Do Athiests have morals?

[Rick O'Shez]

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

No, it's recognising that laws are an expression of moral codes What's the point of trying to establish an objective morality if it has no application in the wider world? It would just be an academic exercise.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, it's recognising that laws are an expression of moral codes

Are they even supposed to be? I don't think that can work. Even the best conceivable laws would necessarily fall rather short of such am ambitious role. Mere text just isn't up to the task.

What's the point of trying to establish an objective morality if it has no application in the wider world? It would just be an academic exercise.

It is the application in the wider world that creates the objective morality. I think there is some sort of confusion here.

 

[1robin]

@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 is surprising. Atheists usually dominate the comments section and are so in the tank for whoever the atheist debater is they would claim and deaf and dumb cod fish won the debate. I would not use the comments sections to determine what a debate contained. If you watch the debate Harris had to admit he had no actual foundation what so ever for his objective morality and admitted he merely assumed it existed.

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

My only point was that since you only gave two names and Harris was one of them your sourcing was a lost cause. Harris is a terrible debater but he real problem is you cannot adequately defend the proposition that objective morality exists without God because it is impossible.

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.

I have given several definitions for objective morality. Let me do so again.

The first is one I got from philosophy.

1. It is a system of moral truths and facts free from the opinions of it's adherents.

The second is from Roman moral theorists and says the same thing as no. 1 but it always sounds better in Latin.

2. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
For example, most human beings believe that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.
Malum in se - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have looked up that Latin definition many times. Every single form of it's description contains references either to God or sin which is relevant to God. The idea that objective morality requires God is so unavoidable and coherent that even secular sites list him as the prime source. Not to mention all the ways I have shown his necessity, all the ways philosophers like Craig have shown him necessary, all the times people like Harris have to admit it can't be done without God, and the fact that most atheist scholars know very well hat objective morality requires God and instead suggest objective morality does not exist and your comments that God does not add anything are just baffling. He literally adds everything.

 

[LuisDantas]

Harris is not my prophet, 1robin. I have no problem whatsoever knowing or speaking better than he if it comes to that. I disagree enough with him already.

Now, Peter Singer, he is another level of challenge entirely. Although it wouldn't exactly rock my boat to ever find myself disagreeing or even outperforming him. The good student does not fear eventually reaching better than his teacher.

 

[LuisDantas]

1. It is a system of moral truths and facts free from the opinions of it's adherents.

That can't work. Morality demands sentience and therefore opinion.

 

[ArtieE]

It is the application in the wider world that creates the objective morality. I think there is some sort of confusion here.

No, the objective mechanisms of evolution and natural selection are "responsible" for "objective morality". It's simple. Organisms cooperating had better chances of survival so cooperation was selected for. Certain behaviors such as helping each other were more conducive to survival than murdering each other. So we call helping behavior "moral" and murdering each other "immoral". Everything else we call "moral" or "immoral" is derived from whether it's beneficial or detrimental to well-being and survival.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Everything else we call "moral" or "immoral" is derived from whether it's beneficial or detrimental to well-being and survival.

Yes, and the stability of a tribe or nation.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, and the stability of a tribe or nation.

Sure. A stable tribe or nation is obviously more likely to survive than one with inner strife and turmoil.

 

[Nakosis]

That is true divine command theory leaves little to debate. I don't even like it but had to give up and accept it because it is necessarily the fact if God exists. Now as regards to what morals are true. I have not attempted to illustrate that any specific morals objective facts. My point was that none can possibly be without God, they are with God but which ones are is another subject.

Well, we probably agree. Atheist have morals which are not objective, in the sense they have no objective foundation and are based on feelings and opinions.

"True" morals you believe need to be universal and consistent. I'll agree, there is no reason to expect atheist's morals to be universal or consistent.

Our difference is just that I don't believe true morals exist nor are necessary. Just either agreement of morals among men or the ability to enforce those morals which are based on feelings and opinion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, and the stability of a tribe or nation.

That is self-limiting beyond a certain point, however. True morality must eventually transcend the very notions of tribes and nations, and we probably crossed that line a few centuries ago at least.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, the objective mechanisms of evolution and natural selection are "responsible" for "objective morality".

