Moral behavior without god? - Regarding Game Theory.

[andross77]

I think Craig shoots himself in the foot when he argues "My point is that the classical theist faces no such problem, since he believes that God is a logically necessary being and so can ground moral values in every logically possible world."

What Craig does here is elevate a dogmatic or religious belief to a logical conclusion. One cannot simply "believe that God is a logically necessary being" to make it so. This is nothing more than a form of begging the question, and is unsupported. I've seen him make this slight of hand argument in other cases as well.



This is where Craig defends the following argument:


I have several objections to this argument on foundational grounds. Craig equates authoritative with objective and by redefining objectivety of morality as "something is right or wrong even if nobody agrees with it. (This is a point he often makes in this argument, tho not on this particular post). More slight of hand equivication going on here.

First of all, "nobody" in Craig's definition does not include god. Implicit in the premise is that God hands down morality, and it's true by the nature of god even if nobody agrees with it. But "nobody" would include the person of god, so the statement as Craig intends it is internally nonsensical. And again, that it comes from god only implies authority, not whether it is truly right or wrong.

Second, Craig's notion of what is objective at all is skewed. Things that acually exist, and not merely in the abstract, exist objectively if they do so independent of the mind. For example, does math exist? Yes, but only abstraction of the mind. Take away all minds, and rocks and water and oxygen will still be there, but don't expect to find any math. Morality is on the same page. It does not, and cannot, exist independently from the mind. It is also an abstraction.

Third, Craig would be better to define objective morality as moralty without any exceptions, but he does not - and for goot reason. Because if this were true, then there would be too many biblical accounts that would show God to act immorally.

Finally, there are plenty of sound, non-theist arguements in support of objective morality. Just because Craig may not personally care for them does not imply God is a necessity for objective moral values, only that's his personal preference.



Craig's Premise #1:
He starts off with the same problem I noted above, then goes all Aquinas on God's nature. I never like this argument, as it really don't think it answers anything, but just basically says "it is what it is" in an abstract sense. Furthermore, how one determine's God's nature is so utterly subjective that it renders the premise meaninglessly subjective in its own right. And even if true, God's nature (whatever it may be) does nothing to establish objective morality - but only at best authoritative morality.

Then posits:
First of all, supernaturalism and life-beyond-death do not stablish being held morally accountable in any respect in the afterlife. This is a huge jump between the two and no justification is given for it. Supernaturalism could be true and still be no afterlife. There could be both, but no moral accountability. There is no rational basis to think one way or the other. It is all equally speculative, and any assertion regarding a supernatural realm is a good as the next.

Second, that "evil and wrong will be banished, righteousness will be vindicated" is a purely theological statement, and absent any real philosiphical basis. It really advances nothing more than reconceived religious beliefs.

I read the entire debate, and as I did I realized I've read and heard it before. Dr. Taylor was correct that Dr. Craig was quote mining and then knocking down straw men. The two never truely connected on the issue, as they were arguing different premises without doing a particularly good job of directly addressing the point the other was making. I think the debate question contributed to this heavily. But to say Craig ran circles around Taylor? I don't think so. In fact, I'm not even sure he ran circles around his own staw men.

Thank you SO MUCH for reading thoroughly what i linked. That's all i can give you since i'm clearly not as smart as either of you. Good luck on your journeys.

 

[Ectezus]

I say this version, because I recall years ago coming across a slightly different version of PD which reached a different conclusion - one where treachery was most often the "right" choice. I don't recall the author/experimenter but I'll try and find it if you like.

Well if you have the source I would gladly read it. Although I think I can guess where the misunderstanding comes from:

As I've explained in my first post; in a one-on-one game the best choice would indeed be a selfish one. However in the long run, whether it's a tournament or life on earth, a cooperative strategy yields far better results.
Different context --> totally different answer for the "right choice".

I guess "negative impact" is in the eye of the beholder.

Well yes, absolutely true. If you do not consider better education, lower poverty, lower divorce rates, better understanding of science, higher income and lower crime rates important or a positive influence then you're absolutely right.

That's okay. 93% of the time I'm not a big fan of statistics.

Most people don't like statistics. Scientists however have concluded that:
One's opinion about statistics has 100% nothing to do with actual reality.

I've never made that claim about God, so if that's your point I'm not arguing it. I just wanted to point out what I pointed out.

Alright, in that case thank you for your point. I just wanted to point out the inconsistencies.

