Atheistic forms of morality

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok
Ah, sudden idea. Philosophiser, just to get an idea of the difficulty of "refuting" your statements from our perspective, why don't you try to refute the ideas presented at www.timecube.com ? Go ahead, show us how to refute a self-sustaining worldview with no logical restraints.

GePap: ??? Plenty of social animals behave in a manner I would call immoral, even to group members. Gulls are social, but they'll cheerfully swipe food from each other without a second thought.

Elok I'd call you stupid but that would be a violation of Apolyton's rules. Calvinism is a far more credible worldview than "timecube". I suggest you read up on history and theology.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Elok
If it revolves around doing good for other people, you're still stuck asking why you're doing good for other people. If good-to-others is just an end in itself, that's deontological. It has no purpose but itself. You just do it "because it's right." Why is it right? Because it just is.

If utility (good for society) is the end of morals, you run into problems. First, defining the relative value of things. My example of hobo-harvesting for organs; destroying one unhappy life, saving many others. Ultimately, it's more good than bad for society. Unless the hobo's consent is important...but why would it be if the good of society is what matters? If it's a matter of public sentiment, then you can harvest somebody that can be made unappealing, based on race, or a mental or physical handicap. That sort of advantage-taking is hardly without precedent in human history. Whip a Chinese guy, get a railroad. Whip a black guy, get some cotton. While some elements of society did object to slavery on moral grounds, the system was ultimately done in only when it became obsolete as an economic model. That is, it was "bad for society."

If doing good for others needs a reason why, I guess then you would call it deontological - that's just an example of a possible moral code, and one I'd happen to believe in. However it's down to society to decide what is moral, through public outcry or some such, and then for society, through peer pressure and laws, to enforce it. As for the harvesting organs, personally I'd argue that it wasn't for the greater good - I think the public values knowing that if they become homeless, they won't have their organs harvested. Moreover, I don't want to live in a society where that is a moral action. If enough people feel like that, society decides it doesn't want it to be moral.

Originally posted by Elok
There's also the problem of universalizing this, as I've been saying. There are plenty of cases where people benefit more from unethical behavior, even if it does harm society. The top suits at Phillip Morris might be essentially mass-producing death, but they're insulated from all consequences by wealth and bad laws. Odds are that they'll die wealthy, and if their consciences bother them they're bearing it pretty well. Do I even need to mention the Bush dynasty?

That's what politics/government/mass media/society as a whole is for. Deciding what is and isn't acceptable.

Originally posted by Elok
You folks seem to have an awfully optimistic appraisal of the goodness of human nature, given that it's failed to prevent Tamerlaine, Vlad Drakul, Hitler, Stalin, Hitler's legions of apparently-perfectly-sane underlings, all the brutal Communist regimes in eastern Europe after WWII, Idi Amin (sp?), Pol Pot...and all those crooked clergymen in the middle ages, but that was all religion's fault, wasn't it? They were possessed by religion. If a humanist organization had been given absolute power over the region instead of the Roman Catholic church, none of that would have happened.

Not at all. It is human nature (for some people) to try and sieze power, or to vote in lunatics (such as Hitler). I don't for a minute say they were right, but I don't believe in absolute morals. I don't think anything is ever wrong, just good or bad in terms of it's consequences. And some things, such as murder, and bad so much of the time we decide to blanketly disallow them.

Originally posted by Elok
The difference, Drogue, is that most religions acknowledge there's a problem with the moral compass of average human beings. It's immensely difficult to become a better person, and plenty of people give up and turn crooked, just like they do with any ideology, but they're trying to address the problem at the source, not just suppressing it and playing damage control with physical laws. And it happens, ideally, on an individual level. At least, mine does. I have no affiliation with Falwell's nuts, or al-Qaeda, or any other group of lunatics you might think of using as a strawman.

I agree. However I don't think God is necessary, nor sufficient, to solve that problem. Being a Christian doesn't mean your morals become good for humanity, as nutters throughout the ages have shown. Similarly, being an atheist doesn't mean your morals are bad. I just don't see where God has to come in to correct everyone's moral codes. Open education and collective decision making should decide what is legal and illegal, and within that it should be down to individuals to decide what they believe is acceptable or not.

Moral decisions are largely non-religion or law based. For instance should I play my music loudly at night? I may want to, but I don't want my neighbours doing the same on some nights. So we come to an agreement, either by asking or tacitly, not to engage in such anti-social behaviour. But it's between myself and my neighbour, and our personal morals, as long as it's legal.

