Atheists and believers surprisingly share moral values, except for these 2 key differences

[Stonetree]

Not particularly.

Ethical communities will of course tend to be more stable, but that is not a main trait of morality.

The ability and willingness to make empathy and reason meet and support each other is. Even when that involves shaking up the society.

A classic example is, of course, the realization that slavery is immoral.

I am suggesting that before intelligent beings conceptualized 'morals', there was a need for rules that governed the conduct of the members in any group or even a family. I see these basic rules as the seeds for 'morality'

I agree slavery is immoral. However, the conclusion that slavery is immoral is relatively new.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am suggesting that before intelligent beings conceptualized 'morals', there was a need for rules that governed the conduct of the members in any group or even a family. I see these basic rules as the seeds for 'morality'

I agree slavery is immoral. However, the conclusion that slavery is immoral is relatively new.

It looks like you are a believer in Deontology.

I am not.

 

[PureX]

I do not know why you say that.

I know you don’t. You’re a materialist and an atheist.

 

[PureX]

I agree the questions should be asked, though what logic has to do with this I have no idea.
What makes you say there are absolute answers, other than your a priori belief in a predetermined, transcendent purpose? Any objective support?

We ask because logic dictates that there should be an answer there, even if we don’t know what that answer is. It is not logical that existence is perpetual, or that it just happened from nothing and for no reason. And the gifts of the human spirit are equally unexplainable, yet necessary to us. And this, too, begs a question that we cannot answer.

What actual evidence supports this conclusion, or supports the existence of a metaphysical/spiritual 'realm,' for that matter?

The brain is physical. The mind is metaphysical. That you refuse to recognize the difference is not my problem to solve for you.

Morality is action.

No, morality is our ethical assessment of an action. The action is just an action.

The morality of an action, as you say, is determined by the ethical imperatives you base it on.
What I want to know is:
1: what personal moral imperatives should be based on, e.g: expedience? consequences? threat/reward? divine command? social norms? and
2: ...what the purpose or goal of morality is.

1. That’s up to us.
2. We don’t know the purpose of anything, because we don’t know why existence exists. But it stands to reason that there is a purpose, or goal, and that our ethical choices and moral behavior plays a part in it.

Faith in what? What are the function or goal of these faith-based decisions?

We don’t know, but we trust that there is a goal/purpose to it all, that involves those metaphysical gifts of the human spirit.

 

[PureX]

But we can use rationality to make specific decisions.
Logic is an epistemic modality; a tool to determine the soundness of a conclusion or the truth of a claim.

But if this site shows us anything, it shows us that we humans rarely use logic in that way. We decide what we want to be true, and then use logic to justify presuming it to be so. And even when the facts glaringly contradict us, we still fight tooth and nail to disregard them.

I have to laugh out loud every time I see one of us here proclaiming how logical and critical we are even as we are doing it to justify some absurdly irrational conclusion.

Greater than what? And how are behavioral choices or an epistemic modality a "service?"

What is the source of this higher calling? What evidence is there for this source?
I'm assuming your belief is faith-based, ie: not founded on evidence.
Is it rational to believe unevidenced things?

It is rational to engage in faith. And we all do so routinely, mostly because we have no alternative. I do not engage in acts of "belief". I engage in acts of faith. There is a difference.

Those 'gifts of the spirit' are fine qualities, to be sure, but they're personal choices, not commands or existential realities writ in stone somewhere. Nor are they tied to any specific purpose or outcome. They're more motivations than fundaments.

Yes. They are "meta" qualities. It's what makes them so important.

My actions are mostly dictated by the consequences I expect them to achieve.

That's your choice.

The virtues you cite are motivators, and may help determine what goal I aim for, but my specific moral choice of moral action is based on situational analysis and the liklihood of an action achieving the chosen, virtue motivated goal.

You just stated that the motive is the achievement. Achievement is therefor the 'virtue' being sought. Seems a bit myopic and circular, to me. But truth be told, I think we all operate this way a lot of the time. It's difficult for us to set out own desires aside and allow that 'meta-spirit' within us to become our master.

