Does morality exist without God?

[Tucansam93]

Can you give a thumbnail description of his position?


eudaimonia,

Mark

He first describes how humans are different from the rest of living organisms. He gives the example of how humans are bigger brained but still animals have rights too yet it is wrong to hold "stronger" animals guilty for violating a "weaker" animal. So really it's a double standard. I personally don't like that first argument but there is more that I do like. His next point was how in other parts of the world there are cultures that oppress women, kill "weaker cultures" or one's they don't agree with (like Rwanda and the Congo), and human slavery (sex trafficking specifically). We believe those are wrong and I hope you agree that those things should be stopped obviously. But here is the thing, those things are seen as completely fine in the eyes of the people committing them. So then, yes, we say it's wrong, but isn't it really just an assertion? To the people committing those crimes, it isn't wrong at all. He says that we can't just be taught that morals are relative to culture. Things like genocides should be stopped no matter what the self or cultural circumstances are. Really we have no visual basis on what we think is good and evil. He described it as morals being "free floating". He says that even if everyone didn't believe in God that everyone would still have good morals. After coming to that conclusion, he thinks (and he says he knows it's radical) that people unavoidably know there is a God but they try to repress it. I personally think it is radical too and I'm not sure if I entirely believe that, but who really knows. He then says how morality and total selflessness could be evolutionary because it helped people survive in greater numbers, but really hostility and violence are a lot more prominent throughout nature. Another thing was that genes for morality couldn't be passed down because natural selection doesn't work on whole populations. The last I will point out that he said was how Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard, pointed out that nature thrives on violence and predation, not the dignity of an individual. It's not how things really work in nature. There was more in the chapter on morality but these were the things that stuck out to me. I'm personally not a scientist or biologist but his information was cited and was from scientists and ethics professors.

 

[Common Sense]

No superstitions since the witch burnings, the ghost are gone, the ladders are safe and a mirror won't hurt you unless you look into it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

He first describes how humans are different from the rest of living organisms. He gives the example of how humans are bigger brained but still animals have rights too yet it is wrong to hold "stronger" animals guilty for violating a "weaker" animal. So really it's a double standard. I personally don't like that first argument but there is more that I do like. His next point was how in other parts of the world there are cultures that oppress women, kill "weaker cultures" or one's they don't agree with (like Rwanda and the Congo), and human slavery (sex trafficking specifically). We believe those are wrong and I hope you agree that those things should be stopped obviously. But here is the thing, those things are seen as completely fine in the eyes of the people committing them. So then, yes, we say it's wrong, but isn't it really just an assertion? To the people committing those crimes, it isn't wrong at all. He says that we can't just be taught that morals are relative to culture. Things like genocides should be stopped no matter what the self or cultural circumstances are. Really we have no visual basis on what we think is good and evil. He described it as morals being "free floating". He says that even if everyone didn't believe in God that everyone would still have good morals. After coming to that conclusion, he thinks (and he says he knows it's radical) that people unavoidably know there is a God but they try to repress it. I personally think it is radical too and I'm not sure if I entirely believe that, but who really knows. He then says how morality and total selflessness could be evolutionary because it helped people survive in greater numbers, but really hostility and violence are a lot more prominent throughout nature. Another thing was that genes for morality couldn't be passed down because natural selection doesn't work on whole populations. The last I will point out that he said was how Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard, pointed out that nature thrives on violence and predation, not the dignity of an individual. It's not how things really work in nature. There was more in the chapter on morality but these were the things that stuck out to me. I'm personally not a scientist or biologist but his information was cited and was from scientists and ethics professors.

I've also read this book (betcha didn't expect to get a response from an Atheist on this one! lol)

His writing style is quite good, however when originally reading the book I had to stop after the first 4-5 chapters, because much of the reasoning he used and conclusions he drew were incorrect. The main reason is because it's quite clear he does not understand the positions most non-believers take. Because of that, I viewed it as a waste of time because he not only didn't address what someone like myself actually believes, he showed he doesn't understand the position.

After a few weeks, I went back and finished reading it. The second half of the book is a much easier read, because he talks less about Atheist positions and more about reasons why you should accept Christian positions. At least in that area, he has more credibility as he is a Christian pastor, and has knowledge of the area.

While I obviously disagree with his ultimate conclusions on why I should accept the existence of God, he did make some good points on Morality.

I totally agree with him that what is accepted as moral behaviour is commonly dictated by the society in which a person lives. What is moral for some, is horribly immoral for others. That goes for everything from Cannibalism, to Homosexuality. Therefore I totally agree with his point that good morals are still just as possible with or without God. It's more what's accepted by society.