That is impossible. Evolution is not sentient. Nor is natural selection sentient, either.

It's simple. Organisms cooperating had better chances of survival so cooperation was selected for. Certain behaviors such as helping each other were more conducive to survival than murdering each other. So we call helping behavior "moral" and murdering each other "immoral". Everything else we call "moral" or "immoral" is derived from whether it's beneficial or detrimental to well-being and survival.

That was no doubt helpful to a certain point, but hardly enough to take credity for morality itself.

Now, if you had mentioned the role of rationality, now we would have something.

 

[1robin]

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?

I never said anything about why I do anything. Why is it those on the other side of the argument can't stay on topic? answer my questions? or prove anything a request? I am spending all my times explaining how the responses that were made had nothing to do with what was responded to.

I did not say I did anything simply because I found it in the bible. That is not how anyone I know acts and it is not what is true of Christian doctrine. I in fact said many things to the opposite effect.

1. I said we are all born with a God given conscience which we chose to ignore or obey regardless of whether we believe in God or not.
2. God's commands are not what makes a moral true. His commands merely reflect his nature, his nature is what makes morals objectively true.
3. A Christian seems to be the most honest person in the. Any realistic look at general or even specific human behavior in every single case shows we are deeply flawed moral beings. Even if we manage to know what is right and wrong we intentionally do not do in many cases. Always have and always will. The Christian recognizes this and admit the truth that is true of every single mortal that has ever lived. I am not morally perfect and in need of forgiveness. We also know and have a world view that knows we cannot ever create moral truth. The best a human can do is to perceive moral truth. If I am not the source and am only perceiving an external source than my own morality is constantly at odds with moral truth. So even what we think of as our moral conscience is actually a God given concept and not of us. So no I do not use the morality I cannot create to make decisions. I use my God given conscience to evaluate what I should do. I do not open a bible to find out what I should do (except in spiritual matters) I use my inner God given conscience and find it consistent with God given principles. The bible does not create morality, it properly sources objective moral truth, properly puts it into context, and properly grounds it in the only logical premise possible.

Can we get back to the actually issue I originally brought up instead of these appeals to the absurd?

 

[1robin]

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

Let me first correct what I said then you can respond to the corrected version. I said in 500 years but it should have been 5000. In 5000 years we have had 300 that were free from significant warfare. I am not referring to an earth free from individual violence.

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.

What I described is primarily the human condition. For every good act we do there is at least one bad one. We are a fallen race and we seem to be getting only worse. I agree no civilization is without constant immoral actions, every government, every culture, every group of any size, and every individual as well. There are all corrupt because they are all composed of the same faulty things, us. As so famously said "no straight thing was ever made out of the crooked timber of mankind".

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.

The only reason I mentioned groups is because I can't mention 6 billion individuals. However in every single submission of humanity, from the apostles, to Billy Graham, all the way to the great atheist utopic leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and to the social Darwinists like Hitler or to any individual you want to name you will find rampant immorality. I don't even care what moral standard you adopt. We obey nothing obediently and fail to do so on a daily basis. We are a study in contrasts. That is why we are so in need or a transcendent standard by which to evaluate what is right and wrong by. We cannot be trusted. BTW I am not just complaining here. I can back this up with stats from every direction and in countless ways.

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.

It was not an explanation that was asked for it was either an answer or a proof. I am going to only go from memory here.


1. I have asked for proof murder or any other single moral action which you may chose is god or evil without appealing to God. I have yet to see a single proof from anyone, though I did see one abortive attempt.
2. I asked for a source for objective moral truth outside of God. I have yet to receive one.
3. I even asked has any lawyer in the history of man ever said his client was not guilty by reason of evolution?


I have defined objective morality from many sources and I get posts that not only do not use any commonly accepted definition of objective morality but instead define it in the exact same way subjective morality is defined.


