Do Athiests have morals?

[Midnight Rain]

Use evolution to prove that murder is wrong.

Why would we have to? Could we not justify that with our own ethics? If we are all in agreement from our own logical and reasonable standpoints to decide what is right and wrong as we have capably shown to be able to do then why do we have to justify it objectively with evolution?

 

[1robin]

The socratics were my favorite and focus of my study when working on a BA for Humanities and Philosophy. The problem that you are running into is the sophist definitions of relativism which we are not actually arguing against. In fact any time we see any reference to objective morality is almost solely in this context.

However it still stands that Socrates was a promoter of objective moral values that could be discovered with right and wrong answers rather than though any sort of relativistic sense that what could be right or wrong was matter of opinion only. It was a matter of fact that could be discovered and discerned using what was later described as the Socratic method.

Now where Socraties begins to vastly change from your opinion in fact to total opposition is about the root cause of these moral truths. Part of why he was accused of impiety or atheism (depending on the translation as there was no word to differentiate between the two in Ancient Greek texts) is that he said that moral truths STAND ALONE despite what any god or goddess says. If all the gods and goddesses of ancient Greece stated that any one action was moral it would NOT actually make it a moral action. He did NOT believe or reason that the root of morality was based in gods but rather an innate law just as a force of nature. Its much as we view the laws of physics today. As much as a color was a color and it wasn't subjective neither was morality but it was not based in gods or goddesses.

Actually his idea of a "soul" was the individual's "self". It was his philosophical conclusion that who "he" is was not his body but something else. The accumulated thoughts of his mind as well as his personal non-physical qualities.

Its a very different concept that that of the Christian soul. I tend to agree with him on that but just because he believed in the soul does not mean he was a god fearing man but could have meant it was another one of his beliefs of how the wold was. Though I tend to agree with him on the soul portion.

And again to clarify there was no difference in the word for impiety or atheism. It was written through Plato that he questioned even the existence of the Greek gods (not just the Athenian gods either) though nothing is known directly as the vast majority of what we know comes from Plato. Though plato was his chief student and wonderful writer of the time that was known for recording several different philosophical and even historical truths.

This is a long and complex posts and I am short on time. I want to take my time to read this and respond but it won't be today. Sorry. I will get to it as soon as I can. Remind me if I forget. This is the best post you have made by far to me.

 

[1robin]

I read that text, and that is not at all what it says. Rather, Socrates (or Plato's version of him) shows that Gods are an insufficient source of definition for morals.

I disagree but it is possible I got Aristotle and Socrates confused on this issue. However what Socrates said is not important. I only referenced him to indicate that the points I made about morality have been the same since mankind began to reason. My argument was the point, not the name of the first man who recorded it.

Surprisingly enough, that is not a very popular stance. It is however mine.

Since I typo-d the heck out of my sentence let me correct it and you can respond again with what is unpopular but that you support. Here it is correctly typed.

In several hundred hours of professional debates I have seen only one atheist suggested the objective moral facts exist but God does not (the rest all knew that to be impossible).

 

[1robin]

So you think that if you tried killing every human on earth competing with your tribe for resources that behavior would enhance your chances of survival and be selected for? Really? You don't think you would be more likely to end up dead than those who cooperate with each other instead of killing each other?

That is an off ramp used as a tactic and not an argument.

1. War is engaged in all the time whether conducive to my survival or not.
2. Let's pretend I have developed the capacity to effect this without loss to my tribe (maybe a biological weapon I have the antidote for).
3. Evolution clearly demonstrates that acts that do not guaranty survival are constantly enacted in every species.
4. I did not ask if it was a good idea, I asked if evolution did not support my actions. Evolution is full of acts that contradict each other. It is described by most as red in tooth and claw and your trying to artificially sanitize it.

BTW I don't think you answered a single question I asked or gave any proof I requested.




Sorry everyone. Looks like I am the only game in town to hold the position I and most scholars hold. I'm getting responses faster than I can reply and I have to leave. Get to the rest as soon as I can. Have a good one.

