Orthodox answers

[Aeson]

Why do you have this overriding rule with no set object in mind? Because when you say, "not for fear of God," what I hear is, "you do [X] for a reason [which I may or may not consider absurdly unlikely, etc.], and I do [X] for no reason, so I'm better." Why is aimlessness a good thing in this specific situation, but (presumptively) no other? I don't think of it as fear of God whacking me with His divine ruler so much as putting the rules in a context where they have a set goal and purpose to work towards. Doing good just because you should do good, ultimately, is a mere tautology and justifies nothing. I think Lori is saying something roughly similar but in more sciencey terms.

Highlighted the part that doesn't rely on God. It could conceivably be any impetus towards any "good". The person screaming "get them off" in the corner while scratching at their skin ... hallucinating about spiders ... is doing what in that moment they find the most "good", even though from outside their perspective it is insane.

[Elok]

Okay, "a non-arbitrary set goal and purpose to work towards." If God exists, I have a very good and sensible reason for behaving morally (albeit in the Orthodox tradition it's more complicated than just "behaving morally," we'll leave that out since it complicates things and I imagine it's of little interest to you). "I should be good" in the same sense that "I should not play in traffic." My interests have a firm anchor to other people's beyond the conditional, limited, and contingent: not merely this group of people, at this time, to this extent. Which is all I really have in a naturalistic world; I have no compelling reason not to sell contaminated food to children in Ghana, if I can get away with it and the money is good. To assert otherwise is simply that: an assertion, admittedly empty, with nothing but itself as an authority. I shouldn't because I shouldn't because I shouldn't because . . . ? Morality itself becomes a sort of cardboard deity, devoid of personhood, agency or substance. I'd much rather have the real kind.

[Aeson]

Any foundation for a belief is subjective.

For me, I believe that the world will be a better place for me and my loved ones (especially children and later generations) if I behave morally (in regards to my morals). It also will define my legacy ... that being important to me because of ego. Those are things that are important to me.

What's to say they are more/less meaningful to me than God is to you? They are both subjective, you can't prove either assumption. Both could turn out to be incorrect. But in believing they are true they become factors that guide us through our lives.

[Elok]

No. Let's say the WBC version of reality is the correct one, and "morality" consists of spending several hours a day scowling at gay pornography and thinking how very much it does not give you an erection. Under this supposition, you have a reason to be "moral" in that, if you do not, you will spend an eternity in unimaginable torment, while if you do you will merely get to spend eternity hanging out with WBC-God while he mutters and fumes about how much He hates Fags. Which is sort of better. This is a very solid incentive, assuming we live in that extremely fubared version of reality.

Other religious traditions have different ends and means, but all (or at least all the old ones, not e.g. Wicca) have a distinct grounding for morality; it's more than just a set of rules, it's a whole way of making sense of and giving purpose to the universe. Without a God, or karma, or some such, you have all the rules with none of the reason. Which then gets presented as a virtue, because we've internalized selflessness as a virtue to the point where we can rush to defend it even when questioning the basis of virtue itself. Which, to me at least, makes no sense.

[Lorizael]

External observer is still an observer.

The observer verbiage is yours. The rest of my post explains my true belief on the matter.

[Lorizael]

This is a very solid incentive, assuming we live in that extremely fubared version of reality.

For the only morality I think might be true, incentive shouldn't have to play into it. That is, the universe might be constructed such that scowling at gay porn is morally good in precisely the same way that the gravitational constant is 6.67x10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2.

[Aeson]

No. Let's say the WBC version of reality is the correct one, and "morality" consists of spending several hours a day scowling at gay pornography and thinking how very much it does not give you an erection. Under this supposition, you have a reason to be "moral" in that, if you do not, you will spend an eternity in unimaginable torment, while if you do you will merely get to spend eternity hanging out with WBC-God while he mutters and fumes about how much He hates Fags. Which is sort of better. This is a very solid incentive, assuming we live in that extremely fubared version of reality.

Other religious traditions have different ends and means, but all (or at least all the old ones, not e.g. Wicca) have a distinct grounding for morality; it's more than just a set of rules, it's a whole way of making sense of and giving purpose to the universe. Without a God, or karma, or some such, you have all the rules with none of the reason. Which then gets presented as a virtue, because we've internalized selflessness as a virtue to the point where we can rush to defend it even when questioning the basis of virtue itself. Which, to me at least, makes no sense.