- Ectezus

 

[salida]

Ok, let you give you some insight. Morals change because mankind has fallen so their "morals keep changing". God has physical laws like the law of gravity and thermodynamics - physical laws don't change. Social and moral laws shouldn't change but mankind changes them and ignore God's social and moral laws because again mankind has fallen. Nothing is absurd here. Many people think they are a good person under certain standards that cater to them - thus, there are hundreds of different specialized standards for each person. What would happen to our world if there was hundreds of different standards of the law of gravity? Maybe go to: http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ If you think you are good? Can you keep all the 10 Commandments 100% of the time all the time? Only Jesus could. Also, read The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (it would stand up in court concerning biblical evidence without a shadow of a doubt).

 

[Belk]

A fascinating OP, thank you. I'm off to watch the rest of the videos on you tube.

 

[tcampen]

Ok, let you give you some insight. Morals change because mankind has fallen so their "morals keep changing". God has physical laws like the law of gravity and thermodynamics - physical laws don't change. Social and moral laws shouldn't change but mankind changes them and ignore God's social and moral laws because again mankind has fallen.

Not to get too hyper-technical here, but I think there are some serious flaws in your argument. It's one thing to speak of God's laws in the abstract, but I think we should look at them as applied - which you seem to be doing as well. We can say God's laws are unchanging, but assumes we know what they are to begin with as applied. Take any moral issue of the day, from abortion to the death penalty to war to birth control, etc., and you will find bible-based christians all pointing to the same God with his unchanging laws as the basis for their widely divergent views. Who is correct on what God's unchanging laws actually are as applied? There really is no sound answer to this question that can't be objected to by another faithful, thoughtful, bible-based christian.

As such, the abstract assertion that God has an unchanging morality or set of laws has not practical reality. In fact, as applied by sincere christians themselves, it appears God's laws have changed over time.

Many people think they are a good person under certain standards that cater to them - thus, there are hundreds of different specialized standards for each person. What would happen to our world if there was hundreds of different standards of the law of gravity?

I think you committing a form of quivication falacy here. Law in the physical and natural sense is not the same as a law in the moral sense. We are incapable of violating the laws of nature, like gravity. But the laws of god, or otherwise, as applied to morality are in the "ought" category - distinctly different from what we physically can and cannot do.

go to: http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ If you think you are good? Can ou keep all the 10 Commandments 100% of the time all the time? Only Jesus could.

I think this argument is in the eye of the beholder. Look at whether Jesus honored his mother and (adopted)father when he chose not to tell them he was staying behind in Jerusalem.

dence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (it would stand up in court concerning biblical evidence without a shadow of a doubt).

McDowell plays fast and loose with evidence in his book, and utterly fails to adequately address, let alone overcome, the most basic hearsay objection in a court of law, that would destroy his case on the first minute of the first day of trial.

 

[Ectezus]

A fascinating OP, thank you. I'm off to watch the rest of the videos on you tube.

Thank you Belk. I've also found the other video's in the series to be very interesting but the 4th one I posted has the most relevance with the OP.
What do you think about it?

 

[Belk]

Thank you Belk. I've also found the other video's in the series to be very interesting but the 4th one I posted has the most relevance with the OP.
What do you think about it?

I found it interesting that one of the easiest programs was also the best. I also found it interesting that programs written specifically to exploit it, still where unable to outdo it in long term tests.

In terms of evolution it is easy to see how this becomes applicable. A simple philosophy would of course be easily adopted and, because of the obvious advantages it provides, quickly spread through a population. How much of this would be genetically encoded I am unsure. At least as far as humans are concerned, I see it much more likely as being a meme rather then a biological transfer.

 

[Ectezus]

I found it interesting that one of the easiest programs was also the best. I also found it interesting that programs written specifically to exploit it, still where unable to outdo it in long term tests.

In terms of evolution it is easy to see how this becomes applicable. A simple philosophy would of course be easily adopted and, because of the obvious advantages it provides, quickly spread through a population. How much of this would be genetically encoded I am unsure. At least as far as humans are concerned, I see it much more likely as being a meme rather then a biological transfer.

Yeah I couldn't agree more. You raise an interesting point whether morals are transfered biological or cultural.
Not sure how much research has been done on this subject but personally I suspect that biological is highly possible. Much in the same way animals have instinct and know "what to do" without instructions beforehand.

 

[Belk]

Yeah I couldn't agree more. You raise an interesting point whether morals are transfered biological or cultural.
Not sure how much research has been done on this subject but personally I suspect that biological is highly possible. Much in the same way animals have instinct and know "what to do" without instructions beforehand.