 

[LuisDantas]

In several hundred hours of professional debates I have seen only one atheist suggested the objective moral facts exist but God does not (the rest all knew that to be impossible).

Yes, that is indeed what I say: objective moral exists, and is in fact necessary to acknowledge. But I will be darned if it has anything to do with a hypothetical God.

 

[Midnight Rain]

This is a long and complex posts and I am short on time. I want to take my time to read this and respond but it won't be today. Sorry. I will get to it as soon as I can. Remind me if I forget. This is the best post you have made by far to me.

The Greek philosophers are one of my favorite things to study and discuss. I only wish I could read ancient greek so that I could read the content in their original language.

But the only other thread I can remember debating with you for any length would be the Homosexuality thread and you see to be an intelligent person but you have an axiom against homosexuality that will never allow you and I to come to terms with in the debate forum. So I look forward to your response in this thread about the philosophy of morality.

Though two things.
1) Socrates is not the end all authority on morality but is a great teacher and Philosopher (as you have pointed out what Socrates believed matters little in the point you were trying to make)
2) Keep in mind that I am not an atheist. A few times in the past when we were debating it seemed that you referred to me and my position as "atheist" positions. I agree with Atheists sometimes on forums mainly because I do keep empiricism and reason at a high standard for discussion but beyond that I don't have a whole lot in common.

 

[Nietzsche]

Use evolution to prove that murder is wrong.

The Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not an Abrahamic-exclusive maxim. It has been found in every culture, even the most ancient, up to 2040 BCE. That is something like 1,500 years before Judaism, perhaps even more. The fact this is found in cultures who could not have possibly contacted one another shows that we inherently care for others, even if it's just for our own benefit. There is a perfectly logical survival reason not to kill each other, because like all other animals we have an urging to continue our line. I mean how often do you see animals in general attacking one of their own unless it's over territory, food or mating?

 

[ArtieE]

I did not define theism, what it means was not the issue.

You said and I quote: "I say atheism lacks a foundation for objective morality." Well, so does theism. A theist can believe in whichever god(s) he likes without having to believe that his god(s) is/are any "foundation for objective morality". Theism in itself doesn't provide any "foundation for objective morality" either.

Evolution is not and cannot be an objective moral source ... Use evolution to prove that murder is wrong.

Simple.
1. Evolution and natural selection is a natural automatic objective process.
2. Our survival instinct is an objectively right instinct for us to have since it is the result of an objective process.
3. The objective survival instinct promotes survival/life and makes us avoid death.
4. Those who help each other are objectively more likely to thrive and survive than those who murder each other. Natural selection.
5. Therefore helping behavior right murder wrong.

 

[ArtieE]

1. War is engaged in all the time whether conducive to my survival or not.
2. Let's pretend I have developed the capacity to effect this without loss to my tribe (maybe a biological weapon I have the antidote for).
3. Evolution clearly demonstrates that acts that do not guaranty survival are constantly enacted in every species.
4. I did not ask if it was a good idea, I asked if evolution did not support my actions. Evolution is full of acts that contradict each other. It is described by most as red in tooth and claw and your trying to artificially sanitize it.

Your points are formulated in such a way that they don't make any sense. Try one point at a time and rephrase it so that it makes sense.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, that is indeed what I say: objective moral exists, and is in fact necessary to acknowledge. But I will be darned if it has anything to do with a hypothetical God.

Yeah, I still think it's a very weak argument trying to prove God with objective morality, scraping the bottom of the philosophical barrel.
The bottom line is there is simply no way to proved God exists, and I wish theists would come to terms with that.

 

[1robin]

Why would we have to? Could we not justify that with our own ethics? If we are all in agreement from our own logical and reasonable standpoints to decide what is right and wrong as we have capably shown to be able to do then why do we have to justify it objectively with evolution?

Do you recall the post number of that one long post of yours I put off responding to? I went back but could not find it.


