Is an atheist worldview compatible with a belief in absolute moral values?

[Crypto2015]

That's just a bunch of crap. "God" in this case is just a rhetorical device that you use to ground your argument in some perceived authority. However, there's no reason why anyone has to accept the existence of this "god" or to believe that this "god" is nothing more than a mouthpiece for your own viewpoints. "God said so" is not an answer to anything and has no place in rational discourse. Even if some literal divine being does exist outside of ourselves, that still doesn't mean it's the "supreme being" or that a supreme being would have anything to do with human religions, especially ones that are filled with petty stupidity (i.e. pretty much all the mainstream ones with their "holy books").

Can you prove that God is just a rhetorical device with no existence in the real world? No. Hence, you cannot substantiate your assertion. If God does not exist, there is no way to prove that gay marriage is right/wrong, since in the absence of God morality is based solely on opinions.

 

[Crypto2015]

Theres this thing called rationalism you might lack.

It is because of rationalism that atheists cannot support their morality in any way. If God does not exist, there is no basis for morality. You may talk endlessly about empathy and the survival of our species, but the truth is that there is no reason to believe that the survival of our species is "good" or that empathy is a virtue and not a weakness.

 

[Crypto2015]

Even if it was true, how can we have your God, Jewish God, Muslim God, and all other gods fight it out who is the one who gives us the absolute and objective moral code, and which one of them who has the right to judge us and punish us eternally? How can we objectively find out and know which one? And how can we objectively find out what that particular God who wins thinks and wants? Through human prophets who add their own interests and subjective views or per internal contemplation and insight? If it's per subjective prophets, then it's not objective. If it's by internal insights, then trust people (and God's will) to find it on their own and don't push your favorite religion on them. Faith and belief comes form inside. It doesn't come through hammering books with moral codes over other people's heads. The only moral code we can get from God is ultimately the one he gives us in our hearts, and mostly through reasoning and contemplation. Also, it comes from human society and culture evolving, which, if God exists, you also have to allow God to direct instead of using an ancient code written by a subjective prophet. It all comes back to the same, morality is based on culture, sociological ideas, values, reasoning, etc, with or without God.

All of what you said is interesting, but it is irrelevant for the present discussion. We are just discussing if moral principles can be justified in the absence of God. The answer is a big no.

 

[Crypto2015]

There is a theory in human nature that uses the word PAIN to define morals, at the moment I can’t remember it exactly but basically it’s our key to who we are. For example P is personal survival which is upmost in importance to us. I can’t remember the rest however I is for immoral acts our brain is programed to determine right and wrong acts for us. My point is this I believe that everyone not just religious or non-religious people have moral boundaries however they are bound only to what their brain thinks is immoral. take for example a murderer someone who's moral boundaries allowed him to kill someone, however this same person may be incapable of raping someone based on his morals, his religion did not dictate this his brain did this is why Hitler was able to have an entire country brain washed into killing millions of innocent people because he justified it in their minds not the religions. My second point is this: if you have ever read the book "The Shack" you would know the religion does not play into morals. In the book a man's child is kidnapped and killed in the book he struggles with his religious views however he overcomes this. But from beginning to end he always said he would kill whoever did this to his child. Even though in his religion this is considered immoral yet he would do this against his god? This is because morals are in human nature and not religion, please feel free to respond.

The moral principles of which you are talking about are simply a social convention. You could argue that this social convention is based on psychological traits that derive from our evolutionary history. However, both conventions and traits deriving from evolution are either "right" or "wrong" only when there is an external source of morality upon which they can be judged. Conventions and evolutionary traits are not sources of morality in themselves. For example, evolution has programmed my brain in such a way that I feel that eating fat is desirable. This is so because our ancestors struggled against starvation for most of their evolutionary history. However, since I am a rational being, I can get to the conclusion that this psychological trait is harmful given my present environment. Hence, I resist that which has been imposed on me by evolution. Likewise, I may resist my urges to be compassionate, if I realize that compassion is harmful to me or to my group. We must conclude therefore that psychological traits derived from evolution are not right or wrong in themselves. Also, slavery was an acceptable social convention in most of the world during most of the history of mankind. If social conventions were always right, and if the majority were always right when it comes to morality, we would be forced to conclude that all abolitionist movements were immoral throughout most of the history of mankind. That means that social conventions are neither wrong nor right in themselves.