His point about how everyone deep down unavoidably knows there's a god is absurd though. That can be proven as demonstrably false because tribes have been found in history with no concept of God within their culture. If he had researched that, I'm sure he would have refrained from trying to make that point.

His argument that "moral genes" can't be passed down, or that natural selection does not effect entire populations is also flat out incorrect. Any time a species goes extinct, that's natural selection affecting an entire population.

Humans (especially primitive humans) are far more effective when working together than alone when trying to construct shelters, grow crops or hunt. People who are genetically inclined to work with others, therefore has a survival advantage over humans that want to go it alone. Likewise, people that are genetically inclined to follow generally moral behaviour are more likely to be accepted by a tribe or community. People not inclined to moral behaviour, and decide to steal from others, or rape someone else in the tribe, are far more likely to be cut loose by the tribe, or killed. Over time, you will see a general drift towards a society with an established moral code and rule of law.

Immoral people will still exist however, but that's going by our standard. In the example of the people committing genocide, the people of that community view each other as moral, and accept each other even though they're committing an immoral act.

But that's getting into the "how ideology warps morals" debate. I'm sure that'd be a firecracker of a thread on a religion forum lol

 

[Tucansam93]

I would understand why an atheist wouldn't like it too much as with I would probably reading something like The God Delusion. I'm probably going to read that book because there's always been a good amount of hype about it. In Keller's book, I think he attacks the New Age atheists more because of their offense toward religion rather than just a disbelief in God. I noticed in the book he used a lot of arguments against guys like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens and even with negative comments directed towards them from other atheists like philosopher Thomas Nagel. There was another atheist from a science magazine he used but I don't remember his name. Anyways, that's what I don't like about the book. He says he "politely refutes" what atheists have to say but rather I saw some not-so-good stuff in there. I like the second half a lot better. With that comment he made about everyone wanting to believe in God; though I believe in God I do agree with you on that. He did say though he knew it was a radical statement. As for what you said on evolution; I see what you mean on how morality could have come about. I honestly can't say anything too much about it though because I am not a biologist or anthropologist and I have not done much research on evolution. I was using what using Keller's research in his book said. Speaking of that, read what Alan Dershowitz from Harvard said about morality (obviously only if you want to though). I didn't put down all that he said and I think some of what he says somewhat relates to what you are saying. It is a brief paragraph but he mentioned how "behavior that is fitting". It was on page 156. I thought it was interesting but I'm not sure what you would think haha

 

[Contented]

If morality evolved with humans then the only morality you can have is a subjective, relativistic morality. Everyone's morality is what ever they say it is. One person thinks murder is wrong and another thinks murder is right. One thinks rape is wrong and one thinks rape is right. Moral relativism is a dangerous idea to hold.

You are correct.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I would understand why an atheist wouldn't like it too much as with I would probably reading something like The God Delusion. I'm probably going to read that book because there's always been a good amount of hype about it. In Keller's book, I think he attacks the New Age atheists more because of their offense toward religion rather than just a disbelief in God. I noticed in the book he used a lot of arguments against guys like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens and even with negative comments directed towards them from other atheists like philosopher Thomas Nagel. There was another atheist from a science magazine he used but I don't remember his name. Anyways, that's what I don't like about the book. He says he "politely refutes" what atheists have to say but rather I saw some not-so-good stuff in there. I like the second half a lot better. With that comment he made about everyone wanting to believe in God; though I believe in God I do agree with you on that. He did say though he knew it was a radical statement. As for what you said on evolution; I see what you mean on how morality could have come about. I honestly can't say anything too much about it though because I am not a biologist or anthropologist and I have not done much research on evolution. I was using what using Keller's research in his book said. Speaking of that, read what Alan Dershowitz from Harvard said about morality (obviously only if you want to though). I didn't put down all that he said and I think some of what he says somewhat relates to what you are saying. It is a brief paragraph but he mentioned how "behavior that is fitting". It was on page 156. I thought it was interesting but I'm not sure what you would think haha

1. I've also read the God Delusion, and found it a great read. However your comparison isn't quite accurate between the two books. I've read other "Why you should be a Christian" books, and found them to be a decent read. I could even say that for the second half of "The Reason for God". What made the first half a poor read, is that Timothy Keller spends most of that part of the book misrepresenting Atheistic positions, and then uses poor rationalization to refute his misrepresented claims. Some parts I actually laughed at because it was so bad. If he had put more research into understanding common Atheistic arguments, then wrote well thought out rebuttals, I would have very much enjoyed reading that even if I didn't agree with his conclusions. It is just tough to read something written by someone who clearly doesn't understand the people he's trying to address.

