Hey, Atheists...

[stevevw]

And then you went on to answer the question yourself, clearly and succinctly.

Yes which proves that God instilled into humans an innate sense of morality. Just as the bible says that His laws are written on our hearts. So yes I answered the OP but not with any atheistic explanation for morality. It actually does the opposite and supports a moral law giver.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes which proves that God instilled into humans an innate sense of morality. Just as the bible says that His laws are written on our hearts. So yes I answered the OP but not with any atheistic explanation for morality. It actually does the opposite and supports a moral law giver.

It "proves" that we have an innate moral sense. That God instilled it is a matter of faith, not objective truth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why do you think God or a god would not install some natural way in humans for knowing Him. This is not an arguement for morality being naturalistic ultimate cause. No more than saying consciousness is a naturalistically caused by the physical brain.

I have no need to add a god to understand human morality. You've already covered the basics on why morality would exist.

Its the same for evolution itself. Evolution does not mean its a naturalistic way of explaining reality without a need for God. What if evoilution is part of Gods creation. It makes sense that He equips creatures with the ability to adapt to environments.

The Theory of Evolution does not need a god to function.

Subjective and relative morality were inherent in the OP. It was asking what basis do atheists have for morality. Is it the Golden Rule, Utalitarianism ect. Which would include the different ways atheists like Sam Harris understand morality ie human wellbeing. Or humanism, Wokism, first principles, logic or whatever basis atheists will ground morality in.

As far as I understand there is no basis for morality for atheists is that is truely objective beyond human subjective and relative beliefs and feelings.

Since atheists are just people who don't buy any of the god claims, why would we need a special source for morality than anyone else for the morality that doesn't require a god. The only difference is that we never claim ours comes from a god. If your only reason for thinking morality comes from a god is that your religion says so, that is a pretty empty claim.

I think the aim was to illicit those rationals for morality and discuss whether they are a sound basis for morality. Otherwise what else could be discussed.

 

[Kylie]

Ok well I knew that already but thought it may have been something less obvious. But that is not a very strong arguement against God and objective morality.

In fact it sort of supports that there is a God in that if there was such a God don't you think He would create us with the knowledge of Him so that we can have relationship with God. In fact the bible says this is the case.

But it also supports objective morality as it shows that morality is not subjective or relative to the culture. If we are born with a moral sense then its not taught or socially constructed but innate. In our bones so to speak,

If all cultures have the same basic morals then its not that the morals themselves are relative but that how they are applied asccording to the circumstances and facts for that culture.

Of course, it also fits in perfectly well with a non-religious worldview.

Behaviour is something that can be selected for by evolution - just look at beavers and their instinctive need to build dams, even when there are no suitable damn building materials. The behaviour is just as much a part of them as their fur thickness, or any other physical trait.

And so Humans, as a species that tends to live in large and complex social groups, would also find that behavioural characteristics are selected for by evolution. Those behaviours that are beneficial are selected for, and those that are harmful are selected against.

So behaviours that are harmful, such as violence, murder, aggression, etc tend to be selected against. The behaviours that are beneficial, such as helping others who are in pain, etc, are selected for.

Isn't it plausible that these common behaviours are the basis for our naturalistic morality?

We believe that it is morally right to help others because this kind of behaviour is one that, due to its benefit to the social groups Humans live in, is one that has been repeatedly selected for by evolution, and is now genetically encoded in us in just the same way that our eye colour or hair colour is?

In fact, I would argue that this is a BETTER explanation than your "God gave us morality" worldview.

After all, if your argument is correct, we should all have the SAME view on morality. And yet this is not the case. Sure, it is generally the same in the broad strokes - don't kill, don't steal - but what about other cases? Is it morally acceptable to smack a child? Is the death penalty morally acceptable? There is a lot of disagreement about these ideas, and that simply would not be the case if there was a single objectively correct morality. There is, after all, no disagreement about other things where there is a single objectively correct point of view, such as the Pythagorean theorem.

This broad similarity but variations on a small scale fits perfectly with what we would expect from something that was a result of evolution, in just the same way that my hair is blonde and my husband's hair is black, but all human hair is somewhere on the brown side of things. We don't see people with naturally green hair, after all. It's always some shade of a brownish colour, whether it be light like mine, or dark like my husband's.

