Atheism and morality

[Dre89]

Dre.... I'd just like to confirm what you're trying to say here.

Are you making the argument that:

1. Our universe has a one in trillion chance of sustaining itself every second.
2. Our universe is sustained every second.

Therefore, God sustains it?



I'd just like to make sure, but was the first this the first conclusion you came to?

It wasn't the following?

1. Our universe has a one in trillion chance of sustaining itself every second.
2. Our universe is sustained every second.

Therefore, one of my premises is false?



I don't think we can make very much ground in this discussion if the first thing we're using to explain things is the supernatural. Instead, using a bit of reasoned logic, let's try to approach this without getting into the fundamental difference in our beliefs. The less we involve the Bible and religion into this argument, the more I feel we can discuss on even ground.


And since this thread is about Atheism and Morality, I think it is a very good thread to keep the subject of our own personal religious beliefs out of.


Let's talk about some of the things we have observed.


1. Morals differ greatly over time.

We no longer believe in slavery, child labor, human sacrifice, racial segregation, sexism, and our beliefs in gender roles differs quite a bit from those in the past.

2. Morals differ greatly even in the same time period, in different cultures.

Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc. There are still many things people don't agree on.


Therefore I would postulate that your first statement, "Without God there is no reason to believe in absolute morality," should be changed to, "there is no reason to believe in absolute morality."

Morals are different depending on where you live, when you live, and what kind of culture you were brought up in. Religion is certainly a factor in morality, but humankind has never exhibited an absolute, objective morality(at least, to my knowledge), because morality has always changed.

Omfg why does everyone assume every theist must be religious, and has conclusions about the supernatural before they make their premises.

Have you read any philosophy of religion?

None of it assumes the supernatural, none of it assumes any theology. The whole point is that theists have reasoned that the universe necessitates an eternal and self-necessary first cause. There are a number of conditions for being self-necessary and eternal, and long story short, physical beings can not meet those conditions, for various reasons.

It has absoluely nothing to do with theology. Atheists here need to stop being uneducated of philosophy of religion and stop assuming all God belief comes from the Bible (and no, philosophy of religion is noth theological, it's the philosophical investigation of God, so there are theistic and atheistic argments from religion).

Seeing people post in topics they're so uninformed makes me want to -1 them in the Jedi Council. However Violence, although you were hugely uninformed, you weren't a jerk, and acted completely respectful, so I won't -1 you, and in fact if I see mroe of your posts I'll probably +1. You just don't understand how many atheists come in here with no knowledge of theism and throw around factually incorrect claims and assumptions, it gets on one's nerves after awhile.

I'm not saying that all atheists are stupid, or all atheists arguments are bad, quite the opposite. Atheism is very logical, the uninformed atheists just make it look stupid, because their arguments are absed off misunderstandings of theism. I respect plenty of atheist DHers and their arguments, I'm even baout to argue for atheism in a devil's advocate hread soon, so this isn't just something personal I have against atheists.

 

[Violence]

I apologize, Dre, I didn't mean to upset you.

It honestly did look to me like your argument did take the supernatural as a presupposition.

I understand that many theists have reached their position through a logical thought process and I'm not trying to demean you in any way.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry about that, it wasn't so much an attack an you personally, but rather cumulative frustration at the number of people who have made the same mistake as you have.

But at least you apologise and are reasonable about it. For that, I already respect you more than most atheists here. I'll probably +1 you soon once I see how you debate.

 

[Pragmatic]

The Drebate hall.

Serious business. Thanks Acrostic for the pun!

 

[Dre89]

If a fundie came in here, all the atheists would be doing the same thing as me.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

sigh. once again absolute morality as a concept means that there is an absolute right and wrong, no matter what anyone believes. I'm saying there's no reason for atheists (since the majority of atheists nowadays subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism) to believe in absolute morality, yet if I were to punch them in the face and take their lunch, they would say something like, "you shouldn't have done that," "that was wrong," etc.

Yeah, so we can't make moral judgements because we don't believe in an absolute morality? Is that what you're saying?

I don't agree with that. A belief in a subjective morality allows one to make relative moral judgements. They can't say "it offends an objective and absolute moral code", but they can ankle tap you while you're trying to escape and take their stuff back on the grounds that it offends a generally accepted moral code, namely their one.

 

[DanteFox]

Yeah, so we can't make moral judgements because we don't believe in an absolute morality? Is that what you're saying?

that's what I'm saying. at least, you can't say to someone "you shouldn't have done that." why not? because it goes against your morals? In the naturalist view, they're no more objective than your hair color.

 

[ballin4life]

Well, isn't saying to someone "you can't say that" a moral judgment itself?

 

[Mike]

No, that would be an argumentative statement. By "you can't say that" he meant "what you said is incorrect".

