WP: What Atheists Can't Answer

[gbear]

[/i]

Sure I do, just because you choose not to believe the answer does not mean that its not real.

Oh and we didn't make the pixie dust, in fact we were made from the dust.

I thought it was spagetti sauce from the great flying spagetti monster in the sky.

Seriously, as I read the article, and this lengthy thread, I was struck by a question. Why does everyone assume the source of morals has to be external? It's been pointed out that we share a certain rough shape of our morals: don't mureder, don't sleep with your neighbor's wife ( a block away is a different story), etc. Most of us also have thumbs. While there are minor differences in our morals, are they on the whole greater than the differences in our physiology from person to person (finger prints, DNA, skinny or fat, etc.)?

To say that the source of my morals may be intrinsic to me and not shared by you isn't a scary proposition at all. I don't think it necessarily leads to the chaotic world pictured by some in the thread and in the religous world. Being intrinsic to me doesn't mean that large parts of my morals aren't shared by society. Most of us agree that we have thumbs and should have thumbs.

Now this view of morality also doesn't discount that my morality is in part shaped by a judeochristian culture. That's my morality. No where in my view of morality is it something that can't be influenced. That said, I don't pass judgement on whether it has been influenced for the better. I do think without religion, morality would still exist. It might not be what you think of though. Religion as a root for much of our morality is just the path our civilization has taken.

Anyway, that's just the rational of a devoted deist who choses to remain outside organized religion.

[PeterMP]

I thought it was spagetti sauce from the great flying spagetti monster in the sky.

Seriously, as I read the article, and this lengthy thread, I was struck by a question. Why does everyone assume the source of morals has to be external? It's been pointed out that we share a certain rough shape of our morals: don't mureder, don't sleep with your neighbor's wife ( a block away is a different story), etc. Most of us also have thumbs. While there are minor differences in our morals, are they on the whole greater than the differences in our physiology from person to person (finger prints, DNA, skinny or fat, etc.)?

Some people don't

To say that the source of my morals may be intrinsic to me and not shared by you isn't a scary proposition at all. I don't think it necessarily leads to the chaotic world pictured by some in the thread and in the religous world. Being intrinsic to me doesn't mean that large parts of my morals aren't shared by society. Most of us agree that we have thumbs and should have thumbs.

Yes, but you aren't trying to tell somebody else what they can do w/ their thumbs until you introduce morailty. If morality is intrinsic to you, why should you be able to control what I do. Shouldn't my intrinsic morality control what I do?

[alexey]

Totally. I agree. Just to be contrary, though, I will suggest that you have to destroy to construct, and you you have to construct to destroy. A simple example--the American Civil War was very destructive, but out of that destruction I feel we were able to construct and greater, more prosperous, and eventually more inclusive and equal society.

True, but can we apply such reasoning? Can we eventually get to okaying destruction in the name of creation? Would you kill 10 people to save 1000? I think these kinds of "rubber hits the road" problems are outside the scope of morality... If violence is immoral then violence to prevent violence is still immoral.

[alexey]

OK, lets shelve the evolutionary/biological angle for a bit. Why couldn't a non-religious humanist assert things like the golden rule, "Treat others as you would yourself"(Budda, Christ, among others), "Never treat another person as a means, but as an end"(Kant), and treat them as axiomatic "self-evident truths" without all the religious baggage? He's basically doing the same thing that the religionist is doing, in asserting a truth, yet it is much simpler because he doesn't have to deal with divine revelation, and which religion is "correct".

Yeah but you're a saints fan so it doesn't matter what you say

[Bliz]

Let me break down this arguement to it's simplest terms

Quote:

Originally Posted by Religious Guy

Why don't you have all the answers? We do, it was the magical guy in the sky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athiest

Yeah, so what. I don't have an explanation, neither do you, I just didn't feel the need to make up some pixie dust

Don't forget agnostic guy:

I can't say whether morality was God-given or not because, as a lowly human, I cannot know the mind of God. To suggest that I can is absurd, blasphemous, and the ultimate act of hubris. A grave sin, if there is such a thing. So I do the best I can...look around and try to comprehend what I see the best that my pitiful human brain will allow.

[alexey]

What makes it a truth?

Pragmatism. It will work very nicely if we accept it as such.

[headexplode]

True, but can we apply such reasoning? Can we eventually get to okaying destruction in the name of creation? Would you kill 10 people to save 1000? I think these kinds of "rubber hits the road" problems are outside the scope of morality... If violence is immoral then violence to prevent violence is still immoral.

I guess that depends if one takes a deontological or utilitarian viewpoint on morality. What's more important: the "greater good" or a steadfast and unchanging morality?