 

[Crypto2015]

How is that a sound foundation ?
How do we determine this is a fair judge ? How do we determine what is his view ?

That's all interesting, but irrelevant for the topic that we are discussing. Right now we are focusing on a single question: can we justify our moral principles if we do not believe in God?

 

[Sees]

I enjoy seeing Divine Command Theory brought up but I don't think it is nearly as strong as proponents feel.

Firmly true, righteous, good principles and values only being possible by a Creator God is never actually validated in any sense. Why would the Creator God's principles and values necessarily be completely objective and sound in regards to truth, righteousness, goodness? It can't be "just because"...

 

[Sunstone]

There is a big difference between feeling that something is right and justifying why something is right. Most people, regardless of their worldview, believe that murder is wrong. However, how do people justify that murder is wrong? Some people may argue that murder is wrong because we feel that it is wrong. These people are implicitly asserting that moral principles are subjective. In other words, they are asserting that moral principles are opinions or, in the best-case scenario, human conventions. The problem with such a stance is that different people may hold different opinions on the value of human life. For instance, the Nazis believed that the lives of the Jews were less valuable than the lives of other human beings. The Nazis were consistent with their own moral conventions when they proceeded to organize the mass murder of millions of civilians. How can we prove that they were wrong if we believe that right and wrong are just feelings? We probably feel that they were wrong, but they could have argued that they felt that they were right. It follows that when moral principles are nothing but social conventions, human life has no intrinsic value. When moral principles are simply social conventions, human rights are alienable rights that are bestowed upon the citizen by the state. Hence, the state has the power to deprive its citizens of these rights. Other people may argue that murder is wrong because it is detrimental for our species. However, what makes what is detrimental for our species wrong? Our species destroys the planet and has caused the extinction of countless other species. We must not confuse what is in our best interest with what is right. Finally, someone may posit that murder is wrong because evolution has programmed our brain to believe that murder is wrong. Nevertheless, this position, instead of proving that murder is wrong, proves that murder is actually not wrong, since if this position were the right one, morality would be nothing but a self-delusion, an instinct with which rational beings are not forced to comply. It seems to me that only the existence of God provides a sound foundation for our moral principles. An eternal and fair judge, who can reward us or punish us even beyond the grave, is the only true justification for the existence of firm moral principles. What do you think?

Are you arguing we should accept your god as existing in order so that we may arrive at moral consensus?

If so, then I have some concerns about your position. First, if there is no other reason to accept your god than to arrive at a moral consensus, then why not accept some other god besides yours?

Second, by what means, if any, can we know for certain that some god wants us to have a particular set of morals?

Third, if your aim is to bring humanity to a moral consensus, then why didn't Europeans reach a moral consensus during the Middle Ages when nearly everyone in Europe believed in the same god? Why did people still murder when they believed their god disapproved of murder? I don't think you can show that belief in a god necessarily leads to a moral consensus that is anything more than lip service.

 

[Crypto2015]

I enjoy seeing Divine Command Theory brought up but I don't think it is nearly as strong as proponents feel.

Firmly true, righteous, good principles and values only being possible by a Creator God is never actually validated in any sense. Why would the Creator God's principles and values necessarily be completely objective and sound in regards to truth, righteousness, goodness? It can't be "just because"...

Because God is immutable. Hence, his opinions are eternal. Furthermore, since his existence is outside of the universe, even if the universe ceases to exist, his moral principles would still remain. Finally, since God is all powerful, he can enforce his moral principles on the universe.

 

[Crypto2015]

Are you arguing we should accept your god as existing in order so that we may arrive at moral consensus?

If so, then I have some concerns about your position. First, if there is no other reason to accept your god than to arrive at a moral consensus, then why not accept some other god besides yours?

Second, by what means, if any, can we know for certain that some god wants us to have a particular set of morals?

Third, if your aim is to bring humanity to a moral consensus, then why didn't Europeans reach a moral consensus during the Middle Ages when nearly everyone in Europe believed in the same god? Why did people still murder when they believed their god disapproved of murder? I don't think you can show that belief in a god necessarily leads to a moral consensus that is anything more than lip service.

