

Originally Posted by Ruminator

I don't understand how someone who truly believes in no God can live their life other than in a totally selfish manner. It all has to come back to what works for you. Doesn't it?

And as such, you have no right to judge me. I live an exceedingly moral life, even by your christian standards. I hold myself to a higher standard -- my own.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

To believe this, one must presuppose that there is no other possible explanation when there actually are other possibilities that cannot be disproven. The most you can do is propose this as one possibility.

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

Originally Posted by Ruminator

Radar, I agree based upon my value system derived from the Bible, but from what do you get your value of what is a person's "rights'? There must be an absolute something that determines them.

Not to speak for Radar (he's quite capable of speaking for himself) -- absolutism is unnecessary. All one must do is observe. Look around you. We are hard-wired for the rest of it; evolution over millions of years weeded out those who can't cope with the rest in a fair manner.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

I need to look into Godel I guess?

Not unless you like math.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

Since its hard to get a good "read" on a person and their intentions, I want to make it clear that I will never attack, or belittle anyone in my posts and I apologize if anyone felt this from this post.

I appreciate that.

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

Now, there's the ultimate moral authority!

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

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

I learned it by watching you!