[DCsportsfan53]

Don't forget agnostic guy:

I can't say whether morality was God-given or not because, as a lowly human, I cannot know the mind of God. To suggest that I can is absurd, blasphemous, and the ultimate act of hubris. A grave sin, if there is such a thing. So I do the best I can...look around and try to comprehend what I see the best that my pitiful human brain will allow.

:laugh:

Good addition. I didn't add it because this thread was aimed at atheists but agnosticism is definitely where my beliefs fall. Imo, you're fooling your self if you say there is a God or if you say there isn't. There's no way to know, only ways to believe.

My heart tells me I'd like there to be a higher power. My head tells me not much in this world goes how you like so, yeah.

[DCSaints_fan]

What makes it a truth?

I guess I should have said "asserting what they believe to be true" or "making an assertion". I'm saying that the secular humanist basically does the same thing that the religious does, but just strips away the "divine reveloation" part.

[alexey]

I guess that depends if one takes a deontological or utilitarian viewpoint on morality. What's more important: the "greater good" or a steadfast and unchanging morality?

Why this or that, how can we know that certain paths can not lead to that "greater good"? I do not see why we would need to dismantle "lesser good" in order to get to the greater one

It seems morality (virtue?) is something to grow, something to cultivate. It does not seem to be something we can suddenly arrive to.

[Mooka]

If morals and rights/wrongs were so important then we'd all be Buddhists.

[Jumbo]

I did read most of the thread, and much of this has been said in one way or another, but this is just my two cents for the time I have .

This could be framed simply as people, once developed enough to make choices, can choose to make mainly ethical and moral behavioral decisions for a variety of reasons. There is little way to effectively argue proof of a God, or a dismissal of a God's existence, based on these choices of behavior.

If an atheist lives a moral and ethical life simply because such is preferred for a variety of reasons, then what's the problem? When I was more atheistically inclined in my late teens and early twenties, I had all kinds of meaningful philosophical and pragmatic reasons to behave decently, including the resulting positive feelings/emotions I experienced. Whether you apply the ideas of evolutionary-influenced components of altruism/cooperation, or social learning theory, or super-multi-generational cultural inheritance meta-dynamics (including geographic influencers), or individual scale behavioral modeling of adult to infant, or spiritual elements, or a mix of those (and more) as the main drive(s) behind them, those behavioral choices didn't hinge on, or prove/disprove, the reality of any single one of those concepts.

If today you proved to me there is no God, I'd still choose to strive to behave with high ethical and moral standards because I prefer them for what are to me a variety of logical and beneficial reasons without even needing to bring God or some salvation in an “afterlife” (not that there’s anything wrong with that) into my schema. When you have reasoning behind your choices of a lifestyle or worldview, I’d say it’s not arbitrary.

As just one of many examples, generally cooperative and generally benign social behavior reduces conflicts in individual and societal relationships. This lowers stress in most people, and such behaviors also reduce chances of harm to self, family, and property--those behaviors enhance individual and group security and comfort. What’s arbitrary, unlikely, or wrong with that being your base drive for moral and ethical behavior?

Sure, even just restricting the point to this one aspect of behavioral reward, we could have a Thunderdome society if people preferred, and some societies have been more like that at times. But regardless of belief in whether there’s a God or not, most people don’t seem to enjoy or exist as effectively in that kind of environment.

If you are a believer, and you had it “proved” to you there was no God, would you decide that being immoral and unethical didn’t matter anymore, and that there was “no point” in being generally cooperative or benign?

That was something that stumped me as a kid: it seemed some people were implying they encouraged good moral behavior out of fear of going to hell and not because they just wanted to be decent people “naturally”, God or no God, and live that way just because it made life better around you in the here and now.

Rather than seeing religious folk continue to spend much energy on arguing stuff like this or overdoing the "grand commission", I'd prefer seeing all the various believers in all the churches focus much, much harder (not with words—talk is still cheap, as all message boarders know--) on why we're 85% a Christian nation with a huge Christian cultural and governmental influence, attending church, believing in God and the Bible, and yet we have such amazingly high levels of murder, assault, theft, child and wife abuse, alcoholism & addiction, greed, graft, deceit, neglect etc. etc.

When I look at all that, I'd never think of it as proof there’s no God. I do want to ask sometimes, in frustration, just exactly what does all the religiosity in this culture buy us, because it seems to me if it’s “real” it should translate into some of these social ills not being so dramatically high. But then I understand, I'm just focusing on what hasn't worked and ignoring the positives and I stop.

Still, way less talking and way more walking is my preference, "works" vs "faith" conversations be damned . Rather than being real concerned how atheists can explain having morals and how can evolution "be working" and yet we have all these problems, I suggest we ask even more insistently how can we be a nation of 85% God & Bible-believing Christians, and that "be working", and yet we have all these problems.

