do morals need a god?

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

@DuneMeister

I am somewhat torn between thinking that we two are quite near at some points on the one hand and thinking that we are rather far apart on the other hand.
Again I must apologize if I rearrange my answers a bit but I think its best for the discussion.

I left out the part concerning the example of the lifeguard. I do not know if it is beneficial to write something about it. If you wish so I will add another post about that later. Just some short words. You more or less only ask a question and blame one side for supposedly not being able to answer it while you don’t either.
Sure we all think he has an obligation to save the person. (I by the way think that the only difference in obligation between the guard and others is that it is his job. Apart of that I think EVERYBODY has an obligation in such a case and (as science tells you) the more people are standing around the less are likely to fullfill that.
But apart of telling me that we all feel there is an obligation on the side of someone and correctly understanding this to be an emotive normativity, you fail to explain why it should be more.

We are tempted to say that if you have the training and opportunity to save a life, you ought to. But that really just begs the question. Does the lifeguard have an obligation? Ought she to have intervened? We all want to say yes. But why?

Exactly what answer can you present with evidence?
I see no reason why a biological answer (which would most probably be an emotive normativity in your eyes) is not sufficient as answer.

As for b) you said:

In this example, Fred is saying that Barney's evaluative standard is not objective. It's arbitrary or parochial. In any case, Fred does not accept Barney's authority to apply an evaluative standard to Fred's behavior. That is, Barney doesn't have the authority to evaluate Fred's behavior. That is, because Barney's evaluative standard lacks objectivity or legitimate authority, it is not truly normative in the way we expect moral statements to be.

Now this is funny, because that’s EXACTLY the status we have with for example YOUR morality as well. Obviously there are far more nonchristians than Christians on this planet and they are the Freds of your example while you are the Barney.
What you do is to proclaim something to be an objective standard. Yet with nobody agreeing to your idea it is just as valuable as a non-objective standard. And since you even have problems proving that it is an objective standard…. Who says it really is one ;-)


Topic 1: Your definition and the problems with it.
My main claim was that by you didn’t argue why God is the source of morality, you simply defined morality in a way that leaves no room for anything else but him.
As reply you kind of reiterated the definition:

So why do I say that morals come from God? First off, I notice that (a) moral statements are deontologically normative in form and content, and (b) moral statements are true or false regardless of any person's or culture's views on the matter.

Again you do not really argue but simply declare. I already told you that I would have to agree based on your definition. You thought that this might be too strong but I disagree.
And the reason might become obvious when you reread your posts.
Your definition of deontologically, normative and objective actually excludes any “authority” that is anything else but a God. For example you dismiss a biological factor as having authority. I come to that later. You also demand something which is independend of us.
Basically this only leaves some other “being” that we would refer to as authority and the only authority mankind could at all accept would be God.
So again: If you choose your definition (in that form) then in my view nobody could conclusively argue against it with anything but a God. The problem is that I do not accept the definition in that form.
The real interesting thing is why you insist on your definition. Simply stating that you “notice” some things is not sufficient, for it being an established fact. And simply declaring biology to be not authorative also doesn’t make it so. The only thing you establish is to lay down a definition that “autoproves” or “autodemands” a God.

Of course then the following statement of yours would be true:

Plenty of atheistic philosophers attempt to ground a deontologically normative and objective morality (really the only morality there is) in something other than the existence of a god. I'm underwhelmed by their results, but they are giving it the old college try. Perhaps you are likewise skeptical of the prospects.

Any person will fail in his try if you persist in your definition and understanding of the terms you use. That’s actually a no brainer and won’t help us in the discussion.
You simply stated that the definition of yours would be the only one that counts (see above with “really the only morality there is”). You don’t really argue why.

Now I did tell you last time already that you would have problems actually differing “objective”, “authorative” morals that are “independend from mankind” from subjective morals. We are subjective beings, value judgments are per definition subjective. How would you differ between real morals and nonreal morals?
Strikingly you once say:

For at least some of my moral beliefs, I think I can possibly know. In fact, I say that I do know.

without providing evidence or an argument for that.
On the other hand you also say:

In particular, my inability to prove to you that my (Christian) moral standards are objective is indeed a problem,….

Indeed it is. And it is a problem to say that one does know something and on the other side to admit the inability to prove something.

