Do Athiests have morals?

[1robin]

"Task then"? What do you mean?

You disliked the word burden so I changed it to task. Either way it is your responsibility to demonstrate objective morals can possibly exist without God.

Eh, I will take my chances. In any case, I do not need to limit myself to Harris.

That may be so. I recommend dropping Harris like a bad habit and use those other sources with their arguments.

Even if the "anchor" does exist (yet to be determined), I can simply ignore it. Do you have a video of it?

It is easily found on utube. Look up Craig versus Harris on morality. It is well established debate.

As for Peter Singer, may I recommend:

The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty

How Are We to Live?: Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest

I don't have time to critique these at this time. Let me read them when I have time and I will respond. I predict the same thing will occur as did with Harris. These entire papers will equate to either an unjustifiable assumption or merely opinion piled on top of opinion but I will read them and take them seriously. BTW looking just at the titles they seem to be attempts to suggest that we can have rules without God which is not what I am rejecting. We can come up with entire legal systems, rules of conduct, enforcement procedures without God. However we need to God if we are going to ground any of our rules, any of our laws, or any of our actions in actual objective facts. We can invent a law that prohibits murder without God but Murder is not actually wrong unless he exists. I will still read the papers but I think their on another subject.


Ok I already used the links. They did not go to a paper but instead to some kind of forum looking thing. Am I suppose to click on another link in the forum? Which one?

 

[1robin]

Unless it was an objective moral truth that existed. Just as there cannot be a square circle. At this is believed by some people. I don't argue that objective morality is a truth .Just that in many cases it appears to be so.

But that is the whole point. It is not possible that objective moral truths exist unless a personal God does. I have heard the few atheists who are professional debaters who think this can happen admit they merely assumed it can when pressed by a competent theistic debater. Your basically saying "unless a logical impossibility did happen, then it would be true". Most atheists know better. BTW I am not saying your one. They claim that objective morality does not exist.

I would argue that if you can have any defined god then it would be a false perception of that god but I'll take a crack at the list.

Never heard anyone even mention that before.

Key word is "most of the time".
The difference I think that Socrates would have with you on objective morality is "why would it come from god"?

Let me point out that footnote was not about what actually can produce objective morality, it was about what sources people can invent and claim can produce moral facts. None of them but God can withstand even Luke warm scrutiny. Socrates is a good example. If he does not identify the supernatural and transcendent as the source please post what he does claim is the source. I have asked for it several times and you have yet to provide it. Are you embarrassed at how easily it will be over turned?

I could put you through the Socratic method if you think that would help the discussion. But it is an interesting point as to wondering why it "must" be god rather than something else. Is it possible your definition of god is wrong and there is no grand architect and the universe simply "is"? In that scenario objective morality "could" exist but it would be no different than 1+1=2 and that it could be reasoned.

Man, you got wedged in Greece and can't seem to get out. Please tell me what the advantages of using the Socratic method would be over the logic I have employed. I don't want to get trapped in Greece with you like punching the Tar baby unless there is a god reason. Like I said Greece was remarkable for asking the right questions not for always getting the right answers.

1, 2 we don't know. 3 is conjecture. 4 is a possibility yes but there are philosophical ways around it. One of the answers being god or more specifically your concept of god. 6 should be before 5 as 5 doesn't make sense until 6 is substantiated. Though there are alternatives to an external force as it could also be self creating or it could be endless in another form such as circular. 7 is only accepted if we add on that the "first cause" was sentient, intentional, loving, moral and a whole mess of other things that even if 1-6 were correct wouldn't make true.

1. Yes we do know. I hear scientists of all makes and types say they can explain or put in a rational and likely theoretical frame work every natural even in history until we get back to the singularity. So like I said every natural event lacks an ultimate natural explanation. Don't forget I regret getting it but I have a degree in math from the same university that put a man on the moon so my scientific background is extensive.
2. That one I snot only a philosophic necessity but a proposition that has never failed a test. Not one exception to what I said has ever been known and there is no reason to even theoretically think there will be. Not even in the weird world of the Quantum.
3. This one also is philosophically sound and has never had a known exception nor even a evidenced based theoretical one.