I don't believe any set-in-stone religious moral code is any better for humanity than individuals and society deciding what is and isn't acceptable. I believe there is a problem with moral compasses, in terms of what's good for humanity, however I believe it's best solved by education and commonly agreed upon laws, rather than religious teachings.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BeBro
Wouldn't esp. Christians go beyond the purely legal view (no offense intendet, I really don't know)?

Yes, I was noting that it's quite easy to say "(group X) aren't people with feelings like us," or other such excuses, making it seem viable. I was trying to cut off the usual conscience-would-stop-this-from-happening objection before it was raised. Probably wasn't very clear about it though, sorry.

Not sure if I understand your point right here, yes, the evil guys may profit from immorale action, but then we wouldn't say what they did is good for society (like I explained above).

I lost track of who was arguing what, so I tried to answer all concerns at once...this is an objection about motive, and yes, it's bad for society, very bad, but still perfectly good for the creeps who do it. "Best for society in the long run" sounds like an admirable motive, but how do you convince a satisfied tyrant to be moral? For that matter, how do you convince a poor kid stuck in the ghetto not to shoplift when he'll be accused of it (and far worse) by thug cops even if he doesn't? I'm not specifically arguing for religion as the alternative here, just pointing to an apparent flaw in the theory. There's no apparent point in helping a society that hurts you, or in a society that you can take from without its permission.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think that way. Also from the rest of this thread I didn't have he impression that it becomes a pure "its all your fault (insert evil side of your choice)"-orgy (ok, with some exceptions).

I was aiming at that implication, voiced or insinuated in varying degrees of subtlety by all sorts of people. It's a convenient way to feel good about your own ideology, by mixing correlation and causation that way. It's no different from the idiot tactics of the fundies, but that doesn't keep some supposedly enlightened people from using it to feel superior. No, I didn't get it from you, but I've got it from a LOT of people, in this thread and other places, and my temper occasionally frays under it. Calming down now...

[Elok]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
Elok I'd call you stupid but that would be a violation of Apolyton's rules. Calvinism is a far more credible worldview than "timecube". I suggest you read up on history and theology.

I'm amply familiar with Calvinism. It doesn't matter how "credible" it seems to you, it is a self-contained worldview like Timecube, and therefore intrinsically irrefutable. You'll notice that Gene Ray brags that nobody has ever refuted him. But that's nothing to brag about, because his whole ideology makes fundamental assumptions about the world that are not provable or disprovable. Just look at what you said: "God is above all reason. Can you disprove that by reason?" No, of course not. But it doesn't matter.

[Elok]

Drogue: But if the problem is internal in origin, there is little, if anything, that external forces like society can do about it. You can't police everyone all the time, and you certainly can't police the police ad infinitum. You can't pass laws against hatred, envy, spite, lust, or greed. It has to be decided on an individual level to change for the better. The majority of religions have elaborate systems of doing so, although they are frequently ignored for more fun and less painfully self-critical activities like throwing rocks at homosexuals or burning pornography. There is no societal equivalent I know of for self-improvement. There's psychology, but that's a science, limited by empirical observation which can't see the mind. Can you come up with a "secular religion?"

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok


I'm amply familiar with Calvinism. It doesn't matter how "credible" it seems to you, it is a self-contained worldview like Timecube, and therefore intrinsically irrefutable. You'll notice that Gene Ray brags that nobody has ever refuted him. But that's nothing to brag about, because his whole ideology makes fundamental assumptions about the world that are not provable or disprovable. Just look at what you said: "God is above all reason. Can you disprove that by reason?" No, of course not. But it doesn't matter.

I'm fully aware that it is a self contained worldview. But Elok- every worldview is a self contained worldview! Let me give you an example. Right now you are using logic to attempt to prove your point. Logic requires one to have a self contained worldview. Logic is circuliar and you require logic to prove logic. Thus, logic becomes a basic presupposition about reality that is a matter of faith and which informs the rest of your knowledge. It is the same with the notion of "properly interpreted sense perception"- trusting in the empirical sense perception data of your senses is also a matter of faith and not proof. Elok- Every system is self contained. This is what I have been hammering home since I first came to these boards.

Your system is no less "self contained" than mine. Now there may be some ways to determine which system is superior- for example I might be able to use logic (again thats still making a faith-assumption on the reliability of logic) to poke holes and find contradictions in the other system. That is one way to refute your system vis a vis mine, since we both assume the reliability of logic and reason. Just as almost everyone assumes logic to be a foundation of all knowledge- Calvinists and Presuppositionalists assume God, and His Holy Word, and Jesus Christ to be the ultimate foundation of all knowledge including logic. It is thus inherently unprovable via logic in any ultimate sense. It can demonstrate itself through self consistency, but faith is required, and faith is a gift of God and is not brought about by reason alone.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2)

And now for the killer- lets assume you are an atheist. I could use logic to poke a whole in your atheistical system by declaring that it is contradictory to hold to the reliability of logic (a system of clear law that exists independent of culture or subjective understanding) and yet deny that there is a lawgiver that could impart such a clear and austere law at the same time.