Topic 2: Supposed complexity of A as evidence for B
I think that (and this also is a reoccurring thing in your statements) that the mere idea of yours that morals not following your definition or the solution outline with God would be a puzzle or complicated is not evidence that they don’t exist or your “simpler” way is true. It only means that you have chosen a supposedly simpler path.
Statements like these here:

What actually follows from the definition is that morality is something of a puzzle on atheistic grounds.

or

That morality is rooted somehow in a god sits very comfortably with (a) and (b). In other words, morality "makes sense" within Christian theism. Rooting morality in something else sits less comfortably; that is, morality becomes something of a puzzle.

do not provide any real value in the sense that they state anything about reality. Its only a personal preference that you state here along as your problems with alternative explanations. Just because quantum physics is complicated doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
And frankly, I do not see how your idea is a real simplification of the question at hand.
Actually it isn’t. Its just a stop sign. God did it. Period. Not really a solution in my view.
Or look at:

For you, morality is paradoxical and thus requires lengthy analysis, and you call for a major revisioning of what's going on. Its authority is more apparent than real. On my account, I can simply let the world be what it is. I don't have to "revise" anything about the way humans typically think, reason, and act from a moral perspective.

That’s rather lazy don’t you think? And it doesn’t actually provide any explanation at all. (For the record: I do not think morals are paradox).

Topic 3: Where we seem close and where I wonder if I misunderstood something
Throughout the last posts you haven’t mentioned the scriptures. Actually all that you stated hinted at “inherent” traits of ours as created beings. God so to speak incoporated in us morality. Scripture is (in this discussion) out of scope as of yet.
Now you said:

Once you've kicked god out, you have to root ethics in biology or something else. But a biological reaction doesn't have "authority."

Well i could accuse you of the same thing. Once you kick biology out you need root it in God or something else But a nonexisting God doesn’t have authority nor does any rooting in God make him existent.
The interesting question for YOU would be: How did God do it, especially if you don’t need the scriptures? You said:

Or perhaps it's based mostly on our divine heritage as created in the image of God.

I currently see only two ways how God could have archived that (from a religious perspective):
a) He created our souls with some morality or moral sense contained therein.
b) He injected something into the biological system of ours and nature took over.
If you think it’s within our souls then we would have to debate the question if we at all have one and what evidence for one exists (currently none from a scientific point of view). I see no reason why I would have to rely on a soul that nobody can prove or has evidence for when we have biology, the anthropic principle and normal social education by parents and society.

If you believe in b then we have a very interesting constellation. On the one hand we might say that we only seem to differ in the question WHO or HOW we got the biological traits of morality. We would actually agree perhaps on most from that point on. So it’s just a question on how we got to the bioethical state we have.
On the other hand this would go against much of your idea concerning biology as not being an authority. You would have to revise that to at least the perspective that biology alone couldn’t have coded itself in the form it is present.
Perhaps you have a third option. I would be interested to see that.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Topic 4:
Biological authority.
I found the following statement of yours striking:

But a biological reaction doesn't have "authority." Imagine that I learn that my aversion to pedophelia is based entirely (or even mainly) on biology. Once I'm apprised of that connection, what follows? Is it permissable, like Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, to try to live above that base aversion? If not, why not? What is it about human biology that it should have such authority over me? What if a whole society learns to live above that aversion and freely allows all its members to engage in pedophelia? Is there any way to criticize them? We tell them, "Look, there is a biological, natural aversion to pedophelia." They reply "We know, but we have developed techniques to overcome that, and besides, it's better to rise above our carnal nature, don't you think? Why be slaves of anything, particularly biology?" Answers are hard to come by to this sort of response.

Now I don’t want to sound insulting but this is rather obvious nonsense.
Most of what people call pedophilia today was not considered so thousand years ago (including by the way biblical times). What we now consider pedophilia is a mental desease. But the point is a different one.
You seem to suggest that just knowing the source of something is equivalent to overcoming it. That’s not really so. You don’t stop loving a person when you get to know that your body tosses out endorphins. You don’t suddenly start to like raping people when you know that certain brain structures or hormones make you dislike it. You still dislike it regardless of whether its God who implanted a chip in your head, biology that created an organ for it, society that taught you so or any other “fixed” thing.
You might remember the last post where I spoke about the question what would be if we lived in a world where rape was considered fine and if that would mean that rape is fine or if any “objective” morals would at all be considered in such a world.
Here we have a similar thing.
There mere fact that you know where your aversion or your disgust for something comes from doesn’t inspire you to suddenly enjoy it.
Biology HAS authority over you. You might just try to look up the numerous experiments concerning behavioural changes introduced through simple chemical and biological reactions in experiments. Actually you only need to get drunk and film yourself to see how much authority biology has over you. Knowing that your changed reactions will depend on alcohol doesn’t at all change those reactions if you drink again.
Neither does knowing about endorphins stop them from flowing freely when you see your beloved kids the next time.

