Do Athiests have morals?

[ArtieE]

If it does anything it would make us value our own lives at the expense of almost all other lives and would make for a ethical moral foundation.

We value all lives because all lives cooperating gives us all a better chance of survival including ourselves. You speak like a sociopath would.

The highest honors and entire museums are given to those who defied exactly what you state grounds morality. Our greatest moral hero's gave their own lives to save others. That is like evolution in reverse.

Of course we give our lives to save others. The survival of many is more important than the survival of one. It's just evolutionary instinct. Even bees instinctively give their lives to save the hive. Of course we also do because we are social animals with the same instinct.

 

[viole]

That is why this argument is an if then statement. It usually goes like this in formal circles.

1. If objective morality exists then God exists.
2. There is virtually a universal comprehension of an objective moral realm.
3. It is reasonable to conclude there for God exists.

I don't find this argument particularly strong.

First, premise one is controversial, to say the least. Many moral realists do not accept the necessity of God under the premise of objectivism. They actually think that moral propositions are akin to mathematical ones whose existence does not require a God. You might say that they are wrong, but this is all you can do.

Second, even if the first premise were true, the conclusion is a non sequitur. The existence of a universal comprehension of X does not entail the actual existence of X. People can comprehend a lot of things... And the ontology of what they comprehend seems to miss a reliable epistemology, rendering thereby speculations about its reality vacuous.

Mundane things like gay marriage seems to give very different levels of comprehensions, for I doubt that any of the two parties would consider their views the not objective ones, if moral objectivity exists. This discrepancy is virtually absent for things like the existence of our planet, which appears, therefore, to be far more objective.

Third, if we assume the argument correct and sound, then it is superflous towards proving God. It is actually a useless complication. I could make a similar one that has the additional advantage of having a very uncontroversial first premise:


1. If God exists then God exists. <--- very uncontroversial lol
2. There is virtually a universal comprehension of a realm with God
3. It is reasonable to conclude therefore God exists.

The illicit promotion of comprehension to plausibility becomes evident when we realize that premise 1 is a tautology and can, therefore, be omitted. The argumant becomes then:

1. There is virtually a universal comprehension of a realm with God
2. It is reasonable to conclude therefore God exists.

Wow. That was easy. I wonder why nobody uses this argument.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

Evolution and natural selection is an objective process. It produced a survival instinct which says life/survival good death bad. Murdering somebody leads to death and reduces your own survival chances. Hence murder objectively immoral.

You're first claiming that evolution is objective and then claiming it has a purpose, survival. It it has purpose then it is not objective.

The idea is that we have random genetic mutations. In some cases then mutations may by pure happenstance cause a greater survival rate. This is not good or bad it is a random interaction.

Obviously it is seen as good for the group if in their current situation. Situations change and mutations can change the traits of a species. There's no guarantee that any of this will remain good.

Evolution just means change, it doesn't mean change with a purpose or change for the better.

However you see altruism as good and you promote it as such. This can be a matter of cultural evolution. However purpose is something you supply arbitrarily.

 

[ArtieE]

You're first claiming that evolution is objective and then claiming it has a purpose, survival. It it has purpose then it is not objective.

No I don't claim it has a purpose. It's just an automatic natural process which is why it is objective. So when this process ends up with a brain with a survival instinct it is objectively correct to value survival/life and avoid death.

The idea is that we have random genetic mutations. In some cases then mutations may by pure happenstance cause a greater survival rate. This is not good or bad it is a random interaction

Nothing random about natural selection.

Evolution just means change, it doesn't mean change with a purpose or change for the better

Correct.

However you see altruism as good and you promote it as such. This can be a matter of cultural evolution. However purpose is something you supply arbitrarily.

Please rephrase this. I have never arbitrarily supplied any purpose. Try one point at a time.

 

[1robin]

I don't find this argument particularly strong.

Well philosophers sure do. I do not know what to tell you. The argument has philosophical justification for every step.

First, premise one is controversial, to say the least. Many moral realists do not accept the necessity of God under the premise of objectivism. They actually think that moral propositions are akin to mathematical ones whose existence does not require a God. You might say that they are wrong, but this is all you can do.