The second half he's writing more about Christianity, and Christian perspective, which he actually does know a lot about. That is why it's a lot more entertaining to read.

In the case of the God Delusion, Dawkins writes the entire book from an Atheistic perspective. He does not focus on one particular religion, instead focusing on the "God Hypothesis" as a whole. Arguments for God's Existence only take up one chapter in the entire book (Chapter 3, "Arguments for God's Existence"), and the only overtly Christian part of that chapter deals with St Thomas Aquinas's Proofs, which take up all of four pages.

Likewise, there is only one chapter that deals with arguments against God's existence (Chapter 4 "Why there almost certainly is no God"). The rest of the book deals with: The roots of religion, the roots of morality, explains why outspoken Atheists like him do what they do, how indoctrination happens and how to escape from it, and closes the book by making an argument that even the good parts that religion or religious belief provide to society are not needed.

So whereas Timothy Keller is at his best writing about Christianity, and fails horribly when trying to write an argument from an Atheistic perspective. Dawkins wisely stays away from trying to argue from a religious perspective, and instead writes about Theism and Atheism as a whole from an Atheistic view.

I'd certainly recommend reading it, even if you don't agree with Dawkins' conclusions, it's a very informative book nonetheless.



2. The quote you're bringing up is about how morals come from natural law. He then talks about Dershowitz's morality bit in that nature thrives on violence and predation (survival of the fittest). I would agree with him in some cases, however in others he is totally wrong.

Survival of the fittest does not mean you are the strongest predator, it means you are the most likely to survive in the climate in which you live. If being the strongest predator and most violent being was all that was required to survive, we would still have T-Rex's walking around the planet. Herbivores thrive without the use of violence, as does most plant life. The strongest, most well adapted members of the strongest, most well adapted species will live.

Sure, Carnivores typically commit some violent acts in order to eat, and in that case Dershowitz is correct. However, that's a minority of life as a whole, and therefore I don't agree with his conclusion that life thrives on violence and predation.

 

[Dave Ellis]

[/b][/color]

You are correct.

Moral relativism may be dangerous, however if it's true, then that's the way it is. Personally, I don't really see how it's even all that dangerous though.

The human concept of what is and what is not moral has changed greatly in human history. Even today, what is moral in some societies is immoral in others, much less what was considered moral 2,000 years ago.

I don't see any reason to assume there are any moral absolutes. Everything we can observe about Morality shows it is anything but absolute (although most societies have many common moral ideals).

 

[Tucansam93]

I could definitely agree about how Keller shouldn't of written about atheism. I suppose you could say he doesn't know enough about it. That's why I also said I didn't really like the first half. I definitely will read The God Delusion for a different perspective. I don't want to be closed-minded but I'm not exactly afraid it will hurt my faith (who knows though). As for your evolutionary point, I see what how you defined "stronger". Like I said, I have a high school knowledge of evolution but I'll take your word for it. I'm actually intrigued about it from this conversation so I'll end up reading about evolution from different perspectives too.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Moral relativism may be dangerous, however if it's true, then that's the way it is. Personally, I don't really see how it's even all that dangerous though.

The human concept of what is and what is not moral has changed greatly in human history. Even today, what is moral in some societies is immoral in others, much less what was considered moral 2,000 years ago.

I don't see any reason to assume there are any moral absolutes. Everything we can observe about Morality shows it is anything but absolute (although most societies have many common moral ideals).

Moral Relativism is an extremely dangerous world view. When we tell people that morality is whatever they believe it to be then some people believe that their morality says it's ok to murder someone. Someone else will say their morality says rape is ok or domestic abuse is ok. Which by the way is already happening. If you take Moral Relativism to it's extreme it's hero becomes a psychopath.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I agree that a "free floating" view of morality is likely to stray from what is beneficial for people, even with the existence of evolved moral capacities such as empathy, but that doesn't mean that religion or God are necessary for morality. One can have a philosophical stance that is stable in its essential principles that provides a moral compass for one's life. While some atheists are moral relativists, there's certainly no requirement for this, just as some Christians don't believe in free will, but there's no requirement for that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Is there anyone who promotes this "free floating extreme moral relativism that tells everyone that whatever they believe is ok"?

Or is it just a strawman, that is attacked in order to promote the speakers own personal absolutist version of "morality"?

As far as I have seen, it is the second option. And not only from the theist's side.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is there anyone who promotes this "free floating extreme moral relativism that tells everyone that whatever they believe is ok"?

Perhaps not you personally, Freodin, but I have repeatedly seen that precise view expressed online. No, it's not a strawman by a long shot.