 

[stevevw]

It "proves" that we have an innate moral sense. That God instilled it is a matter of faith, not objective truth.

Ok but arguemnets can be made for this as well. BUt as far as atheistic morality it doesn't help with subjective and relative morality because it shows we have certain moral inclinations despite subjective opinions and relative culture.

As morality cannot be inherited genetically as its not a physical phenomena (there is no gene for justice or fairness) but a belief or sense then it points to something beyond time and space that causes humans to be moral creatures.

 

[stevevw]

I have no need to add a god to understand human morality. You've already covered the basics on why morality would exist.

Yes but thats just for you. The next atheist may have a different view and the next another view and so on. We are left with subjective morality again and no basis apart from individual subjective feelings and beliefs.

The problem is you can cite that we are born with a sense of morality as your basis but under your idea of morality that is subjective or relative you cannot use that to say someone else is morally wrong as all subjective moral views are all equal and included.

The Theory of Evolution does not need a god to function.

But it does need some teleology as evolution is not an unguided process that lacks purpose. Evolution fails to explain much of behaviour and knowledge that is beyond the gene centric view of evolution.

Evolution has to appeal to the extended genotype for behaviour which basically moves into subjective opinions which brings us back to non physical processes that cannot be easily explained by biological evolution.

I know abiogenesis is not evolution but life does not come from non life. So evolution cannot explain this. It points to something beyond the material world that has guided the creation of life and evolution.

Since atheists are just people who don't buy any of the god claims, why would we need a special source for morality than anyone else for the morality that doesn't require a god. The only difference is that we never claim ours comes from a god. If your only reason for thinking morality comes from a god is that your religion says so, that is a pretty empty claim.

There are many arguements for God and morality. As I mentioned morality is not in the category of material explanations just like consciousness. So whatever you want to use, your feelings, your beliefs and views are not a basis for morality. All you are doing is expressing likes or dislikes similar to tastes for food. That is not a basis for morality.

Whatever it is that we need to ground morality in its something beyond the material explanations. From this we can build a case for a moral lawgiver that fits better than any other metaphysical idea like human wellbeing, evolution or some mystical spirit if the universe.

 

[Bradskii]

But it does need some teleology as evolution is not an unguided process that lacks purpose.

Warning: Stay clear of evolution, Steve. You don't even understand the basics (that sentence being Exhibit 1).

 

[stevevw]

Of course, it also fits in perfectly well with a non-religious worldview.

Not really. The non religious worldview is that morality is subjective and relative to culture. But being born with morals is not subjective or relative to culture. It implies that there are certain core morals that we can hold all people to regardless of subjective opinions or relative culture.

It fixes moral laws as objectives that stand regardless. But how can we say that morals are like a law, a physical law ehen they are not physical themselves. Thus if there are some non physical laws like morality then there must be some source for this. They don't come out of thin air. This at least points to some higher power that causes these laws to exist.

If anything morality is best understood by religion ratrher than some worldview that cannot explain this.

Behaviour is something that can be selected for by evolution - just look at beavers and their instinctive need to build dams, even when there are no suitable damn building materials. The behaviour is just as much a part of them as their fur thickness, or any other physical trait.

Yes but the behaviour to build dams was first non genetic. It was something creatures worked out. It can change generation to generation. It just so happens that the beavers behaviour happened to provide a benefit some the entire ecosystem is passed on and not the genetics for it. It becomes instinctual later after generations have adopted these behaviours.

Its the same for humans. If we are in cold climates we can adapt and that social behaviour is passed on. But if for some reason things suddenly changed then humans can create a completely different environment and adapt again. Showing that the behaviour is not genetic but something beyond. Such as a rational mind or innate knowledge of nature. Which is of 'Mind' and not a material process like genes and mutations.

This relates to the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'.

And so Humans, as a species that tends to live in large and complex social groups, would also find that behavioural characteristics are selected for by evolution. Those behaviours that are beneficial are selected for, and those that are harmful are selected against.

I disagree. Evidence shows its not selected by evolution (as if evolution can select). But rather its selected by humans, by the creature itself based on their ability to work this out and an innate knowledge of nature. It is the human who chose to build enviornments that were more conducive for survival.