You have no way to know which version is the "correct one", or even if there is a "correct one" at all. If you were an omniscient being, then maybe you could see an objective "best" course of action which maximized your eternal score. It would still be subjective, since your "best" may not be someone else's "best" at all. We are not omniscient, so are just fumbling around in the dark, pursuing what we think is best given our limited ability to predict the future or trust in other's limited ability to predict the future for us.

That is aside from the point though, which was that you were saying believing in God is better in regards to giving purpose to a person's life. I've been a theist and an agnostic, and for me my life has been much better, much more purposeful, as an agnostic.

[Aeson]

The observer verbiage is yours. The rest of my post explains my true belief on the matter.

I asked you specifically about a universe with no observer. No meaningful evaluation is possible without an observer to make the evaluation.

[Elok]

Of course I have no way of knowing for sure which is correct, and there's no accounting for anyone's individual feelings. All I'm saying is that a theistic morality has a hard center and cohesiveness which secular ethics necessarily lacks.

Lori: how can a chosen behavior have the same kind of truth value as a physical law, and what does morality mean in such a context?

[loinburger]

All I'm saying is that a theistic morality has a hard center and cohesiveness which secular ethics necessarily lacks.

There's enough wiggle room in theistic morality that I don't see much of a practical difference between theistic and atheistic morality. For example, I've met plenty of religious people who don't see anything wrong with homosexuality because the anti-homosexuality stuff is mostly in the "bad" part of the Bible. At the same time, most of the religious people I've met who are opposed to homosexuality are really just using a "it's evil because it's gross!" justification ("The Bible says that male homosexuality is a sin; female homosexuality is also a sin because it's gross" or whatever). Maybe this isn't true of sharia law or other non-Christian forms of legalistic morality, but the Bible is so wildly inconsistent ("Slaughter the Canaanites, and also love your neighbor") that only a crazy person could adhere to all of its tenets (or alternatively somebody who thinks that they've got a God hotline, i.e. somebody who is either a prophet or crazy or both); instead people adhere to the tenets that make sense to them and/or that they want to be true, the same way that atheists determine what is moral and what isn't.

[Aeson]

All I'm saying is that a theistic morality has a hard center and cohesiveness which secular ethics necessarily lacks.

Grouping "secular ethics" and claiming it doesn't have a hard center is missing the point. Also, treating theism as a group and claiming there is a hard center is not right. On such group levels there is wild inconsistency between individuals' beliefs and how strongly they hold those beliefs.

Whatever is at the center of an individual's morality can be as hard or as soft, and precise or as vague, as their belief in it dictates.

[loinburger]

A hardcore Marxist probably has a firmer moral base than the average theist, the primary difference being that he'll say that homosexuality is evil because it's a bourgeois affectation rather than because it's an abomination

[Elok]

All that is completely immaterial to the point I'm trying to make. It's child's play to construct a scenario wherein what we call immoral behavior is clearly the most advantageous path for an individual and/or his/her group. That is, assuming the empirically observable world is all there is. Put simply, crime sometimes pays, and therefore it is sometimes "correct" to be a criminal, unless there is some external consideration (heaven, nirvana, reincarnation) which is always a factor. Most religious traditions possess such a consideration. By definition, a secular system cannot. You can argue that this is a feature, not a bug, but we would reject that reasoning if it were applied in any other context, and I reject it here. In the absence of the supernatural, morality is meaningless. It's a car without an engine.

[loinburger]

By "external consideration" are you simply referring to supernatural reward/punishment, or is there more to it than that? In other words, would you completely ignore God if he told you that you were going to cease to exist upon death regardless of how good/evil you were during life, or is the reward/punishment only part of the reason that you obey God?

[Aeson]

Put simply, crime sometimes pays, and therefore it is sometimes "correct" to be a criminal, unless there is some external consideration (heaven, nirvana, reincarnation) which is always a factor. Most religious traditions possess such a consideration. By definition, a secular system cannot.

No. A non-theist system can just as easily as a theist system have a moral base that doesn't devolve to "whatever is best for me regardless of the impact on others".