Babies make moral judgments

[Orbit]

This article caught my eye. It's relevant to those theists who think God is a pre-requisite for morality. The babies show religion isn't required. It's a short read: Babies Are a Lot More Judgmental of Moral Transgression Than We Realized

"A stare down is a much less developed form of punishment, but if the authors are right, it could be the earliest sign of a moral compass in children, one that is possibly more inherent than learned."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Christianity teaches we're made in the image of God, so we're born with at least the basics of morality. So this isn't surprising at all.

 

[Estro Felino]

Character is genetical.
Temper is genetical.
My younger sister as a baby was a crying river. Restless crying baby. Whereas I was the most silent baby ever. I never used to cry, I have been told. And we were babies together, my sister is one year younger than me.
Upbringing can help, but there are also natural inclinations.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I see babies make moral judgments on the internet all the time, so this isn't news to me.

 

[Rival]

Theists aren't generally claiming that one needs to know about God to be moral, but usually only that there needs to be a God for morals to objectively or meaningfully exist.

It's moral epistemology vs moral ontology. We're talking here about moral ontology.

 

[Orbit]

Theists aren't generally claiming that one needs to know about God to be moral, but usually only that there needs to be a God for morals to objectively or meaningfully exist.

It's moral epistemology vs moral ontology. We're talking here about moral ontology.

It's very common for theists to ask atheists "well, without God, where do you get your morality?"

 

[ChristineM]

New Theists aren't generally claiming that one needs to know about God to be moral,

Oh right i remember that next time i am told by a theist that being atheist i have no morality.

 

[Rival]

It's very common for theists to ask atheists "well, without God, where do you get your morality?"

This is true, but I think they are asking a meaningful question in a less than nuanced way. Generally they seem to mean 'What gives your morals value?' I.e. are they only subjective judgements. How, for example, would atheistic moral theory deal with a person who has no conscience. How would one go about telling him that theft, rape, murder or arson are wrong, if he doesn't have any reaction to these things or even enjoys them? Upon what basis does the conscience-less person have to act in accord with these moral dicta? That kind of thing.

 

[Orbit]

This is true, but I think they are asking a meaningful question in a less than nuanced way. Generally they seem to mean 'What gives your morals value?' I.e. are they only subjective judgements. How, for example, would atheistic moral theory deal with a person who has no conscience. How would one go about telling him that theft, rape, murder or arson are wrong, if he doesn't have any reaction to these things or even enjoys them? Upon what basis does the conscience-less person have to act in accord with these moral dicta? That kind of thing.

Inborn morality (or as you call it, atheist morality) sees that which is anti-social or violent as immoral. A person without a conscience needs to be removed from the group, by placing them in an institution for the criminally insane, or prison, if they have broken the law but are deemed "competent". This doesn't seem complicated to me.

 

[Nakosis]

Character is genetical.
Temper is genetical.
My younger sister as a baby was a crying river. Restless crying baby. Whereas I was the most silent baby ever. I never used to cry, I have been told. And we were babies together, my sister is one year younger than me.
Upbringing can help, but there are also natural inclinations.

Not entirely, IMO, but certainly a large part of it.
I read we can be born with certain genetic propensities which never surface. Something in our environment after we are born can cause these genetic traits to become active.
The development of our personalities is a very complex process which defies any simple explanation.

 

[JIMMY12345]

Oh right i remember that next time i am told by a theist that being atheist i have no morality.

Out of academic curiosity.Why does Religiousforums.com attract so many atheists? do they like being perverse or is it pure delight keeping the non atheists on their toes.Not that I complaining .

 

[Rival]

Inborn morality (or as you call it, atheist morality) sees that which is anti-social or violent as immoral. A person without a conscience needs to be removed from the group, by placing them in an institution for the criminally insane, or prison, if they have broken the law but are deemed "competent". This doesn't seem complicated to me.

I said 'atheistic moral theory'. All you've argued though is pretty standard. The evidence suggests that this morality only goes as far as the in-group, and human beings are notoriously hostile to the out-group. This seems a very subjective kind of morality to me. Babies are discriminating, too. It's more or less a survival instinct/mechanism that can also become badly immoral.

 

[Nakosis]

Out of academic curiosity.Why does Religiousforums.com attract so many atheists? do they like being perverse or is it pure delight keeping the non atheists on their toes.Not that I complaining .

I for one wasn't an atheist in 2011 when I joined.

I know it's Religious Forums but there are other topics as well.

So what keeps me here. I suppose trying to understand how the human mind works. Religious belief is a part of that.
So much certainty about the truth with so little evidence to support it.
How we manage to convince ourselves of so much when we know so little.

 

[ChristineM]

Out of academic curiosity.Why does Religiousforums.com attract so many atheists? do they like being perverse or is it pure delight keeping the non atheists on their toes.Not that I complaining .

I can't speak for all but in my case, several reasons.