Let me cut to the chase. I have known as most scholars have that there is no possible source for objective moral values and duties other than God. Even children seem to know they require a personal agent. Unlike most theological issues this one has an unavoidable conclusion. There is no argument possible against my primary argument. So I get what am complaining about, I get the desperate attempts to substitute something (anything) where an argument that does not exist is required, I get appeals to the absurd, appeals to emotion, and off ramps into everything from Socrates to Hinduism. Not that I am complaining about the last two but so far the argument that does not exist has not even been attempted. Let me give my primary claims one last time.

1. If God exists objective moral duties and values exist.
2. If he does not they do not.

If I was an atheist I would do what almost all atheist scholars do. Claim objective morality does not exist. That is IMO incorrect but unlike my two points above it cannot be proven incorrect.

Anyway keep posting whatever you want I just wanted to vent a second.

 

[1robin]

That can't work. Morality demands sentience and therefore opinion.

I agree with part of that but not the other.

God is sentient, but merely being sentient has no power to produce a single moral truth. Being merely sentient may be the primary necessity to comprehend moral truths if they exist but it cannot possibly create them it's self. Just as sentience can comprehend mathematical truths but has no power to create them. God's nature however does contain what is necessary to make objective morality true. The universe (every and any universes) are derivative from him. What is true of him is true for every single atom in existence. He is the ultimate source of all ultimate objective truths as the only possible one.

Let me ask you something. How do you know you are not a mind merely hooked up to a machine and simply been fed things that are not true as if they were. That the earth, the universe and nature do not exists as we know them. With God this does not matter? Both of us operate entirely on faith. Why am I the only one that admits it?

 

[Cephus]

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?

There are people who make that claim, that if there wasn't a God, they would murder, rape and steal with impunity. Now I don't know if they're trying to make a point or if they really believe it, but those people can keep their religion because without it, they're sociopaths.

 

[1robin]

Well, we probably agree. Atheist have morals which are not objective, in the sense they have no objective foundation and are based on feelings and opinions.

Holy cow, someone gets the obvious fact of the matter. That happens far too infrequently. I hope you do not contradict this in your comments below. That would ruin my whole day.

"True" morals you believe need to be universal and consistent. I'll agree, there is no reason to expect atheist's morals to be universal or consistent.

Any claim to a true moral should be true. I cannot make them universal nor is that necessary for them to be true. The bible posits the most exhaustive and accurate explanation for what I see in the world. It explains why morality is not perfectly universal, why even if we have moral truth we do not always obey it, why man is corrupt, etc...... The bible could be wrong I guess but it has no theoretical fault in accounting for reality. Once read nothing further is necessary to explain what it speaks to.

Our difference is just that I don't believe true morals exist nor are necessary. Just either agreement of morals among men or the ability to enforce those morals which are based on feelings and opinion.

1. They are necessary for certain things but not for others. They are necessary to ensure justice in theory. They are necessary to justify many of our actions, lacking them inescapably leads us to perform actions contrary to what ever we substitute for them.
2. It depends on what we are trying to do whether they are necessary or not. I certainly wish them to be true before I make many of the profound decisions in life. For example before I vote to condemn a man to death I would hope I am using objective truths by which to do so, before I resist temptations that I may never have the opportunity to partake of again I would hope I am doing so for an objectively true purpose, before I ask a mother to risk her sons to fight a war I hope that the other side is objectively wrong and we are objectively justified. I would have trouble doing those things if right and wrong are merely social fashions of the moment or to be generous even the best guesses.

 

[Nietzsche]

Let me first correct what I said then you can respond to the corrected version. I said in 500 years but it should have been 5000. In 5000 years we have had 300 that were free from significant warfare. I am not referring to an earth free from individual violence.

Only if you're only counting Europe & North America as "Earth" and ignoring Africa, the Middle East, South America, and most of Asia.

What I described is primarily the human condition. For every good act we do there is at least one bad one. We are a fallen race and we seem to be getting only worse. I agree no civilization is without constant immoral actions, every government, every culture, every group of any size, and every individual as well. There are all corrupt because they are all composed of the same faulty things, us. As so famously said "no straight thing was ever made out of the crooked timber of mankind".