 

[PureX]

Aren't unevidenced decisions pretty much a roll of the dice?

Faith works. Not always, but often. Because it allows us to "act as if". And in so doing we often can bring about the outcome that we were unsure of, and that would likely not have otherwise manifested.

Wouldn't rational analysis of the physical mechanics of a situation or action more likely lead to effective action than faith would?

The problem is that we never have all the information. So our analysis is always limited, and therefor likely to be flawed. But with faith, we can acknowledge this, and move forward, anyway. With logic alone, we would be stuck waiting for enough 'evidence' to get us to 'believe' that we know.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know you don’t. You’re a materialist and an atheist.

Atheist, certainly. And a materialist, according to your definitions and expectations? Definitely.

None of that gives you reason to say such fantasies.

Let alone stating them as truisms. That is just unwise, very unwise indeed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Aren't unevidenced decisions pretty much a roll of the dice?

Wouldn't rational analysis of the physical mechanics of a situation or action more likely lead to effective action than faith would?

Well, I would like evdience that the universe is physical. Can you do that, please?

 

[PureX]

Atheist, certainly. And a materialist, according to your definitions and expectations? Definitely.

None of that gives you reason to say such fantasies.

How is what I'm saying a "fantasy" when you're agreeing with it?

Let alone stating them as truisms. That is just unwise, very unwise indeed.

It is true that you don't understand what I'm saying and it is also true that you've rejected it without actually understanding it. And it's also true that you are now going to fight to maintain that ignorance because you've already decided that it's wrong even though you don't understand it.

 

[Polymath257]

Faith works. Not always, but often. Because it allows us to "act as if". And in so doing we often can bring about the outcome that we were unsure of, and that would likely not have otherwise manifested.

The problem is that we never have all the information. So our analysis is always limited, and therefor likely to be flawed. But with faith, we can acknowledge this, and move forward, anyway. With logic alone, we would be stuck waiting for enough 'evidence' to get us to 'believe' that we know.

Interesting. I don't consider that to be 'faith'. I just see it as having to make decisions based on limited information. We make a guess and hope we are right. But it is better to make that guess based on available evidence than based on hope alone.

And yes, deciding to act often brings into effect what we want. Duh.

How is that relevant to the discussion?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I would like evdience that the universe is physical. Can you do that, please?

Well, much of what we see is physical. Unless and until there is something shown to NOT be physical, it is reasonable to assume everything is physical. The longer we go without anything being shown to be physical, the more reasonable that conclusion becomes.

 

[Polymath257]

We don't now. But logic would dictate that these questions be asked, and that they do have answers.

Logic would dictate that we first ask if there is a purpose. That would involve looking at how purposes are formed and what it means to have a purpose.

In particular, having a purpose isn't a property of an object. it is a relation between the object and the person (or being) that wants to use it for something. Things have purposes *to someone*.

The physical realm of existence does not require the metaphysical (spiritual) realm that we humans embody. Yet for some reason, we do.

Speak for yourself. Many people do not.

To the degree that if we ignore this aspect of our existence we will certainly destroy ourselves and everything around us. Almost as if we are "unnatural" beings.

No, we are natural beings. We are part of this universe.

What we call "morality" is a behavioral assessment, yes. An assessment based on our chosen ethical imperative(s).

Which should be based on whether the general principles harm others.

The imperative(s) I choose are faith based. But so are everyone's. All human philosophy is based on a combination of faith and practical reasoning.

This is using the word 'faith' in two distinct ways. We all have *confidence* that the world will continue to obey the rules we have found so far, although we allow that those rules are imperfect and may need modification as evidence dictates.

We all have to live in a world of uncertainties. That means we have to make decisions based on insufficient knowledge. That means we need to make educated guesses. And those guesses are best when founded in evidence.

But you also use the word 'faith' for belief without or in spite of evidence. That isn't simply 'confidence', but is choosing to think ourselves justified in making unjustified decisions.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and that is the unfortunate trap inherent in excessive skepticism. That insistence on having to know in advance, via "evidence".