We can all sit around and vote on whether we will pass a law or not. However what we cannot do is make that law related to an objective moral truth even if we all agreed to it. I for one would want to know that a person was actually wrong before I voted to hang him. If he merely violated a social fashion of the moment it would be hard to kill him for it. Also notice all the speeches made when war must be justified,. They all appeal to objective moral duties and values and not to popular opinion. Based on your criteria if the Nazi's would have won get war then killing Jews would have been a morally correct action.


I don't seem to be able to get anyone to actually address the issue that serves as my primary argument.


My claims are two fold.

1. If God exists morality has an objective foundation.
2. If he does not it does not.


My argument is not.

1. How we come to know what morals are true.
2. Or that we are incapable of making up rules without God.

 

[1robin]

Yes, that is indeed what I say: objective moral exists, and is in fact necessary to acknowledge. But I will be darned if it has anything to do with a hypothetical God.

Ok then it is your burden. Prove that any moral edict is related to an objective moral fact without appealing to the transcendent.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

1. If God exists morality has an objective foundation.

We have no proof that God, if he does exist, would have created an objective morality. So it's a speculative statement anyway.

 

[1robin]

The Greek philosophers are one of my favorite things to study and discuss. I only wish I could read ancient greek so that I could read the content in their original language.

There is a poster here that does read it. Sojourner is their name I think. Greek would be a good one to know.

But the only other thread I can remember debating with you for any length would be the Homosexuality thread and you see to be an intelligent person but you have an axiom against homosexuality that will never allow you and I to come to terms with in the debate forum. So I look forward to your response in this thread about the philosophy of morality.

I am unclear why your referencing the homosexual thread. However:

1. I do have a dogmatic reason for denying the behavior as acceptable.
2. However that reason had no role in the arguments I made.
3. My arguments were simplistic secular cost analysis arguments and my faith had no role in them.
4. I do condemn the behavior from a position of faith but not homosexuals themselves. To me it is just another immoral behavior no different from ones I may engage in myself, yet still condemn. I do things at times that I cannot justify because I am a sinful and fallen person in need of forgiveness. I separate the condemnation of an act from the condemnation of a person.

Though two things.
1) Socrates is not the end all authority on morality but is a great teacher and Philosopher (as you have pointed out what Socrates believed matters little in the point you were trying to make)

I did not even hint he was. The only reason his name was mentioned by was to indicate the parameters of my primary argument have been the same since the time of the Greeks and before. He was merely a book end, nothing more.

2) Keep in mind that I am not an atheist. A few times in the past when we were debating it seemed that you referred to me and my position as "atheist" positions. I agree with Atheists sometimes on forums mainly because I do keep empiricism and reason at a high standard for discussion but beyond that I don't have a whole lot in common.

I do assume a persons theological orientation from their arguments at times. I see your a pagan, so my assumption was wrong. I will try not to make that mistake again.

 

[gsa]

Do you recall the post number of that one long post of yours I put off responding to? I went back but could not find it.


We can all sit around and vote on whether we will pass a law or not. However what we cannot do is make that law related to an objective moral truth even if we all agreed to it. I for one would want to know that a person was actually wrong before I voted to hang him. If he merely violated a social fashion of the moment it would be hard to kill him for it. Also notice all the speeches made when war must be justified,. They all appeal to objective moral duties and values and not to popular opinion. Based on your criteria if the Nazi's would have won get war then killing Jews would have been a morally correct action.


I don't seem to be able to get anyone to actually address the issue that serves as my primary argument.


My claims are two fold.

1. If God exists morality has an objective foundation.
2. If he does not it does not.


My argument is not.

1. How we come to know what morals are true.
2. Or that we are incapable of making up rules without God.

I deny your premise; divine command theory does not provide an objective foundation for morality, but a subjective one, given that your god is imagined to be a personal one. Perhaps something like Brahman, with a universe that is timeless and imbued with moral consequences that play out in karma, is a potential foundation for objective morality, but that is simply not the case with the god(s) of Abrahamic monotheism. Moreover, there's about as much empirical support for karma as there is for Christian morality.