It was humans who chose or rather dicovered certain moral truth were more conducive for a better life. They could chose otherwise which they have and opposed these moral truths. But nevertheless they chose them and they can change if they choose to change them. Which shows that morals are not a physical process that gets fixed by genetics.

So behaviours that are harmful, such as violence, murder, aggression, etc tend to be selected against. The behaviours that are beneficial, such as helping others who are in pain, etc, are selected for.

But they are not selected against by genes and mutations. They are consciously selected. They can change from generation to generation. We have just seen a change from Christain morals to secular Woke ideology in a generation.

Isn't it plausible that these common behaviours are the basis for our naturalistic morality?

The thing is though we are born with an innate sense of morality culture can and does orientate this sense towards different ideas and beliefs about what this moral sense is and how it should be applied.

So we could end up with what some cultures believe is immoral all being cultivated at the same time and yet all claiming to be based on our innate sense of morality. We are back to subjective and relative morality.

We believe that it is morally right to help others because this kind of behaviour is one that, due to its benefit to the social groups Humans live in, is one that has been repeatedly selected for by evolution, and is now genetically encoded in us in just the same way that our eye colour or hair colour is?

The Vikings raped and pillaged and this was very successful for them for a long time. They became powerful. Under this logic of evolution whatever behaviour is of benefit for the group is moral. The conquering vikings who bring back hoards for the group and benefiting the group.

In fact, I would argue that this is a BETTER explanation than your "God gave us morality" worldview.

As morality is not something that can be explained by material processes it points to an immaterial source. It makes sense that some moral lawgiver be it God or gods or some spirital force made these moral laws as they are about moral behaviour and not something inanimate.

Pinning morals on some physical process of beneficial behaviour could mean anything. Whatever behaviour people feel is good under the circumstances. Thats not a good basis for morality.

I think morality needs a transcedent moral lawgiver who is above fallible humans and who is perfectly good and justified to be the creator and judge of moral behaviour. Otherwise its just a matter of opinion.

After all, if your argument is correct, we should all have the SAME view on morality. And yet this is not the case. Sure, it is generally the same in the broad strokes - don't kill, don't steal -

That is basically all the law. Morality is primarily about how we treat others. What else is there that doesn't stem from not killing or stealing. Not killing also implies all the harms done up to killing. Not stealing can cover a braod range from stealing someone time by not doing what your paid for. To stealing posessions or someones wife.

It is these core morals researchers have found are the same for all cultures. They mention courage. So the opposite of killing someone is saving someones life. That is the moral value of courage.

but what about other cases? Is it morally acceptable to smack a child? Is the death penalty morally acceptable? There is a lot of disagreement about these ideas, and that simply would not be the case if there was a single objectively correct morality.

These are the factual aspects that may different for the same moral truth. The moral related to smacking children is "don't abuse children'. Everyone agrees on that. Its just that the facts may vary ie some cite evidence smacking is ok and others that its not.

There will always be a truth to be found. But sometimes that truth is not yet found but most of the time its denied. So just because there is disagreement doesn't mean there is a moral truth to be found. The very natuire of morality demands a truth as its about a right way and a wrong way to behave. There is no middle ground.

There is, after all, no disagreement about other things where there is a single objectively correct point of view, such as the Pythagorean theorem.

Well actually there is. Take the 'Flat Earthers' for example. What about biologocal sex. These are denied as objective facts.

This broad similarity but variations on a small scale fits perfectly with what we would expect from something that was a result of evolution, in just the same way that my hair is blonde and my husband's hair is black, but all human hair is somewhere on the brown side of things. We don't see people with naturally green hair, after all. It's always some shade of a brownish colour, whether it be light like mine, or dark like my husband's.

Yes but morality is a different kind of phenomena to the physical aspects of humans like genetic hair color. Its overlayed on this with a belief system whicch cannot be reduced to physical aspects. So humans can color their hair green and this becomes their reality, the reality for the group. They can believe a man can become a women and that trumps biological reality because their belief trumps physical reality.

If God is the God of morality and the physical world then moral truths should be in alignment with all aspects of reality. So just as God said He made man and women in His image this aligns with biological reality. Even though the moral law is not in itself a physical law.