Personally, I think that natural capacities such as empathy, and the existence of forces such as reciprocity, do tend to reign in people's moral views to some extent, but imperfectly. People scribble with their crayons outside of the lines pretty easily.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Perhaps not you personally, Freodin, but I have repeatedly seen that precise view expressed online. No, it's not a strawman by a long shot.

Someone who indeed expressed the view "you believe it, thus it is right". Sorry, I find that hard to believe.

Perhaps you can take care when you find such a view again and alert me.

 

[quatona]

Moral Relativism is an extremely dangerous world view. When we tell people that morality is whatever they believe it to be then some people believe that their morality says it's ok to murder someone. Someone else will say their morality says rape is ok or domestic abuse is ok. Which by the way is already happening.

1. I find it somewhat odd when objectivism is argued for in a pragmatist fashion.
2. The structure of your argument boils down to "if moral relativism were true my personal set of moral wouldn´t be objective" - which is an understandable concern but not a solid argument.
3. Unfortunately you are misattributing the problem. As you say "it´s already happening" (and it has always been happening). Justifying atrocities doesn´t require moral relativism, and interestingly those people who commit and justify them are often moral objectivists.
4. If we want to convince others of the benefits of a certain morality there´s no way around coming up with good arguments for this particular set of morals.

If you take Moral Relativism to it's extreme it's hero becomes a psychopath.

5. There are psychopaths. That´s a disposition - not something you are taught to be and become.
6. Moral relativism is a meta-moral view - it doesn´t promote a particular morality. Therefore a protagonist of a certain morality can´t be its hero.
7. "If you take moral objectivism to its extrem its hero becomes a psychopath" make as much - or, rather, as little - sense as your statement.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Someone who indeed expressed the view "you believe it, thus it is right". Sorry, I find that hard to believe.

Perhaps you can take care when you find such a view again and alert me.

I wish I could find some of my own posts from about 25 years ago, when I briefly flirted with moral relativism. (Fortunately, I got better.) There would be your proof right there.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

The structure of your argument boils down to "if moral relativism were true my personal set of moral wouldn´t be objective" - which is an understandable concern but not a solid argument.

I see this kind of argument rather as "Moral relativism is BAAAAAD... therefore moral must be absolute, and, in that case, it must be my moral system for everyone."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Incidentally, if anyone is implying that I personally am a moral absolutist (with the view that a particular code of morality is fixed for all time), that simply isn't the case. Please erase that thought from your mind.

I do think that human well-being is what it is because of human beings are what they are, but that only means that the standard of goodness is reality-based and not merely a matter of opinion or desire. In other words, human well-being is real, and one's character will either contribute to that or not.

Morality is "constructed" in a number of ways, and different cultures, using different languages, given a different time and place, could construct similar but not identical moral systems that are roughly equivalent in terms of their value in producing personal well-being. So, there is no "One True Moral Code". Each moral code is like a tool for achieving certain results. Likewise, one person may prefer a fork, and another chopsticks, and yet both will still manage to eat dinner.

My point in saying all this isn't to ram some personal vision of personal well-being down anyone's throats. It is to say that there really is the possibility, at least, of factual answers to moral questions. IOWs, even if my personal vision of morality is mistaken, there may be another that is correct.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Common Sense]

Anyone not believing in God can accept morals from any part of the world bcause their is no standard to use. All these tribes over the world have heard the message of Christanity and about God, they heard early after Jesus went back to be with The Father. It was weakened by the same thing that weakens it now. People with the desire to do as they plase , passing that on to their children untill the knowledge was gone. Customs, how we raise our children, and tradition can not superseed the morals taught by the Bible as inspiredby God. All the reasons and arguments in this world can't change what is right and what is wrong. Today in America we see the evolution of moral values with the intent to justify our desires and lust. Man made woman second class to men not God, if any man believes murder is fine, that came from his weak mind not something God says is right. he things we see today strengthen a Christians faith because we see Prophecy comming true for us just as it did for past generations. Right is right and will always be so, Right won't change.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anyone not believing in God can accept morals from any part of the world bcause their is no standard to use.

Anyone believing in God can accept morals from any part of the world if they believe that God uses that particular standard. They do this frequently, which is why Christians often disagree on ethical issues, such as the morality of homosexuality.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from using a different standard. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't a standard that is appropriate for ethical judgment, and it doesn't have to be related to a God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Anyone believing in God can accept morals from any part of the world if they believe that God uses that particular standard. They do this frequently, which is why Christians often disagree on ethical issues, such as the morality of homosexuality.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from using a different standard. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't a standard that is appropriate for ethical judgment, and it doesn't have to be related to a God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I have to ask: how do you define "ethical judgement" or "moral question"?