I am quite skeptical of moral realism in any event, beyond the cooperative and reproductive success strategies that are suggested by evolutionary theory. There's no reason to suppose it has any existence outside of humanity either way.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Prove that any moral edict is related to an objective moral fact without appealing to the transcendent.

You still haven't proved that morality generally is anything to do with God. Moral codes existed long before the Abrahamic God showed up, and all modern secular societies have moral codes enshrined in law.

Do you have a shred of proof that human morality depends on God?

 

[1robin]

The Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not an Abrahamic-exclusive maxim.

I did not mention the golden rule and never claimed it to be unknown until the bible recorded it. I have actually said the exact opposite.

1. All men are born with a God given conscience. We generally believe the golden rule however the Golden rule is not true unless God exists to ground in a transcendent foundation. Without God it is merely a preference and not actually true.
2. The bible does not bring morality reality into existence by declaring it. It does however justify our inclinations about moral issues and places them onto a logical context by which they may be true.

It has been found in every culture, even the most ancient, up to 2040 BCE. That is something like 1,500 years before Judaism, perhaps even more. The fact this is found in cultures who could not have possibly contacted one another shows that we inherently care for others, even if it's just for our own benefit. There is a perfectly logical survival reason not to kill each other, because like all other animals we have an urging to continue our line. I mean how often do you see animals in general attacking one of their own unless it's over territory, food or mating?

You are never going to answer a single question I ask are you. I did not ask anything about the golden rule.

We inherently care for each others at times, kill each other at times, eat each other at times, enslave each other at times, etc......... Here is the problem. Without God there is no standard by which we can know which one if any of those inherent behaviors are good and which are evil.

Are you ever going to answer any question I ask or demonstrate anything I request?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Without God there is no standard by which we can know which one if any of those inherent behaviors are good and which are evil.

All societies have laws which reflect their moral code, so there's your standard. God is entirely uneccessary.

 

[1robin]

You said and I quote: "I say atheism lacks a foundation for objective morality." Well, so does theism. A theist can believe in whichever god(s) he likes without having to believe that his god(s) is/are any "foundation for objective morality". Theism in itself doesn't provide any "foundation for objective morality" either.

Listing an example of what is necessarily true of a single aspect of atheism is not equivalent with defining theism. I have no idea what your talking about.

I did a theist must believe that his God produced objective morality. I said that if we have objective morality it's only possible source is God. My God or a very similar one to him if you want to be specific.

Simple.
1. Evolution and natural selection is a natural automatic objective process.

I am not sure if this is true but lets pretend it is and see if you get morality out the other end of this argument.

2. Our survival instinct is an objectively right instinct for us to have since it is the result of an objective process.

Off the rails already. What evolution justifies does not make it objectively good. It can't. What evolution justifies only makes it inherent to evolution. It does not and cannot make it morally right. You do know that a mere objective truth is not an objective good. Pluto objectively exists yet Pluto is not inherently good or evil.

3. The objective survival instinct promotes survival/life and makes us avoid death.
4. Those who help each other are objectively more likely to thrive and survive than those who murder each other. Natural selection.
5. Therefore helping behavior right murder wrong.

Nope.

1. Our greatest moral achievements are for things that are not beneficial to survival. We build museums for and give medals to those that lose their lives in the execution of an objective moral duty despite the fact that they many times result in the net loss of life.
2. Not that evolution is even related to general survival. It mostly would encourage each individuals survival which would many times necessitate the lack of survival for another group.
3. Even children know the right question to ask when a moral duty is demanded of them. They say "Oh yeah who says". If your answer is evolution says then would bet that even most children would find that ridiculous. Evolution does care about anything. It does not create right and wrong. It only creates self contradictory and completely irregular behavior.
4. Given you the most generous credit I possibly could, your argument merely shows (if true) that at times certain behaviors are consistent with it. There is nothing about that makes them right or wrong.

Has any lawyer in the history of man ever said his client was not guilty by reason of evolution?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I said that if we have objective morality it's only possible source is God.

You still haven't proved that though, it remains just an assertion.