An interesting point. I know that a lot of study has been done cross culturally that shows the complexity in our moral behavior is fairly consistent in broader terms (the train tracks experiment). This cross cultural consistency would seem to indicate there is a fairly complex genetic component at work somewhere.

 

[Ectezus]

An interesting point. I know that a lot of study has been done cross culturally that shows the complexity in our moral behavior is fairly consistent in broader terms (the train tracks experiment). This cross cultural consistency would seem to indicate there is a fairly complex genetic component at work somewhere.

Belk, now you've got me thinking.
a) If moral standards truly are passed on through biological means then it would also mean it's in the grasp of the evolutionary process.

b1) Following the assumption that moral standards are pretty vital to one's success in this society. (As in: not wanting to be 'nice' means you won't create as much offspring compared to others)

b2) Combined with that religion on the other hand does mimic the moral standards which are required for that survival.

c) Would it be too far fetched to deduce that religious people *might* have a less developed moral sense?
After all, for many generations their moral survival could be achieved through religious standards without being reliant on the biological standards. Therefore not subject to the natural selection process.

The problem of course would be if that religion falls apart. This deduction might also explain the fact why so many religious people have trouble understanding human morality without a god while non-theists don't have a problem with it at all.

Of course the idea of a less developed moral sense is a pretty bold statement and religion, being an invention of man and all, hasn't been around that long if you consider 3.6 billion years of evolution so the effect might be extremely small.
Besides there has always been breeding between the 'two sides' and thus reducing the effect even further.
However if the assumptions as presented are true I do consider the deduction plausible though, even if the effect is only 0.01%.

- Ectezus

 

[Ectezus]

Belk, now you've got me thinking.
a) If moral standards truly are passed on through biological means then it would also mean it's in the grasp of the evolutionary process.

b1) Following the assumption that moral standards are pretty vital to one's success in this society. (As in: not wanting to be 'nice' means you won't create as much offspring compared to others)

b2) Combined with that religion on the other hand does mimic the moral standards which are required for that survival.

c) Would it be too far fetched to deduce that religious people *might* have a less developed moral sense?
After all, for many generations their moral survival could be achieved through religious standards without being reliant on the biological standards. Therefore not subject to the natural selection process.

The problem of course would be if that religion falls apart. This deduction might also explain the fact why so many religious people have trouble understanding human morality without a god while non-theists don't have a problem with it at all.

Of course the idea of a less developed moral sense is a pretty bold statement and religion, being an invention of man and all, hasn't been around that long if you consider 3.6 billion years of evolution so the effect might be extremely small.
Besides there has always been breeding between the 'two sides' and thus reducing the effect even further.
However if the assumptions as presented are true I do consider the deduction plausible though, even if the effect is only 0.01%.

Any more views on the subject?

- Ectezus

 

[Garyzenuf]

Besides there has always been breeding between the 'two sides'... - Ectezus

Finally, an explaination of where Agnostics come from.

*

 

[jtahalele]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQGKhsZHnqI&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1_9WCy6syY&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9-9ukPsyw&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=333_F6L8qIQ&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoztXu9Q-BA&feature=channel

sorry if that was too many video posts. They're there if you want to listen.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Ok, let you give you some insight. Morals change because mankind has fallen so their "morals keep changing". God has physical laws like the law of gravity and thermodynamics - physical laws don't change. Social and moral laws shouldn't change but mankind changes them and ignore God's social and moral laws because again mankind has fallen. Nothing is absurd here. Many people think they are a good person under certain standards that cater to them - thus, there are hundreds of different specialized standards for each person. What would happen to our world if there was hundreds of different standards of the law of gravity? Maybe go to: http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ If you think you are good? Can you keep all the 10 Commandments 100% of the time all the time? Only Jesus could. Also, read The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (it would stand up in court concerning biblical evidence without a shadow of a doubt).

So where exactly, as in within what culture and at what time, can we find the perfect model of morality? If it's in the Bible, surely we should still be stoning to death anyone who wears a cotton-polyester shirt?

I'd recommend being much more careful with analogies. Otherwise you end up with the pseudo-science of people applying the laws of physics to psychology and saying we can move water with our minds. I can't remember the name of the film that's in, but it's obviously wrong.

Where precisely in the Ten Commandments does it prohibit rape? If it doesn't someone can be a serial rapist but still a "good" person by your account.

Anyway, just wanted to subscribe to this thread as it's very interesting. And Dawkins was pretty hot in his day, judging by that video.