Mathematics would also require God. Things that exist necessarily have no possible explanation outside of God. Unless they come up with something virtually God like that is not God and not contingent I can't imagine what your referring to. I have only heard one professional who debated morality who claimed that it was objective and there was no God. When pressured he readily admitted he was merely assuming that was true and had no argument for it. What "other" source do you refer to?

Second, even if the first premise were true, the conclusion is a non sequitur. The existence of a universal comprehension of X does not entail the actual existence of X. People can comprehend a lot of things... And the ontology of what they comprehend seems to miss a reliable epistemology, rendering thereby speculations about its reality vacuous.

I knew that was coming. I did not say the universal perception of X makes X's existence a fact. I said it makes the belief that X exists reasonable and valid. The same way our visual perceptions that the sun exists can be trusted our moral perceptions can be trusted. Does not make the sun a fact as I may be Neo in a vat being fed the data for a sun but the belief that the sun exists is justified.

Mundane things like gay marriage seems to give very different levels of comprehensions, for I doubt that any of the two parties would consider their views the not objective ones, if moral objectivity exists. This discrepancy is virtually absent for things like the existence of our planet, which appears, therefore, to be far more objective.

How did we go from philosophy to homosexuality? I have not considered the moral nature of gay marriage so I have no comment to make on it. My argument was either a generalized one or one that would be true if any single moral fact is actually true. It does not depend on my being able to identify what each moral fact is.

Third, if we assume the argument correct and sound, then it is superflous towards proving God. It is actually a useless complication. I could make a similar one that has the additional advantage of having a very uncontroversial first premise:

The necessary cause to explain an effect is by definition less complicated and is consistent with Occam's razor. Especially if that cause is a disembodied mind (the least complicated cause possible) and is also a single cause instead of a multiplicative one.

1. If God exists then God exists. <--- very uncontroversial lol
2. There is virtually a universal comprehension of a realm with God
3. It is reasonable to conclude therefore God exists.

However there is not a virtually universal comprehension that God exists. In fact only Christians experience God. The other faiths do not even make a generalized promise that it's adherents will comprehend (experience) God. Most people believe in a world where some kind of God exists but they do not experience him. Maybe my use of the term comprehend threw you off. I meant that we experience an objective moral realm, the same way we visually experience a material realm.

The illicit promotion of comprehension to plausibility becomes evident when we realize that premise 1 is a tautology and can, therefore, be omitted. The argumant becomes then:

Again I do not get it. It is a simple deduction that if an objective moral fact exists it's source must be God. I don't see any hint of a tautology in that. Usually both sides agree to premise 1. The other side usually balks on the second step. Are you sure you meant to say that premise one was a thing that repeated it's self? I don't get it. Never mind. I see you were talking about your argument not mine. Never mind.

1. There is virtually a universal comprehension of a realm with God
2. It is reasonable to conclude therefore God exists.

Wow. That was easy. I wonder why nobody uses this argument.

Ciao

- viole

Since premise 2 is not true your conclusion does not follow from it.

 

[viole]

Well philosophers sure do. I do not know what to tell you. The argument has philosophical justification for every step.

Mathematics would also require God. Things that exist necessarily have no possible explanation outside of God. Unless they come up with something virtually God like that is not God and not contingent I can't imagine what your referring to. I have only heard one professional who debated morality who claimed that it was objective and there was no God. When pressured he readily admitted he was merely assuming that was true and had no argument for it. What "other" source do you refer to?

I knew that was coming. I did not say the universal perception of X makes X's existence a fact. I said it makes the belief that X exists reasonable and valid. The same way our visual perceptions that the sun exists can be trusted our moral perceptions can be trusted. Does not make the sun a fact as I may be Neo in a vat being fed the data for a sun but the belief that the sun exists is justified.

How did we go from philosophy to homosexuality? I have not considered the moral nature of gay marriage so I have no comment to make on it. My argument was either a generalized one or one that would be true if any single moral fact is actually true. It does not depend on my being able to identify what each moral fact is.

