How can morality exist without god?

[Alceste]

And yet these "true" opinions are constantly changing, being re-evaluated, edited, and sometimes completely thrown out. I think "true" is definitely the wrong word to use here, but I agree that these "true" opinions accurately describe reality, only to a certain degree, but can never pierce the veil of being 100% accurate and in tune with reality. And if a claim is seemingly 99% accurate, sometimes that extra percent makes a world of difference(think chaos theory) -- hence certain ideas that are thought to be accurately true are often completely thrown out as more progress is made.

Your example of the sky being blue is a poor example, although I get the point you are trying to make.. What is "blue?" good luck defining it and proving that all of your peers agree on your definition..

I don't think it would be nearly as difficult as this to get nearly everyone to agree that the sky appears to be blue. I could do a poll if you like.

Of course language itself is all smoke and mirrors. A dedicated sophist can deconstruct any word to the point of meaningless, but I think in his heart of hearts he too understands and agrees with the opinion "the sky appears to be blue" - unless he is colour blind.

1. Goodluck finding ANYTHING that EVERYONE believes the same on. If that was the definition of "objective truth" then there would be absolutely no objective truth, which further proves my points.

2. I would argue that it's impossible to make an objective claim on reality, and that science, or "hypothetical" discovery, is not the only form of obtaining knowledge about reality. Rather non-hypothetical discovery can tell us things about reality too, and that IMO certain claims made from non-hypothetical discovery(ex: certain religious claims) are just as "objective" as any other claim man can make about reality. The point being that it is impossible to make an objective claim on reality..

I agree, but the fairly limited likelihood of a human opinion being supported by objective reality increases with its degree of universality.

Are you serious?!?!!? go back and read my post! I was defending non-theistic morality and showed how moral relativism is a solution that we can use to justify moral beliefs without the need for objective moral values. Here, I'll provide a quote of what I said for you:

To one who might naively think, "If there is no God, then all acts are equal, so what is the point of pursuing moral development?" Moral Relativism provides the solution.

Ah, I did read your post, but I misunderstood you. I've been in too many conversations about moral relativity, I think. I'm seeing ghosts of long-dead arguments.

 

[Alceste]

Well let me clarify. I don't mean that the big bang can produce only one single effect, but that what effects it has is entirely based up on it's nature (the way the big was) and that once that has been established all subsequent causes follow a predetermined course.

I think you are confusing the mathematical concept of a "deterministic system" - where there are no random factors - with the religious concept of "predetermination" - everything unfolding in a predictable fashion according to some divine plan.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory:

"Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."

Using this model, sentience can be interpreted as a computational factor, through which "small differences in initial conditions" can "produce wildly diverging outcomes".

How does an organism weight the benefits of their choices without free will and how can there be more than one possible outcome to the weighting process?

The imposition of the concept of "free will" implies there is such a thing as "enslaved will". I don't believe sentience is chopped up into discrete pieces like this. Our range of choices is somewhat constrained by our inherent nature, but within those confines, we do make choices, every waking moment.

 

[Iti oj]

If I poved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that no god existed would yo go out and commit murder? Why or why not.

Just play along so I did convince you. Also like I sao have you heard of moral consequentialism? Also morals are like glue for society. Also we may have genes for morals

 

[Polarbear]

I think you are confusing the mathematical concept of a "deterministic system" - where there are no random factors - with the religious concept of "predetermination" - everything unfolding in a predictable fashion according to some divine plan.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory:

"Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."

Using this model, sentience can be interpreted as a computational factor, through which "small differences in initial conditions" can "produce wildly diverging outcomes".

Even if you see sentience as a computational factor how can there be several possible outcomes when the system is still entirely deterministic? There are no random factors in chaotic systems either.

The imposition of the concept of "free will" implies there is such a thing as "enslaved will". I don't believe sentience is chopped up into discrete pieces like this.

Yes, free will implies that there exists something as enslaved will, but only as a concept. A being with an enslaved will doesn't have to actually exist in order for a being with free will to exist.

If I poved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that no god existed would yo go out and commit murder? Why or why not.

It seems that you have misunderstood the topic, this is not about why people behave the way they behave, but about establishing an objective standard of morality within an atheistic worlview. The above quote has no bearing on that.

Also like I sao have you heard of moral consequentialism?

Yes, but how is it relevant?

Also morals are like glue for society.

Maybe the preception that there is a right or wrong holdes society togheter, but that is not a basis for morality, how do you establish that maintaining society is a good thing?

Also we may have genes for morals

How can genes give rise to morals?

 

[punkdbass]

I don't think it would be nearly as difficult as this to get nearly everyone to agree that the sky appears to be blue. I could do a poll if you like.

Of course language itself is all smoke and mirrors. A dedicated sophist can deconstruct any word to the point of meaningless, but I think in his heart of hearts he too understands and agrees with the opinion "the sky appears to be blue" - unless he is colour blind.

Good points.

I agree, but the fairly limited likelihood of a human opinion being supported by objective reality increases with its degree of universality.

Glad you agree, and I agree that the "likelihood" would increase with the degree of universality of the opinion, which IMO supports my belief that anything we say about reality can only be seen in the light of plausibility, and not as absolute objective truth.

Ah, I did read your post, but I misunderstood you. I've been in too many conversations about moral relativity, I think. I'm seeing ghosts of long-dead arguments.

It's all good. And yeah, I'm pretty new to the philosophical subject of morality, but I really like the idea of moral relativism, at least what little I know about it lol.

 

[Father Heathen]

Think about this for a minute, if there is no creator god then the natural world is all that exist. If all that exist is natural then humans are to and that would make us bound by causality, which doesn't allow for any free will...