Even if you don't believe in God's existence, you will have to acknowledge the fact that in a godless universe morality has no real existence. It doesn't matter of which God we are talking about, provided that it is an immutable, eternal, all-knowing and all-powerful being. If God does not want us to have a particular set of morals, morality has no meaning, but this is irrelevant for the present discussion. I am not interested in reaching a consensus.

 

[Koldo]

That's all interesting, but irrelevant for the topic that we are discussing. Right now we are focusing on a single question: can we justify our moral principles if we do not believe in God?

My position is that a belief in God doesn't add anything of substance to the matter at hand. Therefore, your question is the same as: Can we justify our moral principles ?

 

[Koldo]

Even if you don't believe in God's existence, you will have to acknowledge the fact that in a godless universe morality has no real existence. It doesn't matter of which God we are talking about, provided that it is an immutable, eternal, all-knowing and all-powerful being. If God does not want us to have a particular set of morals, morality has no meaning, but this is irrelevant for the present discussion. I am not interested in reaching a consensus.

That's not true. Morality could still simply exist as a force of nature.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Even if you don't believe in God's existence, you will have to acknowledge the fact that in a godless universe morality has no real existence. It doesn't matter of which God we are talking about, provided that it is an immutable, eternal, all-knowing and all-powerful being.

Not true at all. Humans had been creating moral systems for centuries before belief in One God popped up.

 

[Crypto2015]

That's not true. Morality could still simply exist as a force of nature.

No, It cannot. The universe is amoral. There is no difference between a carbon atom that forms part of a diamond and a carbon atom that forms part of a human being. They are simply atoms with no purpose and no goal. Life itself has no intrinsic value for nature because nature is not a being. You cannot say, for example, that we must strive for the survival of our species because there is no objective reason to believe that the survival of our species is something good.

 

[Crypto2015]

Not true at all. Humans had been creating moral systems for centuries before belief in One God popped up.

But could they justify them? It seems to me that they could not.

 

[Jumi]

We can decide that survival of the species is good and then it becomes part of our morals.

 

[Jumi]

But could they justify them? It seems to me that they could not.

How would belief in the gods justify morals if they didn't exist beforehand?

 

[Crypto2015]

I care little for the survival of our species, I care what is good for life.
If there is no basis for morality without god then our entire society would have erupted into chaos by now.

If god is the only basis for morality, why do very different religions that formed and evolved around the world share some general common morals?

What makes you think that what is good for life is good? You can have good morals, but can you really justify why you have them?

 

[Koldo]

No, It cannot. The universe is amoral. There is no difference between a carbon atom that forms part of a diamond and a carbon atom that forms part of a human being. They are simply atoms with no purpose and no goal. Life itself has no intrinsic value for nature because nature is not a being. You cannot say, for example, that we must strive for the survival of our species because there is no objective reason to believe that the survival of our species is something good.

And yet we perceive certain actions as moral or immoral. We have a moral compass, which indicates the existence of morality as something external to us. Much like the five senses indicate an external world. It is certainly possible for morality to exist as an extra layer to reality.

 

[Crypto2015]

And yet we perceive certain actions as moral or immoral. We have a moral compass, which indicates the existence of morality as something external to us. Much like the five senses indicate an external world. It is certainly possible for morality to exist as an extra layer to reality.

That's true, but the question is "do you have a rational justification for your moral compass?". Don't tell me that you just feel what is right and what is wrong because you guys are supposed to be the "rational ones".

 

[Ouroboros]

All of what you said is interesting, but it is irrelevant for the present discussion. We are just discussing if moral principles can be justified in the absence of God. The answer is a big no.

My point is that you can't justify moral principles if there is a God either, since you can't know what moral codes God have made. Any attempt of knowing them breaks on the subjective level. We can't know the objective moral laws, so we have to deal with them in the same way you would have if God doesn't exist. Basically, from a pragmatic atheistic view.

Just to make it easier, can you mention one moral code that is absolute and comes from God? An example would be great. Also, explain how you know that your example does come from God and not from social or natural reasons.