The necessary cause to explain an effect is by definition less complicated and is consistent with Occam's razor. Especially if that cause is a disembodied mind (the least complicated cause possible) and is also a single cause instead of a multiplicative one.


However there is not a virtually universal comprehension that God exists. In fact only Christians experience God. The other faiths do not even make a generalized promise that it's adherents will comprehend (experience) God. Most people believe in a world where some kind of God exists but they do not experience him. Maybe my use of the term comprehend threw you off. I meant that we experience an objective moral realm, the same way we visually experience a material realm.

Again I do not get it. It is a simple deduction that if an objective moral fact exists it's source must be God. I don't see any hint of a tautology in that. Usually both sides agree to premise 1. The other side usually balks on the second step. Are you sure you meant to say that premise one was a thing that repeated it's self? I don't get it. Never mind. I see you were talking about your argument not mine. Never mind.

Since premise 2 is not true your conclusion does not follow from it.

So, you think that 2+2=4 necessitates God?

Then, it is even simpler:

1) 2+2=4 is not necessariy true without God
2) 2+2=4 is necessarily true
3) God exists

You got me. God exists


I wonder why you go through ordeals like empty tombs and the ontology/epistemology of morality when it is so simple.

Why?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

So, you think that 2+2=4 necessitates God?

If that is an objective description of an objective reality that is independent of nature (as it seems that mathematics is) then yes. It might be a persuasive argument alone but it is juts one among thousands.

Then, it is even simpler:

1) 2+2=4 is not necessariy true without God
2) 2+2=4 is necessarily true
3) God exists

You got me. God exists

It is not the truth of that equation that makes God apparent. It is the rationality contained within it. The great scientific revolution occurred because Christians thought a rational God would create a rational universe and set out to decode the rationality in it if it existed. They found a universe full of rationality that the universe alone had no explanation for.

The same way the scientists in the movie contact said if they heard a pattern (rationality) in radio signals from space they knew that rational and intelligent creatures out there produced it. However in the case of mathematics no mere creature could make it exist nor could nature. We can perceive it, we can decode it, we can describe it. We cannot make it exist. BTW that is another line of evidence. I have heard many specialists say the chances that a mind would evolve anywhere in the universe capable of comprehending the rationality in the universe by chance is basically zero. Said as only Lewis could:

One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... unless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
—C. S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?", The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses

I wonder why you go through ordeals like empty tombs and the ontology/epistemology of morality when it is so simple.

Because it is like trying to catch a greased weasel, who is on fire, and phases out of reality every other nanosecond. You never know what might be necessary.

Why?

Ciao

- viole

BTW you have not given my any alternate source for the objective existence of morality, mathematics, or rationality yet? You keep denying the only possible source I have ever heard of but not substituting a new one. Do you like a vacuum as much as space hates them?

 

[viole]

If that is an objective description of an objective reality that is independent of nature (as it seems that mathematics is) then yes. It might be a persuasive argument alone but it is juts one among thousands.

It is not the truth of that equation that makes God apparent. It is the rationality contained within it. The great scientific revolution occurred because Christians thought a rational God would create a rational universe and set out to decode the rationality in it if it existed. They found a universe full of rationality that the universe alone had no explanation for.

The same way the scientists in the movie contact said if they heard a pattern (rationality) in radio signals from space they knew that rational and intelligent creatures out there produced it. However in the case of mathematics no mere creature could make it exist nor could nature. We can perceive it, we can decode it, we can describe it. We cannot make it exist. BTW that is another line of evidence. I have heard many specialists say the chances that a mind would evolve anywhere in the universe capable of comprehending the rationality in the universe by chance is basically zero. Said as only Lewis could:

One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... unless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
—C. S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?", The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses


Because it is like trying to catch a greased weasel, who is on fire, and phases out of reality every other nanosecond. You never know what might be necessary.

BTW you have not given my any alternate source for the objective existence of morality, mathematics, or rationality yet? You keep denying the only possible source I have ever heard of but not substituting a new one. Do you like a vacuum as much as space hates them?