Every man ultimately is guided by basic presuppositions about the nature of reality- which then forms and colours every other idea he holds. It is impossible that it be otherwise- Christian or not.

[loinburger]

If your viewpoint cannot be proved and the opposing viewpoints cannot be disproved, then why are you bothering to post at all?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
And now for the killer- lets assume you are an atheist. I could use logic to poke a whole in your atheistical system by declaring that it is contradictory to hold to the reliability of logic (a system of clear law that exists independent of culture or subjective understanding) and yet deny that there is a lawgiver that could impart such a clear and austere law at the same time.

Uh, not really. We have no grounds for statements about such fundamental aspects of reality. Wait, you support Intelligent Design too, don't you? Well, there went my planned analogy.

Okay, the problem with such statements is that they appeal to nothing more than intuitive feelings about "probability." That word is in quotes for a reason; it's not really probability at all, just a reflection of the speaker's own wishes about the subject. There's no such thing as probability for a totally unique event. What are the odds that logic would work universally without a creator? Well, what are the odds that quasars are possible? The question is nonsensical; the universe has to be one way or another, and we can't say how "likely" anything is. If the laws of physics were different and it were possible for humans to fly by breathing quickly, would you point to that as evidence? Of course, this argument cuts both ways. Our ability to explain evolution scientifically means nothing to the debate about the existence of God, for example.

When you're talking about logic, the argument is particularly odd, because if our ability to reason logically did NOT exist, whatever its likelihood of manufacture, the act of argument itself would be impossible. It's as though you were asking how likely it is that there would be three dimensions for us to exist in. Also, logic is an abstract concept, easily described as an emergent property of the human mind. And there are probably more objections I'm not thinking of ATM. So, I don't think that argument is especially "killer."

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by loinburger
If your viewpoint cannot be proved and the opposing viewpoints cannot be disproved, then why are you bothering to post at all?

My viewpoint actually can be proved. Every man knows the truth when he hears it, because everything is informed by the Truine God. All of creation is experienced as sensible only when the mind is in conformity with the Truine God and Jesus Christ who are the basis of all knowledge. Now this does not have to be merely a rationalistic understanding, this could also be a psychological and holistic approach.

A man who denies the word of God probably has a belief system that is internally inconsistent. But even if it is not logically inconsistent, he will be living his life in a way that produces psychological despair or discomfort, because our entire lives, to be complete- must be informed by the true God. This is predicated partly on the fact that there is sufficient evidence for God's existence to impact the fundamental perception of every man, whether he likes it or not. When man looks at the creation it screams at him that God exists, even if he tries to suppress that through unrighteousness. Thus, to deny God is in a sense to deny his own self, and it produces only despair or a life that is lived aimlessly or without ultimate conformity with reality.

The Apostle Paul expresses it this way in the book of Romans (Holy Scripture):

"19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1)

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok


Uh, not really. We have no grounds for statements about such fundamental aspects of reality. Wait, you support Intelligent Design too, don't you? Well, there went my planned analogy.

Okay, the problem with such statements is that they appeal to nothing more than intuitive feelings about "probability." That word is in quotes for a reason; it's not really probability at all, just a reflection of the speaker's own wishes about the subject. There's no such thing as probability for a totally unique event. What are the odds that logic would work universally without a creator? Well, what are the odds that quasars are possible? The question is nonsensical; the universe has to be one way or another, and we can't say how "likely" anything is. If the laws of physics were different and it were possible for humans to fly by breathing quickly, would you point to that as evidence? Of course, this argument cuts both ways. Our ability to explain evolution scientifically means nothing to the debate about the existence of God, for example.

When you're talking about logic, the argument is particularly odd, because if our ability to reason logically did NOT exist, whatever its likelihood of manufacture, the act of argument itself would be impossible. It's as though you were asking how likely it is that there would be three dimensions for us to exist in. Also, logic is an abstract concept, easily described as an emergent property of the human mind. And there are probably more objections I'm not thinking of ATM. So, I don't think that argument is especially "killer."

I accept intelligent design. Old earth intelligent design is actually my position. The word of God declares that a day to God can be as an aeon to us.

