WP: What Atheists Can't Answer

[DCsportsfan53]

The problem is that atheism cannot contribute to the discussion on morality, because in atheism morality is completely subjective, and is actually more closely akin to a flaw in the evolutionary development of people, because morality holds us back from doing those things that would benefit us a individuals.

If morality was given to us by God, though, wouldn't it be a more universal thing? The definition of morality is constantly changing, within cultures and across cultures. For example, someone in their 20s marrying or having sex with a 13 year old girl today is considered HORRIBLY unmoral and unacceptable. For the rest of human history up until maybe 150 years ago, it was as commonplace as can be. Are God's morals constantly changing or are all morals simply a human interpretation of what's in their heart?

[Bliz]

The problem is that atheism cannot contribute to the discussion on morality, because in atheism morality is completely subjective, and is actually more closely akin to a flaw in the evolutionary development of people, because morality holds us back from doing those things that would benefit us a individuals.

The problem is as the article states such an evolutionary developement is acutally a failing, not a strength which is supposedly what evolution produces.

The you're right the fact that you make moral choices is important and that is the very thing that atheism cannot answer.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Ignoring humans for a second, evolution does not solely function to make the individual stronger, but makes the group as a whole stronger. Usually these are one and the same, but not always. The point of evolution is adaptation and survival in your environment. If a particular adaptation hinders the growth and overall well-being of the group, the population becomes less well-off, starts to die as a result, and now you're going against evolution.

If you saw the movie, A Beautiful Mind, Nash's genius breakthrough was the recognition that everyone does not do what is best for themselves, you do what is best for yourself AND for the group. This fits the mold perfectly. Although it doesn't necessarily benefit you to the greatest extent possible as an individual (although it helps in that others treat you well), it benefits you and the group to a much greater degree than unchecked greed.

[PeterMP]

I'd argue about what he mans by 'objective', but the courts (usually) function well enough.

So this is where Dawkins gets into a little trouble and the author has a somewhat valid point. By what defintion is a court 'objective'. The judge and the jury are all bound by the moral and ethical code imprinted upon them and society by evolultion. There is no reason to believe that evolution at this point in time has found the best possible solution. If I have a "better" moral code (for society), is it fair that it should be repressed because parts of it may disagree w/ the moral code imprinted on the majority of society?

Simply who are you to judge that your evolutionary imprinted moral code is better than mine?

[Chump Bailey]

Agnosticism is highly undervalued and underappreciated.

Until it is has been revealed my friend, as was the case for me. Each's path is likely very different of course except for the 'fact' (as I see it) that it is also often meandering, with a healthy mixture of pain, some semblance of atonement and revelation.

[IONTOP]

I answered this in my post. Most people, whether theist or atheist, make moral choices because they believe it to be the right thing to do out of empathy for their fellow man and a belief in the desireability of a smoothly functioning interdependent society. Or the Golden Rule if you prefer.

Decent people know that adultery and theft are wrong, and not because of what any religious text says.

Something doesn't make sense... I don't kill others because if I could do so without consequences someone would have killed me long ago. I don't steal because if I could do so without consequences, someone would have stolen from me long ago.

It's not about "do unto others" it's about looking at the big picture. When people say "without [my] God, the world would be a horrible place, it would be lawless and people would kill each other"

People may kill each other, well until they realize that there is a better solution, not killing each other.... It's not because of religion, it's because of common sense...

[SkinsHokieFan]

People that claim religion are no more moral than those who dont. Probably less so since they can justify any action with religion.

People may kill each other, well until they realize that there is a better solution, not killing each other.... It's not because of religion, it's because of common sense...

Again this article is trying to talk about why we have this common sense, where it comes from

Does it come from evolutionary behaviors and chemicals in our brain or does it come from a higher being?

I have met plenty of atheists who I say are far more moral then many of the religious people I have met. It doesn't matter if you believe or not, but where does this internal instinct come from?

[McMetal]

What a load of utter garbage.

Take a sociology class, dipstick.

And quit bashing atheists...we can answer plenty.

