Evidence for God: The Moral Argument

[infrabenji]

The Moral Argument​

Morality derives from religion. Morality is genetic. Morality is a social construction. Morality results from rational choices. I feel like all these are pretty mild descriptions. Morality results from a complex interaction of genes, neural processes, and social interactions. All organisms have genes that enable them to survive and reproduce, but mammals also have genes to produce the chemical oxytocin and vasopressin, which prompt them to care for their young. In some mammals such as humans, the same chemicals encourage animals to form long term relationships and to care for each other. Such caring is the biological root of morality, which also has many social roots. Valuable social practices such as cooperation can develop when people care about each other. Early humans lived in small groups of around 100 people, but expansion of groups as the result of agriculture and the development of intellectual ideals expanded compassion, sympathy, and empathy beyond people’s immediate group. Eventually, ethical theories were formulated that turned care for others into universal principles, as in the doctrines that morality is based on the rights of all people or on the consequences that affect everyone. Moral norms are shaped by four interlocking brain processes: caring, recognition of other’s psychological states, learning social practices, and problem solving in a social context. Hence the origins of morality are both neural and social empathy beyond people’s immediate group. Eventually, ethical theories were formulated that turned care for others into universal principles, as in the doctrines that morality is based on the rights of all people or on the consequences that affect everyone. Moral norms are shaped by four interlocking brain processes: caring, recognition of other’s psychological states, learning social practices, and problem solving in a social context. Hence the origins of morality are both neural and social. Morality is both objective and subjective. Por que no los dos?

 

[epronovost]

You think that plants have desires?

No of course they don't. They have biological incentives and evolutionary strategy and, to a certain point, very simple behaviors and amongst those are sophisticated strategies to attract pollinators.

They also have no capacity for consent; therefore any sexual act on a plant - i.e. pollenation - is non-consensual.

Since they don't have self-consciousness, framing it in such a fashion is disingenuous and inapplicable. Rape isn't just rape because it's sexual behavior without shared informed consent, but also because it's harmful and perpetrated against a conscious willful being which a plant is not. A plant sits nowhere in the axis of consent to no-consent just like music doesn't have any places on a color wheel.

... says the person anthromorphizing flowers.

I'd take a page from that book when applying legal concept and a human behavior and experience to a plant.

 

[viole]

I have to agree with premise 2 because right or wrong will always be right or wrong whether a person likes it or not. For example, raping women and molesting children will always be wrong even if a person believes it is right; therefore, morality exists outside of a person's opinion.

Well, that could be challenged, since it begs the question. At the end of the day, if most believed that raping a child was right, how can you show evidence that it is not?

Let’s test it. Is having the power to prevent kids rape, and do nothing, right or wrong?

ciao

- viole

 

[Heyo]

The Moral Argument​

I think this argument for God is convincing. Do you agree? For those who don't, where do you see the breakdown?

As an Agnostic, I find this "argument" enlightening. It starts with some premises (all questionable) and comes to an (equally questionable) conclusion.

And then comes the trick. After coming to the conclusion that some force exists that creates objective morality, the label "god" is slapped onto it.

And if the audience was bamboozled enough by this mental gymnastics, the apologist adds a few hundred properties onto the just proven god by magic and thinks he proved the existence of his god.

 

[ChristineM]

Here's the meat and potatoes of the argument:

View attachment 53360

Thanks

So it makes three statements, not necessarily factual, then makes makes assumption, inserts a leap of faith and voila, proof of god... I don't think so.

Morality is a rational enterprise,

Is it? I believe it is a mechanism that most social animals share.

moral facts exist.

Do they, one person's morality will not necessarily be the same as another person's, and may be in disagreement, which is factual?

Moral problems and disagreement mean moral facts aren't grounded in human rationality.

Correct but in mammalian (and some other animals) evolution.

moral facts are grounded in a necessary rational source.

The rationale is social.

This source is what we call God.

Magga leap if faith, i think based on confirmation bias and poor understand of morality.

It's perhaps the worst, most easily refuted argument for god I've seen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@9-10ths_Penguin @ChristineM

The gist:

If moral facts exist where do they come from? Modern philosophy struggles to give a natural account of moral facts.

p1. Morality is a rational enterprise,

i.e. we deduce moral facts and duties through reason not empirical investigation.

p2. Moral realism,

i.e. moral facts exist.

p3. Moral problems and disagreement mean moral facts aren't grounded in human rationality.

p4. By p1,2,3 moral facts are grounded in a necessary rational source.

p5. This source is what we call God.

Therefore God exists.