@Dantefox: you can't expect people to speak in complete thoughts all the time. That would just be impractical. "You shouldn't have done that" is usually a shorthand for something similar to: under a component of my moral beliefs, one that you probably share, you performed an action from an immoral motive.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

that's what I'm saying. at least, you can't say to someone "you shouldn't have done that." why not? because it goes against your morals? In the naturalist view, they're no more objective than your hair color.

First of all, I can always make judgements against my subjective moral code. I deem it to be the best moral code I can make and even if it has little significance, I'm going to make judgements based on it anyway.

It doesn't matter that they're not objective, it still offends a moral code. And I have the right to complain if someone offends my or someone else's moral code, as long as it's within reason. I, for example can say, "In my opinion, your actions were morally reprehensible." and I would be well justified in saying that, if I actually thought such actions were morally reprehensible.

 

[Mike]

Ethics was created for the purpose of reducing negative interactions between subjects. Based on that, it can be said that there are some things that will offend all reasonable ethical systems.

 

[Dre89]

You need to justify that claim.

 

[Mike]

I'm assuming you're referring to the first one. That's how i define ethics. It's an attempt at the mediation between two or more subjects. The purpose of a moral system is to determine what is "fair"; and the only reason one would need to consider this is if someone made a complaint in the first place. If it was impossible for something to feel dissatisfaction, where would ethics have come from?

(The type of ethics that refers to ideas such as self-realism are too different from systems that involve the mediation between two or more subjects that I consider them as something completely separate.)

 

[Dre89]

But that's just more of a modern ethical system.

In modernity, ethics has been relgated to simply not harming others. Because that really on caught wind in the Enlightenment Period onward, rather than being a universally intrinsic ideal, the claim needs to be justified.

So I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong, but by not justifying it, you'd be setting the precedent where I can state anything as self-evident, simply if it's modern.

 

[Mike]

I cannot justify the claim any more than I have already done. How would you define ethics? Where would it have come from if not from complaints? Would ethics even be conceivable if it was impossible for people to feel dissatisfaction?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe ethics used to be about universally intrinsic ideals through the influence of religion.

 

[Dre89]

To justify meta-ethically what morality is, the normatively how we should act as a result of it, would take too long.

But the thing I don't understand is when the atheist claims religion and belief in God came about as an evolutionary adaption. What confuses me is that they then proceeed to cite the negative impacts of religion, but they've just argued it only exists as a evolutionary adaption.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

when did anyone ever claim religion to be an "evolutionary" adaption

 

[Mike]

To justify meta-ethically what morality is, the normatively how we should act as a result of it, would take too long.

What's the purpose of the debate hall...

But the thing I don't understand is when the atheist claims religion and belief in God came about as an evolutionary adaption. What confuses me is that they then proceeed to cite the negative impacts of religion, but they've just argued it only exists as a evolutionary adaption.

Only you could possibly find a way to strawman a question.

 

[Dre89]

The purpose of the Debate Hall isn't to make one person write a thousand word essay (at the least).

I've heard many atheists say the reason why we have the capcity for religion was because of an evolutionary development. If you two are atheists, why do you think we've evolved the capacity to religion?

 

[rvkevin]

But the thing I don't understand is when the atheist claims religion and belief in God came about as an evolutionary adaption. What confuses me is that they then proceed to cite the negative impacts of religion, but they've just argued it only exists as a evolutionary adaption.

Atheists don't usually claim that religion itself is an evolutionary adaption. Can you please explain how religion increases reproductive fitness?

 

[Mike]

The purpose of the Debate Hall isn't to make one person write a thousand word essay (at the least).

It is not necessary to write a thousand word essay to explain what morality is. Your elitist attitude in the Proving Grounds is not appreciated one bit.

I've heard many atheists say the reason why we have the capcity for religion was because of an evolutionary development. If you two are atheists, why do you think we've evolved the capacity to religion?

Why are you even bringing this up? How does it relate to the topic in any way?

I also noticed you have the horrible problem of generalizing. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean my beliefs are identical to that of all other atheists. I don't know why religion would be an evolutionary adaptation. I've never made that claim.

 

[Dre89]

If your argument for meta ethics and normative ethics combined, having to justify all assumptions is under a thousand words, then I doubt your argument is very sophisticated.

The fact you just adopted the modern view of morality, and stated it without feeling the need to prove it suggests you didn't even realise it was a purely modern view, and you just assumed it was self evident.

I didn't say all atheists, I said many, I didn't even say most. How is that a generalisation? Saying belief in God is all about faith is a far graver generalisation.

So why do you think we evolved the capacity for religion?

 

[Mike]

If your argument for meta ethics and normative ethics combined, having to justify all assumptions is under a thousand words, then I doubt your argument is very sophisticated.