Another one which seems to go in the same direction:

This is a statement of what happens on a biological level. Actions ABC generate positive reactions, and XYZ produce negative reactions. It's not obvious to me that anything follows about what we ought to do. Sometimes doing what's right involves pain and self sacrifice, and at times that sacrifice goes unrewarded. One thinks of people who rot in jails around the world for the sake of conscience. Most of these people will never live to see their countries reformed. Most of the countries will not be reformed despite the sacrifice of these conscientious objectors. On a utilitarian reading, the right thing is to compromise your principles. I'm not quite so sure.

I think you do not consider here the biological reactions to compromising ones principles
Sacrifice doesn’t go unrewarded for the individual that sacrifices itself. Otherwise it actually wouldn’t sacrifice itself. You think if for example I had to choose between my kid and me being killed then I would not sacrifice myself simply because I know that it is a bio-sociological thing? That I would not see any “reward”?
Reward is what you make it.

Topic 5: the animal question

Animals, although they are affected by morality (in particular human immorality and other effects of the fall of humankind into sin), they do not respond as humans do to moral imperatives. Your analysis reduces our moral behavior to a kind of animal instinct, and that compels you to think that they do.

If it could be demonstrated that animals DO have morals and are not just instinct driven beasts. Would that make you rethink your ideas?
Now there is a wide range of science concerning that field.
Give this article a try: Honor Among Beasts - TIME
But there is far more. You see altruism according to you shouldn’t happen in the animal kingdom. At least not if its not a biological but a soul-driven trait. Yet exactly that is found.
The higher the social interaction of a species the more “moral-like” they become.
The problem for you is that you must define what exactly constitutes our features of being created in gods image. Where does Gods image stop and where start. If it is not related to biology then why do animals show moral and ethical behaviours that increase with their stage of social development?

Topic 6: What morals from scriptures then As I said already you didn’t mention your scripture lately stating most as being something that came through creation.
What additional moral values then should we find in the scripture?
Saying something extreme on purpose (but without bad intentions) I would have to say: “actually only the bad ones”
If we were created in the image of God and potentially knew morality then all GOOD things would be inherent in us. No need for a “don’t kill” except perhaps to repeat something that should be in our blood anyway. What we find (as an addition) however then in the scriptures (and normally disregard or “reinterpret”) are exactly those values that we normally would discard as evil. It takes a holy scripture to tell us that it is better to let your daughter be raped than your guest. Only a scripture can tell you its ok to kill your son if your god demands it.
Only a scripture can tell you to kill him if he doesn’t pay respect.
And all the other moral commands that you get from scripture.
You might call this a cheap attack and I sincerely believe that you are of course not listening to that stuff and have a different opinion.
Yet it is rather obviously a flaw in the very basic premise of yours that God created us this and that way. You wouldn’t need a scripture that tells you what you knew along with the opposite. But definetly you have to pick and choose as the scriptures do contain quite some horrific moral teachings that just today are not regarded anymore as to be taken serious.

Topic 7: morality of acts versus a morality of evaluation
You stated

I think what you are saying is that the way we reason about what to do in a situation is properly called moral reasoning and has a place in "morality" writ large. I agree. It's not always obvious what is right to do in a situation, and we have to think about it.

Don’t forget that you stated morality to be normative musts and mustn’t concerning acts.
If you take the 10 commandments you see not a single “well you must consider things this and that way”. You have rather simple single statements like “do this” “don’t do that”.
And there is no exception for any situation. Neither for other moral rules of actions. Don’t lie is without exception. Exceptions come from you yourself. That’s something your brain tells you because otherwise it would be impossible to follow the rules.
My morality is totally different. It gives me no command on how to act. It only tells me how to evaluate. The act follows the evaluation.

Sidenotes:

Well yes, and there's the issue of why God proscribes this behavior. Does he have any reason, even possibly, to say so? (I say yes.) And does the authority of the proscription depend on God telling us his reasons (I say no) or on our agreement on his reasons (I say HELL NO)?

I see no objective morality that would dictate a heterosexual relationship or require to see homosexuality as evil. If you look long enough you can come up with reasons for everything including for example reasons why sex should only be used to procreate and not to enjoy it. Whether those reasons are “objective” is something completely different.

How many universes are you using as a basis of comparison, anyway?

I only know of one.

I happen to think that such truths are knowable and universally applicable, and your arguments have not demonstrated otherwise.

Well, are you a vegetarian?

(I'd love to discuss this face to face with you!)

Next time you visit Germany, send me am message. I could show you the oldest ever printed bible and we have a nice talk over some nice (non-alcoholic) drinks.