Not the worst argument I've ever seen but the premises are all potentially objectionable imo. Premise 4 especially so which is what the whole thing seems to hang on.

@dybmh beat me to it

And P3

Also, P5 makes it seem like the whole thing is a false dichotomy also.

 

[firedragon]

Morality derives from religion. Morality is genetic. Morality is a social construction. Morality results from rational choices. I feel like all these are pretty mild descriptions. Morality results from a complex interaction of genes, neural processes, and social interactions. All organisms have genes that enable them to survive and reproduce, but mammals also have genes to produce the chemical oxytocin and vasopressin, which prompt them to care for their young. In some mammals such as humans, the same chemicals encourage animals to form long term relationships and to care for each other. Such caring is the biological root of morality, which also has many social roots. Valuable social practices such as cooperation can develop when people care about each other. Early humans lived in small groups of around 100 people, but expansion of groups as the result of agriculture and the development of intellectual ideals expanded compassion, sympathy, and empathy beyond people’s immediate group. Eventually, ethical theories were formulated that turned care for others into universal principles, as in the doctrines that morality is based on the rights of all people or on the consequences that affect everyone. Moral norms are shaped by four interlocking brain processes: caring, recognition of other’s psychological states, learning social practices, and problem solving in a social context. Hence the origins of morality are both neural and social empathy beyond people’s immediate group. Eventually, ethical theories were formulated that turned care for others into universal principles, as in the doctrines that morality is based on the rights of all people or on the consequences that affect everyone. Moral norms are shaped by four interlocking brain processes: caring, recognition of other’s psychological states, learning social practices, and problem solving in a social context. Hence the origins of morality are both neural and social. Morality is both objective and subjective. Por que no los dos?

You spoke of "care". Where did that come from? Is it natural selection & random mutation? The selfish gene? Survival of the fittest?

 

[Heyo]

You spoke of "care". Where did that come from? Is it natural selection & random mutation? The selfish gene? Survival of the fittest?

Yes.

 

[Yerda]

Is it? I believe it is a mechanism that most social animals share.

That's a fair point.

Do they, one person's morality will not necessarily be the same as another person's, and may be in disagreement, which is factual?

I think moral facts exist, or at least I'm inclined to that view. It has nothing to do with God imo; two people can disagree on empirical facts without the nature of the fact being the problem. Likewise you and I could disagree on whether rape is morally wrong without it impacting on whether it is actually wrong.

Correct but in mammalian (and some other animals) evolution.

That seems plausible to me also.

The rationale is social.

Is the rationale and the grounding the same thing? I'm not sure about that.

 

[firedragon]

Yes.

I didnt ask you Heyo. I appreciate your response. I was asking from that particular poster in context of his own post and it won't be relevant to you.

Yet, if you could explain from his point of view, can you prove that care came from "natural selection & random mutation? The selfish gene. Survival of the fittest" (I just cut and pasted my own sentence since you said yes to the whole sentence)?

 

[viole]

The Moral Argument​

I think this argument for God is convincing. Do you agree? For those who don't, where do you see the breakdown?

I think it is really suboptimal. And, like all moral arguments, necessarily circular.

The guy called "God" the necessary grounding of morality. It is just a title for that grounding, allegedly. And then declares that God exists.

But that is not different to give that title to kjsncxk and then declare that kjsncxk exists. It is meaningless. So, there is really no need to look for a grounding, since it is possible that the ontology of morality (according to realists) is the same as the ontology of mathematics. So, he could have called that grounding "Moral Realism" with the same information content. So, question begging.

Indeed, he also says that grounding is immutable as 2+2=4. And that is where the question begging begins. If that is true, then what makes him think that the ontology of morality requires a next step of grounding, unlike mathematical propositions that seem to be necessary also without any further grounding, or mathematician God? If 2+2=4 exists without a God (since He cannot possibly change it), why do we need one God, or whatever more, for "you ought not rape kids"?

Therefore, if we remove the noise, and the sleigh of hand of creating groundings and God out of thin air, the arguments reduces to

1) There are moral facts and duties
2) Ergo, there are moral facts and duties

Ciao

- viole

 

[infrabenji]

You spoke of "care". Where did that come from? Is it natural selection & random mutation? The selfish gene? Survival of the fittest?

All organisms have genes that enable them to survive and reproduce, but mammals also have genes to produce the chemical oxytocin and vasopressin, which prompt them to CARE for their young.

Great question! You see oxytocin is the chemical in the brain responsible for emotional responses and pro-social behaviors, like empathy and trust. Vasopressin encourages feelings of attachment and protection. So care as used in the sentence is a verb, right? And I’m using the common definition of the word as listed below.

