Does morality exist without God? (2)

Yeah, I'd say it's less likely to be a spirit or outside source than it being a perfectly natural process of the brain itself.

And just to clarify, less likely doesn't mean impossible. There's just no justification to assume that is more likely as of yet.

It would be immoral from the perspective you put forth. Though one could make the case that third party defense (defense on someone's behalf) is moral and not the initiation of force since it is still defense. So defending countries from germany could be considered moral.

The point is, they are still initiating unprovoked violence and you are admitting in this case it could be considered moral.

I agree with you on the point, however it shows that at times, initiating violence is not the immoral thing to do.

Ahem...

Why?

Oh, I just got back on here myself, so no worries on the delay.

You made mention earlier that on the one hand, a supernatural source would be outside the scope of science to investigate. (If my paraphrase is inaccurate, please explain further.) From that same Wikipedia article I cited earlier, many experts in the field have posited that the very nature of consciousness excludes it from direct scientific research. In other words, many people find it to be, well... spiritual.

My guess is that this, and not some fully formed hypothesis about a God in the capital "G" sense, is the origin of religion in the minds of individuals who choose to follow a religion. I have my own experience to back me on that, and the historical record seems to indicate the VAST majority of people have defaulted to some religious world view and not to an atheistic, strictly materialistic one.

To me, that more or less flies in the face of any claim that believing there is no spiritual reality is "more likely." So I am curious how it is you arrive at the "more likely" portion of your view.

P.S. So any god worth speaking of in yout view is sentient and powerful. I'm not sure I'm entirely on board with that, as I accept pantheism as a possible spiritual view, with the sentient and non-sentient views on the nature of the universe itself a sort of competing ideology within pantheistic belief systems. But I do understand your point that you make -- that this just seems to clutter of the field of discussion. I think that may be your own personal predilections speaking through more than anything well founded in the concept of spirit, god, religion and so forth.

I said that from the perspective you put forth it would be immoral. However I go on to say that third party defense is defense, not the initiation of violence. There is no example where initiating violence is moral. If you are defending someone it means someone initiated violence against the person you are defending. Defense is a response to violence, not the initiation of violence.

No problems! :-)

And yes, you are correct that the supernatural would theoretically be outside the realm of science. Science depends on gathering evidence and testing that evidence. The supernatural is untestable if it does indeed exist, as there's no known way for us to replicate it.

However, it's a double edged sword... since there's also no way to test it or gather firm evidence for the supernatural, you also can't rationalize a belief in it due to a lack of evidence. Even if you saw a miracle in front of your eyes, how can you confirm it's not just a rare natural process we don't understand yet? There's no known way to confirm it's actually supernatural.

That's the problems with the experts who believe in a spiritual source. We don't know exactly how consciousness is formed, however we also have no evidence to suggest anything outside of the brain. Therefore plugging in either a God or great universal consciousness of some sort is pretty well a "God of the Gaps" argument.

The reality is we don't know the answer, so plugging in something that makes sense to them spiritually, despite the lack of evidence for their position is not a justified argument.




Absolutely, many more people have defaulted to some sort of religious or spiritual worldview, however that doesn't necessarily make it the correct worldview. Dawkins actually has a rather fascinating chapter covering why Human minds are prone to religious belief in the God Delusion called "The Roots of Religion". I'm not asserting it as absolute truth as I haven't read many counter-arguments on the topic, however he makes some very interesting points even if you agree or disagree with him.



I didn't say Pantheism isn't a possible reality, I just don't really accept when Pantheists label anything and everything as God. I think that strays too far from the generally accepted concept of what a God is. If you define my table and computer as God, then sure, by your definition God definitely exists... but what does that really prove? That's all I meant by it being irrelevant.

However government wars can never be moral because they are funded by theft and involuntary servitude.

Actually, they can be moral under that standard IF the government uses volunteer troops, and if the government also uses only non-coercively gathered funding. Nothing like this happens today, but it is at least hypothetically possible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Will this bully pulpit for the promotion of atheist ever end? Hears a thought start your own antichrist forum , and have a ball. And hope they serve popcorn at the Norman Lear Carl Riner shows in hell