Is morality objective, even without God?

[BCP1928]

One of the basic concepts put forth by St. Augustine and restated by C.S. Lewis is that we have a conscience, and that comes from God. I believe this, but it doesn’t change the fact that an atheist also has a conscience. It is above and beyond personal opinion, and it may have been the foundation of Singer’s thought. So, unless an atheist was born without a conscience or has destroyed it, murder and stealing would still be considered immoral.

The question is, how are the contents of one's conscience derived?

 

[Jerry N.]

No, it's about epistemology... specifically being honest about the things that you can know, and the things that you can't. The existence of God is something that you can't know, that's why it's called faith, but theists are almost universally unwilling to admit that.

I understand what you mean, but it is not faith that makes me believe in love or self-sacrifice. Our limits of knowledge go beyond science and measurement. Religion has more to do with trying to explain what we know than determining what we know. The explanations may be wrong, but the knowledge of there being a something remains.

 

[partinobodycular]

I understand what you mean, but it is not faith that makes me believe in love or self-sacrifice.

True, and that's perfectly fair. I just wanted to point out that it's a bit disingenuous to compare having faith in God with having faith in a chair.

 

[Jerry N.]

The question is, how are the contents of one's conscience derived?

It is probably a combination of God’s spirit and species specific behavior, which ultimately comes from God. Animals know these things, but only humans can ask these questions. The fact that we ask these questions has to lead to why we ask them.

 

[Jerry N.]

True, and that's perfectly fair. I just wanted to point out that it's a bit disingenuous to compare having faith in God with having faith in a chair.

I didn’t mean to be disingenuous. I was just trying to narrow down the object of faith and what faith means. Faith is a big concept, and its meaning can shift in context.

 

[zippy2006]

No, maths is objective, period.

You think that decision/judgment makes something non-objective. So if you were consistent you would say math is non-objective, because math involves decision/judgment. You're full of ad hoc reasoning.

 

[zippy2006]

The existence of God is something that you can't know, that's why it's called faith

As history attests, existence of God has pretty much never been considered a mere matter of faith.

 

[partinobodycular]

As history attests, existence of God has pretty much never been considered a mere matter of faith.

But aren't most, if not all arguments for God developed after-the-fact?

 

[Jerry N.]

But aren't most, if not all arguments for God developed after-the-fact?

Do you mean after-the-fact that there is a creator or a power above all?

 

[zippy2006]

But aren't most, if not all arguments for God developed after-the-fact?

After what fact?

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you mean after-the-fact that there is a creator or a power above all?

After what fact?

After the belief in God was already well established.

 

[Jerry N.]

After the belief in God was already well established.

Religion then tries to explain this fact. Religion does not create this fact.

 

[partinobodycular]

Religion then tries to explain this fact. Religion does not create this fact.

Agreed, so later philosophical arguments et al, attest only to the attempt to justify the belief in God, not as the source of the belief in God.

 

[zippy2006]

After the belief in God was already well established.

How was it established?

This seems like saying that arguments for heliocentrism were only concocted years after belief in heliocentrism was already well established. Psychologically, humans do not believe things for no reason. It is not psychologically coherent to say, "They believed X for no reason and then went on to concoct reasons for X." Humans establish beliefs on the basis of evidence and reasoning, and if the beliefs are important they will try to find alternative approaches to make them accessible to the unlearned.

The reason unbelievers, such as those on this site, are so unpersuasive is because their notion of "faith" is anthropologically and psychologically incoherent.

 

[Jerry N.]

Agreed, so later philosophical arguments et al, attest only to the attempt to justify the belief in God, not as the source of the belief in God.

Right!

 

[partinobodycular]

How was it established?

That's the question. For example, did a sense of right and wrong lead to an internal and social struggle to justify and codify that sense of right and wrong?

And from that struggle was God created?

 

[Jerry N.]

How was it established?

This seems like saying that arguments for heliocentrism were only concocted years after belief in heliocentrism was already well established. Psychologically, humans do not believe things for no reason. It is not psychologically coherent to say, "They believed X for no reason and then went on to concoct reasons for X." Humans establish beliefs on the basis of evidence and reasoning, and if the beliefs are important they will try to find alternative approaches to make them accessible to the unlearned.

The reason unbelievers, such as those on this site, are so unpersuasive is because their notion of "faith" is anthropologically and psychologically incoherent.

I suppose it was established by seeing the wonder and power of creation and concluding a higher power in control.

 

[Jerry N.]

That's the question. For example, did a sense of right and wrong lead to an internal and social struggle to justify and codify that sense of right and wrong?

And from that struggle was God created?

I suppose gods like Mazda were created as a religious concept, but the existence of a god was assumed.

 

[partinobodycular]

I suppose it was established by seeing the wonder and power of creation and concluding a higher power in control.

I suppose gods like Mazda were created as a religious concept, but the existence of a god was assumed.

But doesn't that mean that what we have is simply an ancient artifact of a 'God of the Gaps' argument?

 

[zippy2006]

But doesn't that mean that what we have is simply an ancient artifact of a 'God of the Gaps' argument?

How do you define a "God of the gaps" argument? Is it merely an argument for God? The "wonder and power of creation" is not a gap in any colloquial sense.