Care: to feel concern or interest; attach importance to something. To look after and provide for the needs of.

What I find interesting is how the definition seems to align with the emotional byproduct of these ancient peptides that I described above.

As to where it comes from it’s ancient and plays a strong role in fecundity which would be natural selection. There are different mechanisms of natural selection. They are diversifying selection (a mode in which extreme values for a trait are favored over intermediate values and can occur when environmental changes favor individuals on either end of the phenotypic spectrum), frequency-dependent selection (a process whereby the fitness of a phenotype or genotype increases as it becomes more common in a population), and sexual selection (natural selection arising through preference by one sex for certain characteristics in individuals of the other sex).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Again, if morality is subjective, what's wrong with killing all the Canaanite babies, slaughter their parents, and taking the virgin girls as sex slaves? If we look through the scope of that time, maybe that's how they did things back then. All tribes would raid their neighbors to take slaves and women. I don't understand how atheists can justify those events as wrong if they are not objectively wrong. It should be looked at subjectively. That's how it was done back then. To say that it was something evil, I believe, is to use objective morality.


Anyway, thank you all for your responses. I needed to hear the atheists' arguments and points of view.

Excuse me, but we are thinking "subjectively." Presumably a lot more than the Israelites -- and you. We atheists know whether a thing is right or wrong because we can ask ourselves -- without some supposed God intervening in our thought processes -- whether we would appreciate it if the tables were turned. How would I like to be a slave? I wouldn't -- thus I subjectively think that enslaving others is wrong. How would I like to be killed, or have my daughter taken as a sex-slave and raped? I wouldn't, so I infer that these things must be wrong.

I don't actually need a "commandment" or ten to tell me any of that. I can do it entirely on my own. That's one of the beauties of being an atheist. I don't have a God telling me I should hate my neighbour because he's gay.

 

[ChristineM]

I think moral facts exist

I'm not so sure, morality differs from person to person, culture to culture. If moral facts existed there would not be such disparity

Is the rationale and the grounding the same thing?

In the case of morality they surely overlap

 

[Polymath257]

Again, if morality is subjective, what's wrong with killing all the Canaanite babies, slaughter their parents, and taking the virgin girls as sex slaves? If we look through the scope of that time, maybe that's how they did things back then. All tribes would raid their neighbors to take slaves and women. I don't understand how atheists can justify those events as wrong if they are not objectively wrong. It should be looked at subjectively. That's how it was done back then. To say that it was something evil, I believe, is to use objective morality.


Anyway, thank you all for your responses. I needed to hear the atheists' arguments and points of view.

You realize that other primates also have the concept of 'fairness'? That even dogs can show compassion?

So while morality is subjective (not something external to ourselves), it is also based on what is required for a social species of ape to survive. if you want to claim that basis is 'objective', we can debate that designation. But morality is what is required for a society to survive in its environment and history.

 

[Yerda]

I'm not so sure, morality differs from person to person, culture to culture. If moral facts existed there would not be such disparity

Many people disagree on matters of fact about the physical world around us. This doesn't lead us to the conclusion that there are no facts about the world.

 

[ChristineM]

Many people disagree on matters of fact about the physical world around us. This doesn't lead us to the conclusion that there are no facts about the world.

A fact is a thing/information proven to be true, there can be no valid argument about it.

 

[Yerda]

A fact is a thing/information proven to be true, there can be no valid argument about it.

Ah, see we're using the word in a different sense.

When I say there are facts about the natural world, I mean there are things that are the case whether we can prove them or not. For example, if Alice said to Bob, "there are exactly x number of stars in the Milky Way" we could say it is either a fact that there are x stars, or it is a fact that there are not x stars. One of these is a fact even if we can't prove it.

You see where I'm going with this?

 

[ChristineM]

Ah, see we're using the word in a different sense.

When I say there are facts about the natural world, I mean there are things that are the case whether we can prove them or not. For example, if Alice said to Bob, "there are exactly x number of stars in the Milky Way" we could say it is either a fact that there are x stars, or it is a fact that there are not x stars. One of these is a fact even if we can't prove it.

You see where I'm going with this?

Not really, stars are physical objects, morality is thought, not really comparable

 

[Yerda]

Not really, stars are physical objects, morality is thought, not really comparable

So what I'm getting at is that differences of opinion aren't really objections to the existence of facts. There are good reasons to doubt moral realism but the observation that people have disagreements about moral issues isn't one of them. That's all.