What is a rational God if rationality cannot exist without God?

Other question. Are all logical arguments for the existence of God valid only if God exists?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm an atheist and I have morals. Does that help?

How about doing a survey of atheists and asking if they have morals? That would be conclusive proof.

 

[Nakosis]

No I don't claim it has a purpose. It's just an automatic natural process which is why it is objective. So when this process ends up with a brain with a survival instinct it is objectively correct to value survival/life and avoid death.

No, not objectively, The universe doesn't care whether man as a species survives or not. The group, however inclusive you or someone else accepts that group to be. You may include all of mankind, someone else may not. Maybe for some that group only includes all Christians or all Muslims, all of a particular race or nationality. Depending on the group one associates themselves with could change their concepts of what is right and wrong.

Usually with evolution topics I make the mistake sometime of assuming genetic evolution. This could also be a case for cultural evolution. Which I'm not sure I have a disagreement with. If you are arguing for social/cultural evolution I guess I don't have a disagreement there.

Nothing random about natural selection.Correct.Please rephrase this. I have never arbitrarily supplied any purpose. Try one point at a time.

Random meaning occurring without definite aim or purpose.

Socially or culturally man can supply a purpose to evolution. Like proposing a morality base on survival. Natural selection doesn't have a moral code.

 

[Cephus]

1. If objective morality exists then God exists.

Completely and totally wrong. Even if you want to define "objective morality" as coming from a god, it doesn't have to be *YOUR* god. Lose the capital G and maybe you might have something.

2. There is virtually a universal comprehension of an objective moral realm.

Except there isn't. I don't think you can find a single moral precept which has been universally accepted across all cultures and across all time. Nobody can agree on what morality actually means.

3. It is reasonable to conclude there for God exists.

Given the two laughably faulty premises that you've presented, your conclusion is equally laughable. Try again.

 

[McBell]

Things that exist necessarily have no possible explanation outside of God.

You keep repeating this bold empty claim as though it is some ace in the hole.

Problem is it is nothing but a bold empty claim that cannot be substantiated.

 

[Nakosis]

BTW you have not given my any alternate source for the objective existence of morality, mathematics, or rationality yet? You keep denying the only possible source I have ever heard of but not substituting a new one. Do you like a vacuum as much as space hates them?

There's no need for them to be objective. The reason they exist is because man is capable of making crap up.

Man is the arbiter of his own definitions. Math is a language created by man. We determine the facts of math. Man decides morals, man has decided what rationality is.

We are as capable of doing this as the God you claim as a source. The substitute for God is man. We are all powerful in defining, for our own purpose, this world and this universe. There is no need of any other entity to exist for this.

The only problem is you deny man's authority. If you simply accept man's authority in this then there is no need to look for another.

 

[ArtieE]

No, not objectively, The universe doesn't care whether man as a species survives or not. The group, however inclusive you or someone else accepts that group to be. You may include all of mankind, someone else may not. Maybe for some that group only includes all Christians or all Muslims, all of a particular race or nationality. Depending on the group one associates themselves with could change their concepts of what is right and wrong.

Their concepts might change, but what is objectively right or wrong doesn't change. That we all have a brain wired to want to survive and see survival/life as good and death as bad doesn't change. We all instinctively run out of the way if we can if a car is aiming straight at us. And if we go out in the middle of the road because we want to be hit by a car and die that would be objectively wrong behaviour and we are regarded as ill.

Socially or culturally man can supply a purpose to evolution. Like proposing a morality base on survival. Natural selection doesn't have a moral code.

There's no purpose. We evolved a moral code because those who lived a certain way were more likely to survive. Natural selection.

 

[1robin]

What is a rational God if rationality cannot exist without God?

That is like asking what is round if only round can exist if circles do. Is see no conflict here at all.

You can have an irrational God I suppose. However the bible posits a rational creator and so great men of science set out to see if they found rationality in the creation. They did and in the process created modern science.

Other question. Are all logical arguments for the existence of God valid only if God exists?

None are. They are all tests for that god's existence that are confirmed by rational deduction. They are all (that I can think) of the form if Y then X. We find X so then believe Y.