[Corcaigh]

The problem is that atheism cannot contribute to the discussion on morality, because in atheism morality is completely subjective, and is actually more closely akin to a flaw in the evolutionary development of people, because morality holds us back from doing those things that would benefit us a individuals.

This is absolute nonsense. Peaceful interdependence obviously beats independence.

Big difference in a theological interpretation of the church and a God given morality.

True, and religion seems to provide little influence in keeping its followers from immoral behavior.

The you're right the fact that you make moral choices is important and that is the very thing that atheism cannot answer.

Is the only thing keeping you from immoral behavior the threat of punishment from your supreme being?

My personal self interest is best served by behaving in a way that allows a functional, stable, thriving community in the long term, irrespective of what happens when I have shuffled off this mortal coil.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yeah, like televangelists.

Yeah, because all Christians are televangelists, right just like all atheists are homocidal maniacs like Stalin.

The 'moral basis' is the consent of the society they live in.

If that were so then why is the church's morality rejected by our culture?

It has been my observation that people will obey their 'instincts' in any case then post-rationalize their behavior. And if you think that human instincts are conflicted, then so are the commands of most gods I have studied.

Ok, lets go, what's conflicted, you can't honestly think that we're gonna let a comment like that slide.

So in summary, religion doesn't present a solution for the problems he is addressing.

Sure it does, because it is the only theing that explains the why.

[alexey]

But there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits.

So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma.

Yes it does. Atheism can easily get to "Treat others like you want to be treated yourself" using logic and reasoning.

[Destino]

People that claim religion are no more moral than those who dont. Probably less so since they can justify any action with religion.

You are looking at this issue on way too personal a basis. The question isn't can YOU make moral choices without God. You were raised in a society that has adopted moral concepts from somewhere, in this case Judeo-Christian concepts of morality. So while you can choose not to be religious at all a sense of morality has already been provided.

Now zoom out and look at it from a larger social perspective. Where does a society get it's sense of morality if there is no mostly agreed upon template. Suddenly there is no objective morality at all, it's entirely opinion. What's the effect of that over the years. What does it look like 10 generations from now.

[DCsportsfan53]

The problem is that atheism cannot contribute to the discussion on morality, because in atheism morality is completely subjective, and is actually more closely akin to a flaw in the evolutionary development of people, because morality holds us back from doing those things that would benefit us a individuals.

I forgot to mention, does this come across as spiritual arrogance and monopolization to anyone else? I'm undecided if there's a God but I feel I understand the difference between right and wrong and have a very strong conscience. To assume that atheists can't comment on morality it has to assumed as fact that their is a God who's given you your moral base. So basically you've just used your faith as a way to discredit the moral opinions of those who have no faith. Given the HUGE disparity in ideas on morality within religions, not to mention across religions, I find this a very hard concept to swallow.

As an aside, your comment about morality being an evolutionary flaw is definitely incorrect. In can very easily be argued that while it may seem that certain aspects of morality are not to the individual's immediate benefit it is a benefit to the long term survival of the race as a whole. More than most all other species of animals, humans need to be able to work and cooperate together with more just a small "pack" of humans in order to truly thrive. It could be said that morality is an evolutionary adaption that allowed the human race to grow and thrive as they have by virtue of allowing cooperation across tribal/pack boundaries that most species are not able to cross. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case but it's EASILY as strong an arguement as suggesting it came from God.

[SkinsHokieFan]

You are looking at this issue on way too personal a basis. The question isn't can YOU make moral choices without God. You were raised in a society that has adopted moral concepts from somewhere, in this case Judeo-Christian concepts of morality. So while you can choose not to be religious at all a sense of morality has already been provided.

Now zoom out and look at it from a larger social perspective. Where does a society get it's sense of morality if there is no mostly agreed upon template. Suddenly there is no objective morality at all, it's entirely opinion. What's the effect of that over the years. What does it look like 10 generations from now.

Articulated much better then I could, thank you

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is absolute nonsense. Peaceful interdependence obviously beats independence.

Then if morality is a evolutionary development then necessarily it should be shared by all current humans, then explain to me why some go completely against their evolutionary developed morality; Hitler, Bin Laden, Saddam, etc are some prime examples.