Logic is a system of complicated, consistent rules that inform the mind. The idea that such a system would exist in a materialistic universe of randomness and chaos as modern atheists posit stretches the bounds of what is credible. You are essentially trying to argue that total randomness gives us total order, and that doesn't work. Its not the same as you asking me whether I'd find a change in the laws of physics to be believable, because a change in an operation is not the same as getting total order from total chaos.

Logic may be an emergent property of the human mind, but the point is you are aware of it just as you are aware of the existence of God, which is also an emergent aspect of your very being, since the true God informs everything and as I said before is the foundation of all knowledge. It's just that humans try to suppress that "emergent property"- which I find to be a very interesting and yet apt term that you've used.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
My viewpoint actually can be proved. Every man knows the truth when he hears it, because everything is informed by the Truine God. All of creation is experienced as sensible only when the mind is in conformity with the Truine God and Jesus Christ who are the basis of all knowledge.

Originally posted by Philosophiser
Just as almost everyone assumes logic to be a foundation of all knowledge- Calvinists and Presuppositionalists assume God, and His Holy Word, and Jesus Christ to be the ultimate foundation of all knowledge including logic. It is thus inherently unprovable via logic in any ultimate sense.

So your viewpoint can be proved and is also unprovable?

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by loinburger


So your viewpoint can be proved and is also unprovable?

Depends on how you use the term. The atheist can always develop his own philosophical system, and even make it quite logically consistent (for example his excuse will be that its pure chance that the total order of logic or the laws of physics or what have you- exists out of total chaos and we just happen to be living in it)- but his mind will still scream at him that it knows God exists, and this produces a discomfort in the heart of his own being, and a fear of God's anger at his own rebellion. Also, a knowledge of God's disappointment.

Atheists are always inconsistent on some level however... if its not on a purely theoretical level then its on a level where there is an inconsistency between practical concerns and theoretical knowledge.

"once a person has been made aware of the inadequacies of her false covenant lords, the true Covenant Lord, who is always faithful, even through suffering (as demonstrated on the Cross), can be commended. At this point evidence (much of which has been there all along) may take on a new cast or be open to new ways of seeing. It may be possible for the person to see what a new set of commitments might mean and how, given those commitments, the existence of God and trust in Him could be rational, evidentially plausible, and satisfying. The goal of apologetics, then, is not to win an argument, but to commend the Saviour as the One in whom human life, personal relationships, and knowledge can find rest. The epistemological and related issues are only part of a much bigger picture." (Joel Garver, Primer on Presuppositionalism).

[Ramo]

Logic is a system of complicated, consistent rules that inform the mind. The idea that such a system would exist in a materialistic universe of randomness and chaos as modern atheists posit stretches the bounds of what is credible.

Logic is actually incredibly simple, and consists of exactly one rule: contradiction is invalid. It does not consist of the selected list of bald assertions certified by Jerry Falwell. Logic is also an abstract system and is not dependent on the physical world. Your argument would make at least a little bit of sense (but not really) if you used something that is (like physics).

[Elok]

Well, I don't have much to add, but do look up "emergence" somewhere. It basically means, literally, "order coming out of randomness"; it's a function of the interaction of massive numbers of simple agents, such as the neurons in our brains. Also various social insects, which can do spectacularly complex things (such as termite mounds half the size of an elephant), en masse, even though neither they nor their queen can possibly comprehend the full complexity of their design. Simple behaviors interact in strange, self-reinforcing ways. Kind of like the way a standard, recognizable form of hurricane is developed from random air movements.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, I don't have much to add, but do look up "emergence" somewhere. It basically means, literally, "order coming out of randomness"; it's a function of the interaction of massive numbers of simple agents, such as the neurons in our brains. Also various social insects, which can do spectacularly complex things (such as termite mounds half the size of an elephant), en masse, even though neither they nor their queen can possibly comprehend the full complexity of their design. Simple behaviors interact in strange, self-reinforcing ways. Kind of like the way a standard, recognizable form of hurricane is developed from random air movements.

Your argument refutes itself because a bee is an incredibly complex creature, not a simple one; nor is the behavior of a bee simple. Your argument is order (bee is orderly)-randomness (some random bee movements but within the confines of its biological directives)- order (bee colony). Well of course you can get order out of a little bit of randomness if you start with order to begin with!

Secondly, scientists have much to learn as to how a hurricane really forms. All they essentially know are that certain ingredients are necessary. A hurricane is more chaotic than orderly, its wind patterns circulating in all kinds of directions within the system up and down. The only orderly thing about it is that it is generally moving in a particular direction, but even that shifts often.

To compare such things to the highly sophisticated and consistent laws of logic is a false analogy.