So because we are not perfect, all the good we do is irrelevant? Which of us is supposed to be the nihilist here?

The only reason I mentioned groups is because I can't mention 6 billion individuals. However in every single submission of humanity, from the apostles, to Billy Graham, all the way to the great atheist utopic leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and to the social Darwinists like Hitler or to any individual you want to name you will find rampant immorality.

I'd just like to take this time to say how very happy I am that you did not class Hitler an atheist. I am not trying to be condescending or whatnot, I am genuinely thrilled. It is so rare to see someone understand that Hitler was many things, but "consistent with his religious beliefs" isn't one of them.

I don't even care what moral standard you adopt. We obey nothing obediently and fail to do so on a daily basis. We are a study in contrasts. That is why we are so in need or a transcendent standard by which to evaluate what is right and wrong by. We cannot be trusted. BTW I am not just complaining here. I can back this up with stats from every direction and in countless ways.

You keep saying we are in need of a transcendent standard, by which you mean a Divine one. Why do we need to worship the Standard? Why can it not be that through our long history, the ones who did not have some manner of inherent morality, were killed by the others for their crimes? Individuals who are born without some kind of morality can do well. But societies of them do not exist because they can't work with each other. Thus, if we ever got 'too many' of them, they fail and do not reproduce. The ones with morality reproduce more and became the dominant.

1. I have asked for proof murder or any other single moral action which you may chose is god or evil without appealing to God. I have yet to see a single proof from anyone, though I did see one abortive attempt.

Killing others harms the species. We are hard-wired to preserve the species. Ergo, murder is bad.

2. I asked for a source for objective moral truth outside of God. I have yet to receive one.

I appeal to our instincts.

3. I even asked has any lawyer in the history of man ever said his client was not guilty by reason of evolution?

That makes no sense. We're still in control of our actions. We still make choices. And the only reason a lawyer exists is because we have laws, which are to benefit the greater whole.

Let me cut to the chase. I have known as most scholars have that there is no possible source for objective moral values and duties other than God. Even children seem to know they require a personal agent. Unlike most theological issues this one has an unavoidable conclusion. There is no argument possible against my primary argument. So I get what am complaining about, I get the desperate attempts to substitute something (anything) where an argument that does not exist is required, I get appeals to the absurd, appeals to emotion, and off ramps into everything from Socrates to Hinduism. Not that I am complaining about the last two but so far the argument that does not exist has not even been attempted. Let me give my primary claims one last time.

1. If God exists objective moral duties and values exist.
2. If he does not they do not.

If I was an atheist I would do what almost all atheist scholars do. Claim objective morality does not exist. That is IMO incorrect but unlike my two points above it cannot be proven incorrect.

You hold the Christian God as the highest arbiter of authority and law. I do not hold any Gods, even my own, as the highest arbiter. The highest arbiter is collective humanity. The thing greater than every individual, the thing that brings us together, our collective cultural heritage & history. That is who and what we answer to. When I am gone, when you are gone, if we are remembered we will be judged by our descendants. It is to them we must justify our actions.

So yes, in a way there is a 'God' who proposes judgement after death. It's going to be our children, our childrens'-children.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree with part of that but not the other.

God is sentient, but merely being sentient has no power to produce a single moral truth. Being merely sentient may be the primary necessity to comprehend moral truths if they exist but it cannot possibly create them it's self. Just as sentience can comprehend mathematical truths but has no power to create them. God's nature however does contain what is necessary to make objective morality true. The universe (every and any universes) are derivative from him. What is true of him is true for every single atom in existence. He is the ultimate source of all ultimate objective truths as the only possible one.

Sorry, that is just hopelessly speculative. Too much so for me to consider.

Let me ask you something. How do you know you are not a mind merely hooked up to a machine and simply been fed things that are not true as if they were. That the earth, the universe and nature do not exists as we know them.

I will never know that, but it hardly matters.

Such a premise implies that I am literally unable of making accurate perceptions and informed choices.

It is therefore no help in attaining them, regardless of whether it holds true or not.

With God this does not matter?

Indeed. It does not matter.

Both of us operate entirely on faith.