Evidence is what leads to knowledge. Sure, there are things we cannot know before making certain decisions. That does not mean those decisions aren't best when made taking into account the available evidence.

And yet you have determined that there is none. That it's all just random, accidental physical mechanics, and the make-believe it generates in us.

No, you misstate my position. There is no purpose inherent in anything. Purpose is something *we* assign based on our goals. Purpose is always a purpose *to someone*.

 

[PureX]

Interesting. I don't consider that to be 'faith'.

I know, but it is. Faith is not 'belief', and faith is not 'religion'. Unfortunately these misconceptions serve a lot of people's bias, both religious and non-religious, and so the misuse of the term is very commonplace and very persistant.

I just see it as having to make decisions based on limited information.

Faith is HOW we make those decisions when we lack sufficient information.

We make a guess and hope we are right.

You are acting on the hope that your "guess" will prove to be correct, even though you do not know that it will. That's called 'faith'.

..."Acting as if".

But it is better to make that guess based on available evidence than based on hope alone.

No one ever chooses to act on "hope alone". This is a false option created by people with ill intent.

And yes, deciding to act often brings into effect what we want. Duh.

It also often brings into effect things that we really did NOT want. Which is why a lot of people have a lot of trouble acting on faith. And why some people become obsessed with obtaining "evidential proof" that they will never get. Certainly not without taking the action.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, much of what we see is physical. Unless and until there is something shown to NOT be physical, it is reasonable to assume everything is physical. The longer we go without anything being shown to be physical, the more reasonable that conclusion becomes.

Yeah, but I can't see that it is reasonable nor can I see that I assume. That everything is physical is not physical, but rather subjective, mental first person philosophy.
Now it maybe be a fancy thing to debate over dinner or cocktalis, but it is not science and in effect only a personal opinion.

 

[PureX]

Logic would dictate that we first ask if there is a purpose. That would involve looking at how purposes are formed and what it means to have a purpose.
In particular, having a purpose isn't a property of an object. it is a relation between the object and the person (or being) that wants to use it for something. Things have purposes *to someone*.

This thinking is far too anthropomorphic and 'colloquial'. DNA is both functional and purposeful. In fact, all natural process is both functional and purposeful (I digress). But as we come to understand how it functions, this does not really help us to understand the purpose of this functionality. The result of the function of DNA (the continuation and variation of life) is presumably the purpose of it's functionality. But this doesn't really tell us anything because it doesn't tell us why the continuation and variation of life forms is a 'goal'.

This is using the word 'faith' in two distinct ways. We all have *confidence* that the world will continue to obey the rules we have found so far, although we allow that those rules are imperfect and may need modification as evidence dictates.

Faith is not about having "confidence" (i.e., 'belief'). It's about trusting in our hopes enough to act on them when we do not have the confidence of belief.

We all have to live in a world of uncertainties. That means we have to make decisions based on insufficient knowledge. That means we need to make educated guesses. And those guesses are best when founded in evidence.

Are they? That's not really how I have found that life works. I have found that intuition is as good as, and very often better than an "educated guess" based on partial and nearly always biased "evidence" when it comes to taking action in the face of the unknown. Intuition is more immediate and inclusive, and so less inclined toward bias.

But you also use the word 'faith' for belief without or in spite of evidence.

I never interchange the words faith and belief. I am CONSTANTLY pointing out to people that these terms are NOT referring to the same things. And I am constantly explaining WHY they are not referring to the same things. But few will listen, because their bias is being served by their remaining ignorant.

That isn't simply 'confidence', but is choosing to think ourselves justified in making unjustified decisions.

Faith neither seeks nor requires any justifucation. It is a choice we make based on hope. Our hope and our unknowing are faith's justification.

 

[LuisDantas]

How is what I'm saying a "fantasy" when you're agreeing with it?

I am not remotely agreeing with what you said in the post I was replying to. It is utterly fantasious. Quite possibly delusional, even.

And I fully expect you to know that, because frankly, the alternative is quite worrisome.