Now I am not sure if you are out of your depth on science or are merely using hyper skeptical standards but these are things granted by virtually all scientists outside the kooky end of the theoretical pool. I will be generous and agree these are not certainties but they are far more certain than most accepted scientific concepts. Science must and always has assumed the universality of a lawful universe. In fact it can't be done unless you assume that. We cannot test light gravity in every spot in the universe yet science has declared gravity a constant, we cannot test anything everywhere but anything that can be tested enough and has never failed is granted a level of certainty that is the common standard. If you want to deny this necessary criteria then you have relegated all knowledge beyond the fact we think to oblivion.

4. This one is sort of a logical necessity and not something that can be tested at all. However if I run out of nature and still need an explanation there is no other option. We know we run out of nature and still need explanations but claiming the only solution is the actual solution is not a certainty but like most academic studies it is settled to a high probability.

5. I think the order correct. I need to first understand I am looking for a supernatural explanation before I can begin to evaluate competing supernatural entities.

6. There is no evidence for a self creating real entity anywhere. Not even in the supernatural realm. BTW why are you assuming highly unlikely things to be a competitor to highly likely things. I see a preference starting to surface.
7. I do not use cause and effect to prove God's characteristics. Actually that is not true now that I think on it. Effects always limit causes by type. A creation requires a personal creator. A creation endowed with complex laws and relationships requires a unimaginably intelligent creator. A creation that is endowed with objective morality requires a moral creator. The creator of time can not be in time, the creator of material cannot be material, the creator of space can not be limited by space. Cause and effect is a wonderful tool that so far has no exceptions.

My personal belief is that Gods and Goddesses are simply part of a whole called the All. The all encompasses "all". You. Me. The internet all matter and energy (physical and spiritual) and unifies it. There is nothing greater and it was self creating. It may even be infinite. In this scenario it is being in and of itself and self governing so to speak. So if there are objective moral truths then it isn't a design from above but its innate nature.

That is not paganism that is pantheism. Pantheism is one of the most useless and unjustifiable theologies I have ever heard of. You do not want me to critique pantheism. I will spare you that this time but I cannot resist if you describe pantheism again. Sorry. I thought your were a pagan. BTW did I call you an atheist or as non-theist before?

Though again I still don't think that there are objective moral truths but that doesn't mean that they are meaningless or simply pure opinion otherwise.[/QUOTE]

 

[1robin]

But it's all "contrivance", including the belief in God. And morality is more consistent across different cultures than ideas about God, that is self-evident.

Please stop attempting to declare reality into existence. You have no idea whether what you said is true or not and the evidence is against you. BTW even if it was true you can't possibly know it to begin with. Declaring you know that faith in God is a contrivance is a fools errand.

 

[1robin]

Each culture and society decides what is right or wrong for itself over a period of time, those values are enshrined in law.
God is entirely unnecessary. The fact that different cultures have had different values and laws through history argues against some sort of objective morality.

No matter how many times or ways I say you are just not going to get it are you. We cannot possibly decide what is right and wrong into existence. We can invent what is preferred, acceptable, lawful, or ethical and we can even call it right and wrong, however if God does not exist nothing is actually right or wrong as most atheist scholars readily admit.

As Dostoevsky famously admitted: “Without God all things are permitted.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Declaring you know that faith in God is a contrivance is a fools errand.

But you have no way of proving that it isn't a contrivance. So I guess in terms of this debate God has been neutralised as an argument. That just leaves the question of whether there is an "objective morality" which I doubt you will be able to win.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We cannot possibly decide what is right and wrong into existence.

It's called a value judgement, we do it all the time, individually and collectively. All cultures have done it throughout history.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No matter how many times or ways I say you are just not going to get it are you.

We are using different debating strategies, that's all. I don't have to accept your assumptions any more than you have to accept mine.
You are assuming God and I am assuming no God.

And going back to the OP question it's self-evident that atheists have morals, otherwise they would all be estate agents or in prison.

 

[1robin]

Hm. I will address this below.

Okay.

Human differences.In this regard it is better, I think, to look at the common thread. There are some things that are obviously universal. No stealing, no murder, and the 'Golden Rule' notion just to name a few.