True, and religion seems to provide little influence in keeping its followers from immoral behavior.

Oh give me a break, this is just silly and it proves how little you actually know about the church.

Is the only thing keeping you from immoral behavior the threat of punishment from your supreme being?

No, I actually don't stress the punishment aspect of my faith, for me my behavior is a response to God's love that was given to me. Trust me I'm not a "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" type a guy.

My personal self interest is best served by behaving in a way that allows a functional, stable, thriving community in the long term, irrespective of what happens when I have shuffled off this mortal coil.

One would hope that morality would be deeper than, I want what's good for me and those in my community.

[Destino]

Yes it does. Atheism can easily get to "Treat others like you want to be treated yourself" using logic and reasoning.

The golden rule is only as good as the person applying it. It's not morality at all, it's a sliding scale saying "be as big a dick to everyone as you yourself are willing to tolerate." By that standard a person that doesn't believe in honesty when sex is concerned is morally justified in lying his/her ass off to get laid. By that standard a person that believes "if you aren't cheating you aren't trying" is morally justified in cheating everyone he does business with because that's how the game should be played in his mind.

Congrats on getting to a rule that doesn't govern morality at all - it's only a basic description of social interaction.

[AsburySkinsFan]

:laugh: Pretty weak.

One deserves another.

[PeterMP]

You are looking at this issue on way too personal a basis. The question isn't can YOU make moral choices without God. You were raised in a society that has adopted moral concepts from somewhere, in this case Judeo-Christian concepts of morality. So while you can choose not to be religious at all a sense of morality has already been provided.

Now zoom out and look at it from a larger social perspective. Where does a society get it's sense of morality if there is no mostly agreed upon template. Suddenly there is no objective morality at all, it's entirely opinion. What's the effect of that over the years. What does it look like 10 generations from now.

But that doesn't mean there is a God. It may mean that all humans are evolutionarily related and most humans have had a very similar moral code imprinted upon them by evolution, and so hence you get a society that has a similar moral code, which is what Dawkins arguement, which the author acknowledges.

[Bliz]

Is it necessary to assume that God came first? I submit that it is equally plausible in the context of this morality discussion that belief in God is a byproduct of a natural evolution toward harmony in a species that relies on the health and well-being of the group. The lawless groups that murder and steal from each other with impugnity do not last, and the ones with rules do. The rules come about, and later God develops as the "answer" to a question that humans do not have the capacity to answer.

[DCsportsfan53]

If that were so then why is the church's morality rejected by our culture?

Which church? Your church or one of the thousands of others? Which member in your church? Because I can guarantee there's a lot of different interpretations of the same document even within you own church, let alone all the other sects of Christianity, let alone the all the other religions throughout histroy.....who, btw, have all caimed like yours to have the answer.

Sure it does, because it is the only theing that explains the why

No it doesn't. You're back to the arrogant position of assuming you've got the right religion locked down. Believe it or not, many have come before with different explanations. Yours is just in it's Britney Spears circa 2000 stage. Soon enough, it'll be Britney 07 and a new, hot young religion or sect of your own religion will come to replace it.

[Corcaigh]

You are looking at this issue on way too personal a basis. The question isn't can YOU make moral choices without God. You were raised in a society that has adopted moral concepts from somewhere, in this case Judeo-Christian concepts of morality. So while you can choose not to be religious at all a sense of morality has already been provided.

Now zoom out and look at it from a larger social perspective. Where does a society get it's sense of morality if there is no mostly agreed upon template. Suddenly there is no objective morality at all, it's entirely opinion. What's the effect of that over the years. What does it look like 10 generations from now.

For any society to hold together there has to be a level of mutual respect. For the earliest societies to function and survive it seems reasonable that early humans had to evolve behaviors that allowed co-existence.

[alexey]

You are looking at this issue on way too personal a basis. The question isn't can YOU make moral choices without God. You were raised in a society that has adopted moral concepts from somewhere, in this case Judeo-Christian concepts of morality. So while you can choose not to be religious at all a sense of morality has already been provided.

