True. Since I am not a scientist, my articulation is not there yet. However, when I read creation arguments made by real, multi-PhD'd scientists, I do find them to be more convincing. We definitely disagree there, and despite what you might think, I have read from both sides. I also know God to be evident not just physically, but spiritually too, which cannot be tested in a lab. If the majority of the world believes in a spiritual reality, does that make us a bunch of dummies? Are people like Ravi Zacharias and R.C.Sproul just dumb for asserting God, though they are brilliant?
I'm not saying that these men are dumb, no. I'm simply saying that their belief is wrong. And I say that because it's not validated or supported with real evidence or scientific studies.
These men could have 30 PHd's each, but it wouldn't save them from their logical fallacies. Each of them is begging the question, putting the cart before the horse, and presupposing their answers. That's simply not the best method for ascertaining truth. It wouldn't fly coming from a Muslim or a Hindu with a PHd and it won't fly coming from a Christian with a PHd. The data is what matters; not the faith.
Their ability to write eloquently, defend themselves in debates, and make clear arguments don't cover up the fact that their total body of work is severely lacking in the evidence department.
Science is judged by its substantiating materials. If they had something other than presuppositional appeals to emotion then their movement would gain more academic footing.
So, if the wrongness of a behavior is only measured in terms of how/if it affects someone else, is there such thing as personal morality? Is it wrong to hate (if that hatred is never acted upon)? -to lust?-to view pornography? What about a "little white lie" that "doesn't hurt anyone"? If it doesn't affect anyone else, is it still wrong?
The short answer is no.
There is such a thing as personal morality in that we each choose a moral code by which to live by. But if each individual human being could live in a vacuum, then there would be no moral standard at all would there? There would be nothing to judge actions against. Nothing else would be affected by our actions so nothing would be "wrong". In isolation, every behavior that isn't directly self destructive would be "good", essentially.
Are those behaviors that you mentioned "wrong"? I don't necessarily think so.
Take the human-in-a-vacuum example. Can a person hate if there is no one to hate? Can a person lust if there is no one to lust after? Can a person lie if there is no one to lie to?
It's from our interaction with other humans that we have developed all of these concepts - It's from our interactions with other humans that we are even aware of the ability to perform these actions. And it's from our interaction with other humans that we judge which behaviors are right and wrong.
If we each make up a standard using our own reasoning as the guideline, it would seem that we would want to set the moral bar pretty low. Then, if we also get to be the judge as to whether or not we upheld that standard, we would also tend to put ourselves in the right as much as possible.
If there is no real, objective moral standard given by someone outside ourselves, can there be real, objective, justice? Should our laws be based upon what is popular at a given time? It would seem that anything, given enough time without God, could be permissible, such as your rape culture example. I think man's reasoning is often faulty and self-serving.
Your first two sentences answer themselves, upon a little more thought.
When completely alone, are you behaviors and thoughts and actions 100% compatible with what you present when in the public square, or do you have a few private things that you don't share with anyone else in the world? If you are 100% consistent with your personal and private life, then good for you. But I would wager that the vast majority of the human population doesn't live this way. Each of us uses our own reasoning as our guideline for reality and each of us judges our actions, and the actions of others, through our own self-bias.
We wouldn't do things if we weren't convinced that we were right, would we?
Our reasoning is faulty and self-serving, you're absolutely right.
And no, there is no real
objective justice in the sense that you are thinking. But we do the best we can in reasoning by testing each other and making up standards by which to judge our thoughts.
The very nature of right and wrong, and even of societal law, is entirely based on the moral framework and values of the culture and society that developed the law.
This is even better expressed in the fact that, as per your own post, History has shown that our laws do change over time and they change based on what is popular at a given time...
Choose a period in history - and then choose a law that was passed during that period. It can be a law that you agree with or a law that you think is flawed. Despite your opinion of the law at any given time, that law is a directly reflection of the popular values and morality of the time period in which it came from. This holds true for all human cultures over all time periods. Just entertain yourself with it as a thought experiment. I've yet to find a law that breaks this rule.
Question: For an atheist, why does it make sense to care about other people? Is it only because caring about others keeps peace and security, which makes me happy and comfortable? You obviously do care about others, but I am wondering how it makes sense in a survival of the fittest world. If caring for others is an evolved trait, does that mean that people who don't care for others are just less evolved? Also, why does an atheist care about the human race progressing, if, in his view, when we die, we just cease to exist and never knew we were here? Should personal pleasure be the goal while we are here, if there is nothing after we die?
You and I are wholly dependent on other people. It's a little selfish, sure. But we care about other people because we need other people. And other people care about us because they need us.
It's really quite simple. Without your parents, how well would you have done making it from new-born to adult? Without your friends, how well would you have coped with hardships or how well would you have enjoyed celebratory moments? Without the local farmers or business owners, how much food would you be putting on the table at the end of the day? How stable and secure would you life be if other people weren't constantly doing other things? How many goods and services could you have without other people doing other things, which allows you to do your thing?
Just apply this thought to any period in history. Even if you lived in a small regional tribe, wouldn't you still require the actions and behaviors of countless other people in order to do whatever Petra14 does?
Survival requires a crap-ton of help....
And no - it's not just about pleasure.
It doesn't take very much thought to understand why humanity's progress should be important in the atheistic worldview.
Here's another little thought experiment to prove the point:
If this life truly is all we have, as per the atheistic worldview, then is it better to burn through all resources and fully indulge ourselves in depravity and waste, or should we do the best job of making sure we keep this life as long as possible? I mean, if there is literally nothing after we die, and if all of humanity may eventaully waste away to nothing at all, then should we do everything in our power to prolong this life as long as possible, or should we just **** it all away in shortsightedness?
I think once someone grasps the totality of their existence, understanding where they came from, and understanding the connection of their life to lives in the future, then the most logical next step is wanting to preserve this life so that others can experience what we have already experienced.
I know these questions are worded crudely, but they are things I wonder. --also short on time.
In a biblical worldview, we are to care for others, because we believe each person is a unique creation of God and as such, each is worthy of dignity and respect. Also, we serve God by serving others. Sure, we fall short, but that is the ideal.
Don't worry about it.
In an atheistic worldview, we care about others because we believe each person is vital to our survival and well-being, just as we are vital to theirs.
We serve others and ourselves for a myriad of benefits, some self-serving and some altruistic. Sure, we fall short - but we strive for the ideal.