The common thread is that in 500 years of history we have had only 300 of peace. Our entire history is strewn with the wreckage of our inhumanity to our fellow man. I don't think it possible to establish that humanity has a normal good side and only occasionally acts bad. Even assuming the greatest moral teacher in human history did exists humanity is still packed with immorality. This reminds me of joking parody on the sad commentary that is the atheist world view, "Man is basically good it is only his actions that let him down".
We are not basically good. We are killing our unborn on an industrial scale for the sake of convenience, we have invented the means to our own destruction and have the moral insanity to almost have used them at least twice, are constantly at war, have had every significant culture enslave another at some or many points in history, etc...... At best I could be generous and give man a neutrality rating if I don't think about it too much.

The differences that come in really only involve how one worships their gods, and societal roles. The basic laws remain the same, however. If you look at Biblical Law as practiced in the year 214, and then look at how law is practiced in 2014, you'll see that while they may share some common root, the practice and punishments are far different. Things change over time based on how people have to live. The laws and such that seem strange to us or odd today probably made some concrete sense back when they were new.

I actually use the somewhat universality of law codes to establish the likely hood of there actually being a universal objective truth we can perceive. Your the first non theist that has agreed with that but of course you give it another explanation. I have thought about this since your last post and I take back what I said. My world view explains perfectly every facet of human behavior (including the denial of that world view), yours at best may account for a small portion of the whole. So your is not devoid of merit but comparatively is not even in the race.

The laws against adultery for instance. Way back when, the only way to determine paternity was, you know, knowing where and when your wife had been. This was important because it had to do with inheritance.

Again my explanation is just as good or better. Humanity was created male and female to serve a purpose. Marriage was to be an example of a holy union between Christ and the church as both are referred to as the bride and bride groom. We were equipped differently to perform different and complimentary functions. Marriage is a holy institution which is objectively good and should not be infringed upon. That accounts for many details of marriage that your theory does not. I gotta to go for now. Have a good one.

 

[McBell]

Please stop attempting to declare reality into existence.

Hypocrite much?

You have no idea whether what you said is true or not and the evidence is against you.

Ouch.
Double whammy hypocrisy.

BTW even if it was true you can't possibly know it to begin with.

Third times the charm...

Declaring you know that faith in God is a contrivance is a fools errand.

No more so a fools errand as claiming there is no morality without god or that you know what god wants or even that god exists.

 

[McBell]

And going back to the OP question it's self-evident that atheists have morals, otherwise they would all be estate agents or in prison.

or lawyers, or worse, politicians.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

or lawyers, or worse, politicians.

What's that old joke:
Q. "What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?"
A. "A good start."

 

[LuisDantas]

@1robin : I have just checked the comments about a two-hour debate between Craig and Harris on Morality, and it seems that indeed, Harris did poorly there.

That worries me little, though. I have no problem disagreeing with Sam Harris, nor in accepting that he sometimes uses poor arguments.

I still feel that an objective morality can and should be defined (which in no way implies it is easy to delimitate, express or argue) and that the idea of a God is simply not useful there, even if he somehow exists.

 

[ArtieE]

I still feel that an objective morality can and should be defined (which in no way implies it is easy to delimitate, express or argue) and that the idea of a God is simply not useful there, even if he somehow exists.

Just look at it this way: With evolution and natural selection any moral system or religion or justice system or behavior etc that increased survivability would be selected for. If belief in a god and his "objective morality" led to behavior that increased survivability or if belief in karma and reincarnation led to behavior that increased survivability it would be automatically selected for. Whether this god actually exists or if we actually are reincarnated doesn't matter as long as the belief makes us behave in a manner conducive to survival.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I still feel that an objective morality can and should be defined

Why? Do you mean the civilising influence of international law? Geneva Convention? UN Charter of Rights? That kind of thing?

It's an interesting idea though, and I agree that adding God into the mix isn't helpful.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And returning to the OP question, yes it's obvious that atheist have morals, they just don't depend on an ancient religious text for them.

 

[ArtieE]

As Dostoevsky famously admitted: “Without God all things are permitted.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky

So the only reason you don't murder people is because God doesn't permit it? It has nothing to do with you being a moral person, you are just obeying God?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So the only reason you don't murder people is because God doesn't permit it? It has nothing to with you being a moral person, you are just obeying God?