Now zoom out and look at it from a larger social perspective. Where does a society get it's sense of morality if there is no mostly agreed upon template. Suddenly there is no objective morality at all, it's entirely opinion. What's the effect of that over the years. What does it look like 10 generations from now.

I think it is important to make a distinction between morality and customs. I think we can arrive fairly close to morals that could be considered "universal" by using simple rules such as fairness. Of course those may or may not contradict with customs... but I think it is important to remember just how many different things can the term "morals" mean.

[chomerics]

social evolution, maybe?

Shhhh, there is no talk of social evolution in the guise of god, humanity has no reason for morality only god can show us the way

This is one of those straw men arguments which hold absolutely no water when actually examined under any type of scrutiny. I mean lets look at this with a little bit of rational thought. . .

Throughout the history of humanity, what is the one underlying cause for war in the post BC era? Yep, religion. If the moral compass was derived from god, how can you explain the crusades? How can you explain the millennium of death, torture, and outright massacre caused by organized religion?

Lets also look at the reasoning with a closer look towards the modern era, and I will use Iraq as a base example to show why this is a straw man argument. Who, on this message board, are the strongest proponents of the war in Iraq and the War on Terror? yep, you guessed it, the religious people. The ones like Johnny Punani and AJ Skins who have professed their love of god, yet in the same breath profess their support of a war which goes against the fundamental teachings of god.

Now, who are the people against the war? It is people from the other side of the argument who are not religious at all. (I know it is a stereotype, and there are exceptions, but for the MOST part, this is correct). people like myself, Poker Packer, Predicto, Luckydeveil, people who do not adhere to the structure of a religion, and people who actually take reality at face value. It is the reason why most Atheists are pacifists and it is also a good example of social evolution without religion.

Social Evolution is EXACTLY where the moral compass in life comes from, and as a society progresses and understands more about life, where they came from and what it is all about, the more we progress socially. We don't agree that there is salvation if you only accept a single god, because we think they are all full of BS. We live our lives as we see fit, and we derive our own moral standards from the laws that govern us, as well as what we see as right and wrong. Look at the last 100 years in the US, and see how far we have progressed socially. In 1907 women couldn't vote, blacks were not even second class citizens, but third (women were second) and there was more hatred for ethnic groupe then there is today. We have progresses socially because of social evolution, not because of god. If god were the moral compass, we would have been a lot more equal socially when people followed religion a lot more than today.

Human instinct is not inherently bad, and social evolution removes a lot of the "bad" instincts from human nature. Man does not want to kill all around him, this is not the stone age, and we have a better understanding of both society and life. The ineptitude of the argument is seen by anyone with an open mind, as you do not need God to know what is right and what is wrong. I would even venture a guess that the people who are not religious know a hell of a lot more about what is right and wrong than many of the religious zealots here. You see it in the posts, as well as the arguments and the intelligence of the posters. Again, not to say there are not exceptions, the thread starter is one, but in terms of generalizations, this is what is seen here on a daily basis.

So in conclusion, this is a very old argument which holds no basis in truth or fact when looked at more closely. It is only a convenient way for people of a religious nature to try and make themselves feel superior to people that are different. That mere thought in and of itself discredits the premise, and it is completely hypocritical when examined more closely.

[PokerPacker]

Simply who are you to judge that your evolutionary imprinted moral code is better than mine?

why that would be one Mr. Ethnocentrism coming into play there.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If morality was given to us by God, though, wouldn't it be a more universal thing? The definition of morality is constantly changing, within cultures and across cultures.

What are the constants of morality that have existed throughout history? Everyone wants to pick on particulars of culture, instead of focusing on the constants. Also, the thing about morality as a religious endeavor is that it requires devotion and use of will, whereas atheistic morality would suggest that all behave in moral ways simply as a reaction to their human evolutionary development.

[Bliz]

Then if morality is a evolutionary development then necessarily it should be shared by all current humans, then explain to me why some go completely against their evolutionary developed morality; Hitler, Bin Laden, Saddam, etc are some prime examples.

Congratulations! Worst argument of the thread so far. :applause:

Also, sidenote, 2 of the 3 were DEVOUTLY religious.