The fact you just adopted the modern view of morality, and stated it without feeling the need to prove it suggests you didn't even realise it was a purely modern view, and you just assumed it was self evident.

There comes to a point in any debate where you cannot go further than "because I defined it this way." I defined ethics as requiring a relation between two or more subjects. And through this relation there must be a disagreement in fairness. If something does not fit this description, it in my opinion, is not ethics. Self-realism falls under this category, as does the statement "acquiring knowledge is the highest good". Do you understand what I mean?

I didn't say all atheists, I said many, I didn't even say most. How is that a generalisation? Saying belief in God is all about faith is a far graver generalisation.

So why do you think we evolved the capacity for religion?

You automatically assumed that because I'm an atheist I should be able to answer your question about evolution and religion. You would not have done that if you were not generalizing. And we evolved the capacity for religion because we evolved the capacity for imagination.

And who said belief in God is all about faith... how and why do you keep bringing these random things up???

Although now that you've said it, yes it IS all about faith. It is an unnecessary assumption as the universe can exist (and be "created") without a God. It has no more credibility than claiming that electromagnetism is caused by invisible pixies running around between charges, throwing their magical pixie dust. But if you want to argue this, bring it to the ID thread.

 

[rvkevin]

So why do you think we evolved the capacity for religion?

One proposed explanation is that we have a bias towards making type I errors rather than type II errors that has been selected for by nature in the past. Under this explanation, religion would simple be a type I error that has not been selected against.

What confuses me is that they then proceed to cite the negative impacts of religion, but they've just argued it only exists as a evolutionary adaption.

I find it odd that you would suggest that because religion may be selected for, that it is then good for society. For example, there may be some societies where atheists are selected against due to their non-belief. It would then follow that being religious in an intolerant theocratic country would then be selected for. However, I don't think you would agree that such an environment is desirable.

I didn't say all atheists, I said many, I didn't even say most. How is that a generalization? Saying belief in God is all about faith is a far graver generalization.

People are calling you out on it since you recently said this:

"Use the principle of charity. If you're going to attack theism, you don't achieve anything unless you attack the strongest arguments, which are academic, not those of some fundie. You wouldn't want me to attack straw mans of atheism."

If this is the case, then why are you bothering with the claims of uneducated atheists. According to you, you should be bringing up the view of evolutionary biologists and not some layman. So, if you want to hold to your standard, please refer to what academics hold that view and relevant supporting documents.

 

[Dre89]

Mike I'm no longer debating you if you think belief in God is all about faith, and if you compare high level theism to pixies.

What's ironic, is that theistic arguments came about because they thought things like pixies couldn't be the first cause. In theism , for something to have been the first cause, it has to met a very specific set on conditions, which pixies don't. Many forms of atheism permit multiple principles co-existing without any prior cause (such as space, time, energy etc.), collectively functioning as the first cause. If multiple complex principles can collectively be the first cause, then ironically so could a pixie, because a pixie is just an assortment of principles (space, time, energy, shape, colours, certain potencies). So by the conditions atheists set for the first cause (which are essentially none, because the first cause can be multiple compex principles co-operating), it's actually possible for a pixie to be the first cause, it's just so improbable that there's no reaosn to assume that it was.

That's why I find it so ironic when atheists refer to the FSM, because the existence of the FSM is actually only conceivable in atheistic conditions, where it isn't in theistic conditions.

Edit- Rvkevin, what other evolutionary adaptions of humans have been deemed bad? (That's a genuine question, not an argument).

 

[rvkevin]

Rvkevin, what other evolutionary adaptions of humans have been deemed bad?

It would depend on what you would deem as bad. Some people might consider eating meat to be bad. Having a strong libido would probably be seen to be bad by those who practice celibacy and FGM. Some people might consider the affinity of sweets to be a bad thing. Maybe other people can come up with others.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that having a bias towards a type I error is "bad" in a moral sense or in any other sense. For example, if you live in the tornado belt and the wind picks up, you can either wait until the tornado touches down or go immediately to the shelter. If you go immediately to the shelter and no tornado touches down, you have made a type I error. If you wait and don't have enough time to reach the shelter, you have made a type II error. Whenever you do something "just to be safe," you are favoring a type I error (the precaution ended up being unnecessary) over a type II error (not taking the precaution and being injured/killed). So, this bias isn't necessarily "bad," just something to be considered. For more information.

 

[ballin4life]

It has no more credibility than claiming that electromagnetism is caused by invisible pixies running around between charges, throwing their magical pixie dust.

Heh. We usually call them electrons though.

That's why I find it so ironic when atheists refer to the FSM, because the existence of the FSM is actually only conceivable in atheistic conditions, where it isn't in theistic conditions.

I don't see how this is the case at all. The Flying Spaghetti Monster could indeed be a "single unified principle".