Anyway, I always liked the spiritual axiom of influencing by “attraction rather than promotion.”

P.S.--Asbury, you’re a good guy, but its pretty challenging to be able to apply evolutionary theory in any detail, including its socio-anthropological relatives, and equally applicable social learning theories. People here who try, especially in attempts to dismiss it, often reveal just how challenging it is for some to really understand it. In our forum, PeterMP is someone who has devoted a number of years of high-level work and education to it, and is a Christian (until Catholics are finally, officially, disbarred ). I have done some, but notably less, and there is much I do not know.

But I know within the theory there exists broad, varied, flexible, and diverse mechanics (myriad more awaiting discovery) and these shaping forces can work in a population over interims and varying lengths of time. You’re a smart guy—research. Learn how to answer your own questions in this thread instead of presuming you know enough to dismiss theories other than the God one as failing to have answers . I mean that in a friendly manner as someone who enjoys your thoughts and energy as a poster and an ES member independent of my agreement/disagreement.

Back to work.

[headexplode]

Why this or that, how can we know that certain paths can not lead to that "greater good"? I do not see why we would need to dismantle "lesser good" in order to get to the greater one

It seems morality (virtue?) is something to grow, something to cultivate. It does not seem to be something we can suddenly arrive to.

We should allow for all possibilities, including ones where the "greater good" can come from the "lesser good" (isn't that the philosophy behind trickle-down economics?).

I think we should always be cultivating and growing and trying to get closer to the light (what an awful metaphor--my addition, I mean). If we think we've found the answer, we probably haven't. We must constantly challenge our assumptions and our beliefs about the ways of the world. We should never settle for an absolute vision of morality. Absolutism is the ultimate tyranny.

[headexplode]

You must be busy, Jumbo. It seems like I haven't seen you in a while.

[AJ_Skins]

Not really interested in getting into this thread, but wanted to post something from the Bible. No responses needed.

Psalm 14

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God "

They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;

There is no one who does good.

The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men

To see if there are any who understand,

Who seek after God.

They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;

There is no one who does good, not even one.

Do all the workers of wickedness not know,

Who eat up my people as they eat bread,

And do not call upon the Lord?

There they are in great dread,

For God is with the righteous generation...

[PokerPacker]

Not really interested in getting into this thread, but wanted to post something from the Bible. No responses needed.

wow, who would have thought the bible would be self-promoting and critical of those who don't believe?

[AsburySkinsFan]

wow, who would have thought the bible would be self-promoting and critical of those who don't believe?

Yeah, it really wasn't very helpful was it? When I read it I was like, oh man.....*sigh*

[AsburySkinsFan]

You’re a smart guy—research. Learn how to answer your own questions in this thread instead of presuming you know enough to dismiss theories other than the God one as failing to have answers . I mean that in a friendly manner as someone who enjoys your thoughts and energy as a poster and an ES member independent of my agreement/disagreement.

Just doing my part to keep all parties honest.

BTW

[Corcaigh]

wow, who would have thought the bible would be self-promoting and critical of those who don't believe?

It's a self-replicating mind virus that has infected and taken over some people to the extent they are unable to function as rational beings.

[gbear]

It's a self-replicating mind virus that has infected and taken over some people to the extent they are unable to function as rational beings.

I had to reread this to remember this was a comment on the bible and not about Fridays.

[Jumbo]

You must be busy, Jumbo. It seems like I haven't seen you in a while.

I'm here almost daily, bro, but between vocations, advocations, and mandatory playtime , I yust haff time to read the threads, take care of bidness, or make some brief, usually light-hearted comment . I see all my favorite posters are doing fine. Sometimes I just like to maintain a low profile, or I feel I'm just repeating things I've already said enough---some people can say the same stuff to the same audience in the same way over and over, and that's cool. Plus, I usually have my fair share of deep and involved conversation on varying topics offline, so I often just read. And I almost never play with the real whackjobs anymore --sorta like stepping around the pile of :pooh: on the pathway :laugh: . Thus my low posting rate lately. Just wait till the season starts! Always fun to read your posts, amigo

[Corcaigh]

I had to reread this to remember this was a comment on the bible and not about Fridays.

It can be applied to anything.

[Jumbo]

Just doing my part to keep all parties honest.

And a fine job you do

And don't be runing my image as a monster. :cool:

[AsburySkinsFan]

It can be applied to anything.

Let's see, atheism "It's a self-replicating mind virus that has infected and taken over some people to the extent they are unable to function as rational beings."

dems jus jokes.

[Zen-like Todd]

It's a self-replicating mind virus that has infected and taken over some people to the extent they are unable to function as rational beings.

Snowcrash for $1000 Alex?