 

[stevevw]

Warning: Stay clear of evolution, Steve. You don't even understand the basics (that sentence being Exhibit 1).

Hum I think we have gone through this before and where did that get us. That sentence is very much in line with current thinking on evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

Hum I think we have gone through this before and where did that get us. That sentence is very much in line with current thinking on evolution.

Well, it didn't get you anywhere. Stay clear of it.

 

[Kylie]

Ok but arguemnets can be made for this as well. BUt as far as atheistic morality it doesn't help with subjective and relative morality because it shows we have certain moral inclinations despite subjective opinions and relative culture.

But ALL of those shared moral viewpoints are the ones we would expect to see if they came about by means of evolutionary selective pressures, exactly as I said.

As morality cannot be inherited genetically as its not a physical phenomena (there is no gene for justice or fairness) but a belief or sense then it points to something beyond time and space that causes humans to be moral creatures.

You could also claim that there is no gene for dam building that Beavers have, and you would be wrong.

True, ideas can not be passed genetically, but BEHAVIOURS can. And when we see that what we call morality is a way of behaving that allows us to live together in social groups, evolution can explain it just fine.

 

[stevevw]

Well, it didn't get you anywhere. Stay clear of it.

On whose authority are you claiming this, yours lol.

 

[stevevw]

But ALL of those shared moral viewpoints are the ones we would expect to see if they came about by means of evolutionary selective pressures, exactly as I said.

Wait a minute you were just claiming my arguement that a moral sense is innate and not evolved supports the atheist position. Now you saying its not innate but rather evolved.

You could also claim that there is no gene for dam building that Beavers have, and you would be wrong.

So how did the first generations of beavers who did not have this gene know to build dams. Like I said first its the choice and adaptation of the creatures own actions. Then after many generations if it provides a benefit the genes are then fixed.

But it was the selection of the beaver that iniated this behaviour not some pre programmed process. The same with all niche contrustion. Its a form of artifical selection by the creature itself. Just like humans use artificial selection for Dog breeds. Except the creatures selection is usually adaptive and beneficial as it knows what it needs.

The creature is not passive blob acted upon by some naturalistic force but an active player making choices that can benefit it. Or making choices that are non beneficial. One culture chooses a healthy diet and another an unhealthy one. There was no programming involved. Just beneficial or non beneficial choices.

True, ideas can not be passed genetically, but BEHAVIOURS can. And when we see that what we call morality is a way of behaving that allows us to live together in social groups, evolution can explain it just fine.

I am not sure of that. If evolution is some force that programs us to live together by being cooperative and reciprical then why do we often breach this with counter behaviour thats not beneficial and conducive of survival. This can change within a generation or two.

Not because we have lived that way due to some genetic program but that its beyond a programmed process. Morality can change according to circumstance so the last thing you want is it be be fixed to some programmed behaviour. What is moral one minute is immoral the next. As humans are fallible creatures and decieve ourselves we can turn a lie into the truth.

Evolution is a poor explanation of morality. It doesn't begin to explain morality as morality is not a material process or programmed.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok but arguemnets can be made for this as well. BUt as far as atheistic morality it doesn't help with subjective and relative morality because it shows we have certain moral inclinations despite subjective opinions and relative culture.

And we have all, including atheists, agreed with you.

As morality cannot be inherited genetically as its not a physical phenomena (there is no gene for justice or fairness) but a belief or sense then it points to something beyond time and space that causes humans to be moral creatures.

If you want to make that argument you are going to have to show us more than a comic jape about a "gene for justice or fairness."

 

[essentialsaltes]

As morality cannot be inherited genetically as its not a physical phenomena

Non sequitur. Begging the question.

We could say the same for, say, musical aptitude. It is not a 'physical phenomenon', but it is heritable. (Of course, you could just beg the question again and say musical talent is a gift from the gods.)

Humans innately make music and innately have moral instincts. This doesn't get us any closer to 'objectivity' or a divine origin.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes but thats just for you. The next atheist may have a different view and the next another view and so on.

No that's not just me. It applies to everyone. Those basic moral instincts you spoke of exist in all of us. (Well, at least the vast majority. Some of them seem broken in some people.) The researchers who found those moral instincts in young children didn't experiment on me, so you can't place their results only on me.