 

[Belk]

Belk, now you've got me thinking.
a) If moral standards truly are passed on through biological means then it would also mean it's in the grasp of the evolutionary process.

b1) Following the assumption that moral standards are pretty vital to one's success in this society. (As in: not wanting to be 'nice' means you won't create as much offspring compared to others)

b2) Combined with that religion on the other hand does mimic the moral standards which are required for that survival.

c) Would it be too far fetched to deduce that religious people *might* have a less developed moral sense?
After all, for many generations their moral survival could be achieved through religious standards without being reliant on the biological standards. Therefore not subject to the natural selection process.

The problem of course would be if that religion falls apart. This deduction might also explain the fact why so many religious people have trouble understanding human morality without a god while non-theists don't have a problem with it at all.

Of course the idea of a less developed moral sense is a pretty bold statement and religion, being an invention of man and all, hasn't been around that long if you consider 3.6 billion years of evolution so the effect might be extremely small.
Besides there has always been breeding between the 'two sides' and thus reducing the effect even further.
However if the assumptions as presented are true I do consider the deduction plausible though, even if the effect is only 0.01%.

- Ectezus

Sorry, got distracted by a girl.

The issue with this line of reasoning I have is that I don't think Moral standards are genetic. Human morality would most likely be a combination of a baseline genetic component for social interaction coupled with a societal set of standards that formalizes and refines the more basic instincts. Likely Religion is an integral part of that formalization which helps explain why it is so ubiquitous to human culture.

That being said it is telling that atheism is so under represented in prison populations. Though how much of that is an education question would have to be addressed. Since there is a direct correlation between both education and atheism and education versus how likely you are to break the law.

 

[Ectezus]

Belk: Maybe a better education does not reduce the likeliness to break the law at all, but merely the chance a (smart) criminal gets caught.
Afterall we're talking about prison population here, ie: the suckers that did get caught already.


As for my response to Salida:
No one is arguing that if a god exists that he didn't or couldn't create moral standards.
I think everyone is well aware that if you imagine an all powerful being he can do anything he likes.

The point of this thread however was to show that moral standards can also form without the need for a god.
Something most theists are really reluctant to even consider.

I do not question the abilities of a god. If he does exist I have no problem understanding that he's very awesome indeed.
However, I question his existence because the probability is highly unlikely while at the same time the reasoning against it (like: wishful thinking) is very logical.

There's a big difference between those two thoughts. I think Atheists in general have less problem answering questions that involve the scenario where god absolutely does exist, while the opposite scenario seems to be a lot harder to answer for Theists.

I'm just trying to get theists out of their protective bubble and think, even if just for a second, about how something could have formed without a god.

Of course I do realize that the idea that certain processes could have formed naturally isn't something Theists would like to consider as it raises a very important question:

If something has a natural explanation, why resort to supernatural explanations?

- Ectezus

 

[Belk]

Belk: Maybe a better education does not reduce the likeliness to break the law at all, but merely the chance a (smart) criminal gets caught.
Afterall we're talking about prison population here, ie: the suckers that did get caught already.

A possibility I admit. Ever read The Stainless Steel Rat by chance?

 

[Ectezus]

A possibility I admit. Ever read The Stainless Steel Rat by chance?

Heh no I can't say I have. Looks interesting though. I've searched a bit on the internet and I see that the first book is about how the 'antagonist', being almost equal to the protagonist, is lacking certain moral values like "don't kill". Is this what you are referring to or some other part of the series?

 

[Belk]

Heh no I can't say I have. Looks interesting though. I've searched a bit on the internet and I see that the first book is about how the 'antagonist', being almost equal to the protagonist, is lacking certain moral values like "don't kill". Is this what you are referring to or some other part of the series?

The premise of the first book is that they guy goes to prison to learn how to be an expert thief. But finds out that all the expert thieves are the ones who don't get caught. The ones in prison are the stupid thieves who never learn. Your comment reminded me of the book.

 

[Ectezus]

The premise of the first book is that they guy goes to prison to learn how to be an expert thief. But finds out that all the expert thieves are the ones who don't get caught. The ones in prison are the stupid thieves who never learn. Your comment reminded me of the book.

Ah alright, that makes a lot more sense!

I've also read somewhere else that while the statistics do in fact show there are less Atheists in prison (relative to their population) it might also be because of the negative image atheism has in America. Therefore a prisoner who wants to get parole or even wants to fit in with the overwhelming theist prison population will probably benefit more from being a believer, or at least saying he is one.
I have to admit this makes sense and therefore can potentially dilute the statistics.

Wait a sec, how did this topic suddenly became about actual prisoners instead of the prisoners dilemma concept?