What do you mean? Facts and perceptions are coherent enough for reason to be useful.

Why am I the only one that admits it?

Because you have not convinced me, it seems.

 

[1robin]

Only if you're only counting Europe & North America as "Earth" and ignoring Africa, the Middle East, South America, and most of Asia.

I am unclear what you meant here.

So because we are not perfect, all the good we do is irrelevant? Which of us is supposed to be the nihilist here?

Man this is the day for getting what I say all messed up I guess. I said nothing about the relevance of good. My claim was that we seem to be almost morally schizophrenic as whole. Not that we only do evil and any good is irrelevant. How did you get that from what I said.

I'd just like to take this time to say how very happy I am that you did not class Hitler an atheist. I am not trying to be condescending or whatnot, I am genuinely thrilled. It is so rare to see someone understand that Hitler was many things, but "consistent with his religious beliefs" isn't one of them.

Hitler is a study in contrasts. Early on he courted church influence but when he did not get what he wanted he turned on the faith with a vengeance. All his later writings are scathing and seething against Christianity as among the worst possible evils. He was never ever even remotely Christian, but that does not mean he was an atheist. In reality he was a combination of in order of importance. A lunatic, A social Darwinist, a Tibetan mystic, a Nietzsche-ite (he present Nietzsche to Stalin and Mussolini), and self loathing Jew among other minor things.

You keep saying we are in need of a transcendent standard, by which you mean a Divine one.

Yes, it so happens to be that if there is one it must be divine.

Why do we need to worship the Standard?

What?

Why can it not be that through our long history, the ones who did not have some manner of inherent morality, were killed by the others for their crimes? Individuals who are born without some kind of morality can do well. But societies of them do not exist because they can't work with each other. Thus, if we ever got 'too many' of them, they fail and do not reproduce. The ones with morality reproduce more and became the dominant.

Sorry I don't know what you meant.

Killing others harms the species. We are hard-wired to preserve the species. Ergo, murder is bad.

Not even close. This is actually immoral. We harm every other species in existence for our own benefit. Without God is not morality this is speciesm. There is nothing inherently special about our species that we are the center of morality unless God exists. Harm to any species or even all species does not equal morally wrong. I merely equal inconvenient for that species.

I appeal to our instincts.

No government in the history of man has based moral doctrines or legal systems on instincts.

That makes no sense. We're still in control of our actions. We still make choices. And the only reason a lawyer exists is because we have laws, which are to benefit the greater whole.

I asked a question as an example of a question no one will answer and you respond by not answering it. I can't make this stuff up. The question is simplistic, it requires merely a yes or no.

You hold the Christian God as the highest arbiter of authority and law. I do not hold any Gods, even my own, as the highest arbiter. The highest arbiter is collective humanity. The thing greater than every individual, the thing that brings us together, our collective cultural heritage & history. That is who and what we answer to. When I am gone, when you are gone, if we are remembered we will be judged by our descendants. It is to them we must justify our actions.

As I have said many times. Only certain concepts of God are candidates for the foundation of moral truths. Mine is one of the few that are among them and mine is by far the most evidenced. We have stated what we believe many times and I have also stated why what I believe is either true or true given God. I know what you believe but I have no idea why it could possibly be true.

So yes, in a way there is a 'God' who proposes judgement after death. It's going to be our children, our childrens'-children.

Wow, so you simultaneously believe these things:
1. An actual God who is the highest possible authority and grounds for objective truth cannot judge us.
2. Your children are gods.
3. Despite being merely human these God's can judge you.
4. Their judgment is relevant to you even if you are no longer in existence to be aware of it.

Like I said I literally can't make this stuff up. One sentence with 4 problems and one contradiction.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheist have morals which are not objective, in the sense they have no objective foundation and are based on feelings and opinions.

The objective foundation is evolution and natural selection. The brain is hard wired so that you feel good when you have done something moral and bad if you have done something immoral. We call that conscience. Sometimes because of illness or injury or brain washing people can't differentiate between right and wrong. This can sometimes be rectified with medication or surgery or psycho therapy.