This is that text:

We are not rational beings. We use logical reasoning to get what we seek, but we do not serve it. We serve something greater than that. For some, that something greater is the fulfillment of imagined desires, and of course their continued survival. But for others it is the higher calling of those gifts of the spirit that I mentioned above (love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity, honesty, equanimity, beauty, honor, and wisdom).

That clarified, let's return to your most recent reply.

It is true that you don't understand what I'm saying and it is also true that you've rejected it without actually understanding it. And it's also true that you are now going to fight to maintain that ignorance because you've already decided that it's wrong even though you don't understand it.

You really ought to consider periodic reality checks, for your own good.

As things stand, I can't even bother to feel offended, given how insistent you are on plainly delluding yourself.

 

[Stonetree]

It looks like you are a bireliever in Deontology.

I am not.

I accept that you are not.

I am not a believer in Deontology........TTFN

 

[Polymath257]

This thinking is far too anthropomorphic and 'colloquial'. DNA is both functional and purposeful. In fact, all natural process is both functional and purposeful (I digress).

You make this claim, but fail to provide evidence that it is actually 'purposeful':" in other words, that there is intention behind it.

But as we come to understand how it functions, this does not really help us to understand the purpose of this functionality. The result of the function of DNA (the continuation and variation of life) is presumably the purpose of it's functionality. But this doesn't really tell us anything because it doesn't tell us why the continuation and variation of life forms is a 'goal'.

You are assuming there *is* a goal. And you do that without any reason for assuming such.

Faith is not about having "confidence" (i.e., 'belief'). It's about trusting in our hopes enough to act on them when we do not have the confidence of belief.

So it is action because of hope? That seems an unusual way to define it, but sure. In that case, how is it relevant to our discussion? What does it have to do with moral values or justifying such because of consequences?

Answer: absolutely nothing.

Are they? That's not really how I have found that life works. I have found that intuition is as good as, and very often better than an "educated guess" based on partial and nearly always biased "evidence" when it comes to taking action in the face of the unknown. Intuition is more immediate and inclusive, and so less inclined toward bias.

In that case, I would simply say that you are very lucky. I have found intuition to be *much* worse that evidence based decision making.

And, contrast to what you claim, the fact that intuition is immediate and 'inclusive' is *precisely* why it is overwhelmed with bias. It is the biases making the decision in that case, not rational consideration of the alternatives.

I never interchange the words faith and belief. I am CONSTANTLY pointing out to people that these terms are NOT referring to the same things. And I am constantly explaining WHY they are not referring to the same things. But few will listen, because their bias is being served by their remaining ignorant.

And I would simply say that if you have to explain this to most people, then it is *you* that is using the word incorrectly.

Faith neither seeks nor requires any justifucation. It is a choice we make based on hope. Our hope and our unknowing are faith's justification.

Which simply means there is no actual justification, only our own biases and feelings.

 

[Polymath257]

I know, but it is. Faith is not 'belief', and faith is not 'religion'. Unfortunately these misconceptions serve a lot of people's bias, both religious and non-religious, and so the misuse of the term is very commonplace and very persistant.

It also means that you are simply using the word incorrectly. if everyone disagrees with you about the meaning of a word, then you are the one that is wrong.

Can you find *anyone* that agrees with your usage?

Faith is HOW we make those decisions when we lack sufficient information.

You are acting on the hope that your "guess" will prove to be correct, even though you do not know that it will. That's called 'faith'.

..."Acting as if".

In other words, acting when ignorant of the consequences or the alternatives. That does not seem like a good strategy to me.

No one ever chooses to act on "hope alone". This is a false option created by people with ill intent.

Garbage. We often 'act on hope' when we do not know the alternatives or have enough information to make a reasoned decision. The choice is to act.

It also often brings into effect things that we really did NOT want. Which is why a lot of people have a lot of trouble acting on faith. And why some people become obsessed with obtaining "evidential proof" that they will never get. Certainly not without taking the action.

So an action through ignorance is better than no action at all? Perhaps it is sometimes. But rarely.