 

[DanteFox]

First of all, I can always make judgements against my subjective moral code. I deem it to be the best moral code I can make and even if it has little significance, I'm going to make judgements based on it anyway.

It doesn't matter that they're not objective, it still offends a moral code. And I have the right to complain if someone offends my or someone else's moral code, as long as it's within reason. I, for example can say, "In my opinion, your actions were morally reprehensible." and I would be well justified in saying that, if I actually thought such actions were morally reprehensible.

replace "morals" and "moral code" with "skin color," "hair color" or any other genetic trait and you'll see why what you just said sounds completely ridiculous in a naturalist view.

 

[Mike]

@Dre:...says someone who doesn't understand quantum mechanics, is ignorant of the no boundary proposal, and believes in insignificant fabricated claims to be proof for an extraordinary one.

I don't mind if you no longer want to debate me. It's been a one way discussion this whole time.

 

[ballin4life]

replace "morals" and "moral code" with "skin color," "hair color" or any other genetic trait and you'll see why what you just said sounds completely ridiculous in a naturalist view.

Uh... I don't see this at all. None of his statements would make sense after making that replacement.

 

[DanteFox]

that's the point.

 

[Dre89]

Mike- I know what no boundary proposal is.

The statement I made had nothing to do with science. Metaphysically, atheism permits the existence of the FSM, because it permits the existence of multiple specific principles as simultaneously functioning as the first cause.

Ironically, the no boundary proposal is the theory most evidently guilty of that.

You need to understand the difference between metaphysical and scientific statements.

You mention quantum fluctuations, but they already presuppose the existence of multiple principles.

Rvkevin- Do you think the first cause is a single unified agent? If not, and you believe the first cause was multiple principles co existing simultaneously, do you concede that the FSM could conceivably be the first cause.

 

[Mike]

You obviously don't know what it is if you're asking what caused the Big Bang. The No Boundary Proposal states that there didn't have to have been a point of creation because time and space are boundless.

Atheism permits the existence of almost anything because it's a position of "I don't know".

 

[Dre89]

I know what the NBT theory says.

And again, they're still saying time and space have a specific structure.

Even if it was proven true, that still doesn't prove it occurred without God. You still haven't shown that tine and space can have structures without God.

 

[GwJ]

Then can you tell me why it must need a God then?

Please keep your 1 in a trillion type arguements out also.

 

[Mike]

Ok seriously, it's so confusing debating with you. You bring up scientific claims to back up your argument that God must have created something but then you reject them as relevant when I talk about them... Why not just NOT bring science into the debate and state your argument in a purely metaphysical form?

I don't think I'm going to be continuing this debate if it's going to go on like this. To state that there had to have been something outside time and space for it to exist is complete nonsense. What does it even mean for something to be outside time and space? Why does time and space even need to be created by something outside of it? Assuming it does, why does this thing have to be intelligent? There are so many problems with assuming such a God...

 

[Dre89]

Gw- The debate about God isn't specific to the theory though.

It's the same debate regardless of what theory of the universe the athiest posits.

Proving what happened within space and time, or the structure of space and time won't prove that the universe doesn't need God.

The atheist needs to prove that the first cause doesn't need to meet specific criteria, such as being unified and self-necessary, or if the atheist does believe the first cause must be unified, he'd have to explain how it could be naturalistic.

Or, they can simply make a positive atheist argument, such as the arguments from evil or non belief, that a God simply couldn't exist.

 

[Dre89]

Mike- I brought up the improbability to show ID has scientific argument, therefore should be taught in schools.

All those questions you asked can be explained in the next God thread that pops up.

 

[rvkevin]

Rvkevin- Do you think the first cause is a single unified agent? If not, and you believe the first cause was multiple principles co existing simultaneously, do you concede that the FSM could conceivably be the first cause.

I don't believe that the first cause is a single unified agent, and I don't believe that the first cause was multiple principles co existing simultaneously. Where is the evidence for either of these claims? I think a quote from Bertrand Russell would be appropriate here: "when you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out."

Sure, someone could conceive the FSM creating the universe in some cartoonish way, but conceivability has nothing to do with it. I don't accept the the in philosophy, which says that if you are able to conceive of it, then it is possible. At most, it would show that it is logically possible, but when we are talking about the physical world, such a minimal requirement of cogency is almost meaningless.

Now for a bit of fun. What is the FSM other than a body of strings? Didn't you know that the "spaghetti" part was never supposed to be taken literally? Does this mean that you think that string theorists are going down the wrong path? If so, perhaps you should notify them of your discovery. Perhaps you should deal with the sophisticated views of the FSM before waiving it off as improbable or impossible. Perhaps the FSM is analogous to your position after all.

How does this have any relevance to the topic of atheism and morality?

 

[Dre89]

You're right it is a deviation, so I wont answer your post.