We are left with subjective morality again and no basis apart from individual subjective feelings and beliefs.

As they would be for anyone. We all acquire the preferences in our moral systems over time, some by instruction, some by obervation, some in other fashions. Those preferences then weave into a full moral system with our moral instincts. If you know someone's personal moral priorities (collective good, personal freedom, sexual fidelity, etc.) an objective analysis of various moral scenarios can be done.

The problem is you can cite that we are born with a sense of morality as your basis but under your idea of morality that is subjective or relative you cannot use that to say someone else is morally wrong as all subjective moral views are all equal and included.

What? I can make the same claim as anyone else who uses their base moral instincts. And, the best thing about morality is that everyone gets to declare theirs to be superior.

But it does need some teleology as evolution is not an unguided process that lacks purpose. Evolution fails to explain much of behaviour and knowledge that is beyond the gene centric view of evolution.

Boy you really got that wrong. Fully inverted. evolution *IS* and unguided process with a lack of intentional purpose.

Evolution has to appeal to the extended genotype for behaviour which basically moves into subjective opinions which brings us back to non physical processes that cannot be easily explained by biological evolution.

Extended *phenotypes* are the things animals do to their environment based on instincts (bird nests, beaver dams, ant hills, etc.) and behavior. Other behaviors can also be instinctive. If these are inherited behaviors how are then not ultimately explainable by the same processes of evolution that create body structures and biochemistry

I know abiogenesis is not evolution but life does not come from non life. So evolution cannot explain this. It points to something beyond the material world that has guided the creation of life and evolution.

Then why bring it up? If abiogenesis is impossible without intervention (and I see no reason to think that) that doesn't mean evolution requires intervention.

There are many arguements for God and morality. As I mentioned morality is not in the category of material explanations just like consciousness.

I'm not sure how it could be anything else. If there is an inherited instinct for morality (as there is an inherited instinct for infants to suckle) then where else would it be recorded than in proteins and DNA, just like any other instinct.

So whatever you want to use, your feelings, your beliefs and views are not a basis for morality. All you are doing is expressing likes or dislikes similar to tastes for food. That is not a basis for morality.

My dislike for green peas is a perfectly valid source for finding it moral to extinguish them from existence... Bwhaahahaha.

Whatever it is that we need to ground morality in its something beyond the material explanations. From this we can build a case for a moral lawgiver that fits better than any other metaphysical idea like human wellbeing, evolution or some mystical spirit if the universe.

I live in a group and so do you. The sustainment of my group is good enough "metaphysical" reason as any you can give.

 

[Bradskii]

On whose authority are you claiming this, yours lol.

Yes. I know enough about the subject to know when somebody doesn't know enough about the subject. I'm watching your back for you.

 

[Bradskii]

I am not sure of that. If evolution is some force that programs us to live together by being cooperative and reciprical...

It isn't. Evolution gives us a tendency to be cooperative. That's all. There's no gene for cooperation. You're not programmed to act in a particular way.

 

[stevevw]

And we have all, including atheists, agreed with you.

If you agree with me then why do you keep claiming that being born with a moral sense supports atheistic subjective morality. Which is the exact opposite of being innate as morals are changable under subjective and relative morality.

If you want to make that argument you are going to have to show us more than a comic jape about a "gene for justice or fairness."

Lol I think its more comic that you want me to prove justice and fairness have no genetic basis. I would have thought that goes without saying considering justice and fairness are beliefs which are abstract concepts that transcend the physical body.

 

[Bradskii]

I think its more comic that you want me to prove justice and fairness have no genetic basis. I would have thought that goes without saying considering justice and fairness are beliefs which are abstract concepts that transcend the physical body.

Ahem...

'This study aimed to investigate genetic contributions to the neural basis of psychological processes induced by unfairness during the UG. We found that the rejection decision for unfair proposals was heritable independent of stake size or proposer type. Furthermore, we found that genetic contributions to the brain activity evoked by unfair compared to fair proposals during the UG located in the bilateral anterior insular cortices. These findings suggest that the psychological process supported by the anterior insular cortex during the UG was heritable.' Born for fairness: evidence of genetic contribution to a neural basis of fairness intuition - PMC

Just Google 'genetic basis for justice' and you'll have more information than you'll need.