Ciao

- viole

I have no idea why your saying what you are here. I didn't give any tautologies, no circular reasoning, no begging the question arguments.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you really want to know whether atheists have morals then why not just ask them? Seriously. Start a thread in the Atheist DIR called something like "Tell me about your morals". You might be surprised by the responses you get.

 

[1robin]

Completely and totally wrong. Even if you want to define "objective morality" as coming from a god, it doesn't have to be *YOUR* god. Lose the capital G and maybe you might have something.

No, that is pretty much a given and has been for thousands of years. Now if you only mean that positing that my God is the source is to aggressive then that is fine but it must be a God very similar to mine. The certain thing is that nature is not an explanation for objective morality. BTW objective in this context means free of the opinions of it's adherents. However morality it's self is also free of God's opinions but no the applications or commands that are issued on it.

Except there isn't. I don't think you can find a single moral precept which has been universally accepted across all cultures and across all time. Nobody can agree on what morality actually means.

That is not necessary for my claim nor would it be necessary for any claim. No claim of this type requires universal agreement on all details. It only requires that the issue be universal enough to establish a high probability of it being true. The same way that most of us agree that the earth is round based on visual experience even though there are still flat earther's around. Even things like 2+2=4 have those that do not agree. However the earths roundness and 2 + 2 = 4 are so well established as to be virtual certainties.

Given the two laughably faulty premises that you've presented, your conclusion is equally laughable. Try again.

Anytime I find a layman in a forum who scoffs at principles established for thousand of years I suspect arrogance and bias. Maybe you can be the first to find an actual flaw in these premise but no one will ever find a single reason to think them laughable other that preference. Unless your credentials exceed Kant, Aristotle, and Lewis that statement is laughable.

Your going to have to do more than post denials to contend with the age old argument:

1. A human experience of morality is observed.
2. God is the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
3. Therefore, God exists.[4]

 

[Sha'irullah]

Technically speaking atheists have a higher value on morals because to this very day many religious people derive their morals from their religions. Many religious people don't do this but it does not overshadow those that do. With these comes the uncivil behavior of their religion that is nothing but ancient culture tossed into the present.
Christians are filled with their immoralities such as hatred for people and Muslims with violence. Hindus have bigotry left from their caste system and Baha'is have a surprising disgust towards sexuality.

On top of this there is the fact that secular societies actually are more moral and far better than religious ones. So many studies for this but they are show the same thing.

 

[1robin]

There's no need for them to be objective. The reason they exist is because man is capable of making crap up.

Nice deceleration, where the evidence? Declarations are not arguments.

Man is the arbiter of his own definitions. Math is a language created by man. We determine the facts of math. Man decides morals, man has decided what rationality is.

I have a degree in math and not one single mathematical fact is man made. Mathematics as a language describes relationships in nature which are objective and absolute. We do not and cannot invent mathematic truths. We discover them and codify them in language we can use. Since your declaration is based on a perfectly wrong analogy then the declaration is no longer valid if it ever was.

We are as capable of doing this as the God you claim as a source. The substitute for God is man. We are all powerful in defining, for our own purpose, this world and this universe. There is no need of any other entity to exist for this.

Apparently your response is to pile one declaration on another without the slightest attempt to show that any of them are true.

The only problem is you deny man's authority. If you simply accept man's authority in this then there is no need to look for another.

From where does man derive authority and how do we acquire it? In fact what does that even mean. Authority over what? What authority? What do you mean by authority?

Why did people like Jefferson just not cite man's authority instead of stating that only with God does man have rights and he was certainly no Christian. Why did Martin Luther king not just cite man's authority instead of grounding his rights on God's nature and not cite Humanists as the guaranty behind his promissory instead of the Christian founders? Why does no one (not even you) and no society live as if these declarations are true you have made. Everything we do from making laws to justifying war is grounded in objective truths not declarations.

You will never declare reality into existence or declare the reality that does exist into going away.

 

[McBell]

Nice deceleration, where the evidence? Declarations are not arguments..

Unless you are the one making the bold empty claim?