Without free will nobody can be held accountable for their actions. Because whatever you did you didn't choose to. Your action was caused by an unalterable chain of events that started with the big bang and without any alternate course of action there can't be any good or bad actions, just those that were predetermined to be taken.

So how do you as an atheist account for morality?

(Note: I am not saying that atheists are bad people, just asking how they justify their morals)

Morality arises from our ability to reason and from our capacity for compassion. Morality comes from a mind, so why does it matter if it's from our own or from an invisible sky daddy's?

 

[Alceste]

Even if you see sentience as a computational factor how can there be several possible outcomes when the system is still entirely deterministic? There are no random factors in chaotic systems either.

How can there NOT be several possible outcomes of any given choice? The naturalistic view doesn't hinge on "randomness". It hinges on the conviction that reality unfolds according to natural laws and mechanisms that we can come to understand. However, understanding the laws and mechanisms does not always allow us to predict outcomes, and it certainly doesn't mean all outcomes are "predetermined".

Predetermination assumes there has only ever been one "cause", and that everything afterward was determined at that moment. Once again, this is a theistic view, not a naturalistic one. The naturalistic view is that there are layers upon layers of continuously shifting and evolving causes, all tied together in a multi-dimensional web so complex the outcome of tugging on any particular strand is completely unknowable. Every time a sentient being chooses to go "this way" as opposed to "that way", a new multitude of possible outcomes is born.

Yes, free will implies that there exists something as enslaved will, but only as a concept. A being with an enslaved will doesn't have to actually exist in order for a being with free will to exist.

It's an unnecessary construct, that's what I'm saying. The concept of "free will" only exists to reassure theists that a creator God who intentionally hurts his creations might not be evil. Naturalists don't need it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Even with a God, morality can't exist more than a subjective opinion

 

[idav]

Even with a God, morality can't exist more than a subjective opinion

Yet a goal, like living happily, is an objective, which makes it...objective.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Yet a goal, like living happily, is an objective, which makes it...objective.

It's called an objective but it's subjective. A war on wordplay

 

[idav]

It's called an objective but it's subjective. A war on wordplay

I object.

Really though a goal is objective. Like wanting people to live versus wanting people to die. A definite distinction.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I object.

Really though a goal is objective. Like wanting people to live versus wanting people to die. A definite distinction.

The goal objectively exists, but not everybody has the same goal, thus subjective.

feels a sudden Deja Vu

 

[Penumbra]

I don't see how morality has anything to do with deities. The idea of absolute morality makes little sense regardless of whether a deity is involved or not.

However, there are objectively better ways to achieve a given goal than other ways. Behavior isn't absolute, but when relative to any given goal, certain types of behavior can be demonstrably better at reaching that goal than other types of behaviors.

And some goals promote life and well-being better than other goals. Life naturally selects life, because things that live get to produce life and things that die too quickly don't get to produce life. So there is also a sense that some goals self-select themselves better than others, because some lead to reproduction and some lead to dead ends.

Given the existence of self-selecting goals, and objectively better ways to achieve some goals compared to other ways, there is a degree of consistency and rationality to morality.

Deities or the lack thereof don't add to, or subtract from, that concept.

 

[839311]

Think about this for a minute, if there is no creator god then the natural world is all that exist.

If God exists he is just as natural as any other part of reality.

If all that exist is natural then humans are to and that would make us bound by causality

Free will isn't dependant on whether or not any particular being exists. It is dependant on the nature of consciousness, which is very mysterious.

So how do you as an atheist account for morality?

Whether or not we have free will, we may never know. If we don't have free will then yeah ultimately there is no such thing as morality. However, even if we don't have free will we still live in a world where it at least seems like we have free will and our choices affect the world in very important ways. Since we may never know whether or not we have free will it is a good idea to consider reality from both perspectives.

Morality seems to be the result of evolution.

 

[idav]

The goal objectively exists, but not everybody has the same goal, thus subjective.

feels a sudden Deja Vu

Should I call my goal objective and yours subjective or vise versa? I guess if you told me your goal I could just think your lying or maybe I'm not interpreting it right. None of that would make your goal subjective.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Should I call my goal objective and yours subjective or vise versa?

Uh... I'm not following your goal, and you're not following mine, thus both are subjective.

I guess if you told me your goal I could just think your lying or maybe I'm not interpreting it right. None of that would make your goal subjective.

So if I have a different goal than you, you just wont believe me?

 

[Sunstone]

I think a more thoughtful question might be how can we know that an objective morality exists if there is a god?

 

[Sir Doom]

I think a more thoughtful question might be how can we know that an objective morality exists if there is a god?

Yeah, we would have to take his word for it, wouldn't we?

Of course, if that's the case then we technically could never really know anything unless we were god. But that is a whole different subject.

 

[1robin]

I think a more thoughtful question might be how can we know that an objective morality exists if there is a god?

If there is a God and we pick Christianity as his true revelation or another then how is whether his standards are objective or not meaningful. If they are we should obey them and are accountable for our actions. If they are subjective then we should obey them and are accountable for our actions. What differences does the label make. IMO they are objective but like I said who cares?

 

[Me Myself]

If there is a God and we pick Christianity as his true revelation or another then how is whether his standards are objective or not meaningful. If they are we should obey them and are accountable for our actions. If they are subjective then we should obey them and are accountable for our actions. What differences does the label make. IMO they are objective but like I said who cares?

You made it in reverse.

First you see if his morals agree with your morals, then you see if his morals are acceptable so you can know if you want to take that religion.

If the morals are wrong and you dont agree with that God on them, you choose the religion that has morals that you agree on. If no religions does so, then you choose your own morals, because they are what feels right to you.