I was looking for a place to hang out after the last forum i was a member of did the dirty on all non North American members and shadow banned them

RF is well run, compared to the food fight of my last forum it was a breath of fresh air

The members are for the most part good people, not all for sure, some are complete arseholes but overall, yes, good people.

I like a good head to head as much as anyone and the thing is, unlike some...

I have learned from being here. Some of the questions i asked myself like, how can people be so gullible have become clear,. I've leaned a lot about religion and have learned of 2 religions that i didn't know existed.

So to sum up, its fun hanging around in a nice place with nice people and the fact that I've learned from it is the cherry on top.

Oh and finally, i have been able to teach others a little about atheism and its motives... And i guess you are now a little more educated

 

[The Hammer]

Christianity teaches we're made in the image of God, so we're born with at least the basics of morality. So this isn't surprising at all.

The Native Americans say something similar.

That the "wisdom of men, is hidden within their hearts" (hidden by Crow/Raven), and can only be relearned through silence. I take this to mean we are all inherently wise/good/moral.

Imo at least

 

[Stonetree]

This article caught my eye. It's relevant to those theists who think God is a pre-requisite for morality. The babies show religion isn't required. It's a short read: Babies Are a Lot More Judgmental of Moral Transgression Than We Realized

"A stare down is a much less developed form of punishment, but if the authors are right, it could be the earliest sign of a moral compass in children, one that is possibly more inherent than learned."

The 'link' offered in the OP suggests that the reason babies stare at someone committing a violent act is because they want to punish the villain...There could be many reasons a baby or babies stare at a video screen. I've had conversations with researchers who worked on studies with babies.It is very difficult to make conclusions from these studies. I can not accept that the study's conclusion is valid.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Out of academic curiosity.Why does Religiousforums.com attract so many atheists? do they like being perverse or is it pure delight keeping the non atheists on their toes.Not that I complaining .

And what's wrong with atheists participating in a religious forum? Is their opinion on religion any less significant than that of religious theists? You do realize that most atheists were once religious theists themselves, and perhaps they'd like to talk about their personal religious experiences before they became atheists? I'm not an atheist myself, but I was once a Christian, and I came to RF after my bad experiences on two different Christian forums. I was permabanned from one because I refused to bow down to the golden calf of Trumpism. I dared to speak out against Trump, which turned out to be an unforgivable sin, not to mention the fact that I'm a former Republican turned Democrat who voted for Joe Biden. I left the other forum after being repeatedly criticized for not being the right kind of Christian in the eyes of the members who dominated the forum. So, I'm very glad that I stumbled on Religious Forums while I was looking for a new forum to join that wasn't dominated and controlled by right-wing Christians. I'm happy that I can now speak my mind on RF about how I feel about Christianity without receiving a warning or being permabanned or be condemned to hell for it.

 

[Orbit]

Out of academic curiosity.Why does Religiousforums.com attract so many atheists? do they like being perverse or is it pure delight keeping the non atheists on their toes.Not that I complaining .

There are plenty of Christians that post over on Atheist Forums too--I think the participation is always mixed.

 

[Kenny]

This article caught my eye. It's relevant to those theists who think God is a pre-requisite for morality. The babies show religion isn't required. It's a short read: Babies Are a Lot More Judgmental of Moral Transgression Than We Realized

"A stare down is a much less developed form of punishment, but if the authors are right, it could be the earliest sign of a moral compass in children, one that is possibly more inherent than learned."

WOW! A real confirmation that God puts in us a DNA of His morality. Not taught by parents or by their upbringing but implanted by God.

Thanks for the read.

Interesting how we change when we grow up. For us Christians a confirmation of the reality of the need to be born again.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I said 'atheistic moral theory'. All you've argued though is pretty standard. The evidence suggests that this morality only goes as far as the in-group, and human beings are notoriously hostile to the out-group. This seems a very subjective kind of morality to me. Babies are discriminating, too. It's more or less a survival instinct/mechanism that can also become badly immoral.

It is an interesting conundrum, certainly. With no rules written in stone to point to, the "rules" end up being tailored to the end goal agreed upon by some majority. Such as looking at things as "immoral" if they intentionally violate human well-being. The end goal of fostering the "well-being" of individuals and the group is surely a subjective choice of goal if you don't have that stone to point to.

However, looking at the natural world around us, I would argue that it all functions the same way, and we don't judge the other organisms of the world for the same sorts of activities we might undertake but then question the "morality" of (as in the above paragraph), simply because we don't have the backing of some higher authority. So, for example, two male lions pair off and battle one another for dominance of the pride. Do we judge the lions for undertaking this, even as it may well violate the well-being of one of the two or both of the lions? No, we understand that within the perspective of their evolution and instinctual drivers, this is how certain things are accomplished for them.

Theists tend to want to deny the possibility that we could make some of the same sorts of observations and discernments about human behaviors and realize that these things are just how certain things are accomplished for humans, and instead want to posit a version of "morality" significant to their own "in-group" (as you put it). For, after all, not everyone subscribes to the same version(s) of god(s) with the same moral standard(s), etc.