It does sound a bit silly when you say it like that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just look at it this way: With evolution and natural selection any moral system or religion or justice system or behavior etc that increased survivability would be selected for. If belief in a god and his "objective morality" led to behavior that increased survivability or if belief in karma and reincarnation led to behavior that increased survivability it would be automatically selected for. Whether this god actually exists or if we actually are reincarnated doesn't matter as long as the belief makes us behave in a manner conducive to survival.

Which is one of many reasons why we should look into the matter. Just because those two (frankly, mutually exclusive and more than conceivably both delusional) beliefs had survival value way back then it does not follow that we should or can affort to trust them now. Our ancestors of so long ago lived in a very different environment, particularly when it comes to potential for self-destruction.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why? Do you mean the civilising influence of international law? Geneva Convention? UN Charter of Rights? That kind of thing?

Oh, no. Laws are actually harmful to morals. They establish written rules and the political consequences of following them or failing to.

That amounts to attempting to claim that morals are unimportant and that rules should be followed instead.

Morality is another beast entirely. It is the art and technique of using perception and rationality in order to learn the likely consequences of actions and choices and making use of that knowledge in order to establish safe, supporting and sustainable environments to the best of our abilities.

It is supported, or perhaps built, by intent, wisdom and discernment. And it is objective and must in fact be determined by however many sentient beings happen to exist at any given time because those sentient beings have the means to attempt it, and therefore they also have the duty.

We are all responsible for each other, as well as for ourselves, after all. Among other reasons, because there is no God to watch out for us - or at the very least he is going out of his way to give that appearance.

It's an interesting idea though, and I agree that adding God into the mix isn't helpful.

Adding God to whatever is rarely helpful, except as a crutch or as a means of satisfying a certain (perhaps common, I truly don't know) aesthetical need.

 

[Nietzsche]

The common thread is that in 500 years of history we have had only 300 of peace.

Whoa. I want to know how you're defining "peace", because I'd argue we haven't had that yet.

Our entire history is strewn with the wreckage of our inhumanity to our fellow man. I don't think it possible to establish that humanity has a normal good side and only occasionally acts bad. Even assuming the greatest moral teacher in human history did exists humanity is still packed with immorality. This reminds me of joking parody on the sad commentary that is the atheist world view, "Man is basically good it is only his actions that let him down".
We are not basically good. We are killing our unborn on an industrial scale for the sake of convenience, we have invented the means to our own destruction and have the moral insanity to almost have used them at least twice, are constantly at war, have had every significant culture enslave another at some or many points in history, etc...... At best I could be generous and give man a neutrality rating if I don't think about it too much.

What you've described is people with power. No civilization is without terrible crimes. In fact I would be incredibly suspect of a civilization that didn't have crimes, because it would likely mean they were so thorough in their destruction that no one was left to write it down.

However, if you look not at the people in charge(who for thousands of years were just whoever was born at the right place & right time, or whoever had the biggest sword) but the people they tended to rule, you'll find that humanity can be downright kind. You would have to look at it through a lens of their morality to truly appreciate the acts of kindness, but I think that if you did that you'd find that most people, most of the time, were pretty decent.

I actually use the somewhat universality of law codes to establish the likely hood of there actually being a universal objective truth we can perceive. Your the first non theist that has agreed with that but of course you give it another explanation. I have thought about this since your last post and I take back what I said. My world view explains perfectly every facet of human behavior (including the denial of that world view), yours at best may account for a small portion of the whole. So your is not devoid of merit but comparatively is not even in the race.

Again my explanation is just as good or better. Humanity was created male and female to serve a purpose. Marriage was to be an example of a holy union between Christ and the church as both are referred to as the bride and bride groom. We were equipped differently to perform different and complimentary functions. Marriage is a holy institution which is objectively good and should not be infringed upon. That accounts for many details of marriage that your theory does not. I gotta to go for now. Have a good one.

Would you care to explain what my view doesn't explain, and more importantly, by what standard you're claiming it "doesn't account" for? It is entirely possible for my view to account for something and you simply dislike the answer it gives. And I won't get into the argument on abortion and what have you here, that really isn't the point of discussion.