Morality Without God

[alien444]

I am curious as to why some think it is impossible. I wanted to set a thread that would allow me to talk about this with Christians, since I am limited to what and where I can post.

 

[seashale76]

I am curious as to why some think it is impossible. I wanted to set a thread that would allow me to talk about this with Christians, since I am limited to what and where I can post.

I don't know why people think it is impossible either. Morality is learned behavior. Studies have shown that moral development is gained via how one is raised and empathy (in particular) certainly can be learned. So- I think that moral development is a nurture issue. Generally people learn about morality/ethics and how they should act in various situations from their families, their religions, and society (laws).

If I had to guess, I would say this view of no morality without God occurs because people confuse conscience with morality and often attribute conscience as being directly God-given or influenced.

I think the answer to that lies in what you think helps to form conscience to begin with. I personally believe that conscience certainly has an intuitive aspect inherent in people that helps us come to judgments on how to act. It is pure nature and most people are born with a conscience (yet I think that there are some people whose conscience is turned off or ignored for whatever reason- parts of their brain don't function like everyone else- and there have also been studies done on this). One's conscience helps him/her to form snap judgments as to how he/she should act in any given situation. When people act against their conscience they will generally experience feelings of guilt/remorse and when they act in accordance with their conscience they will generally feel good about their actions.

Conscience drives morality. Morality doesn't drive conscience but I believe that one's morality can override conscience. For example, I think that one can have a perfectly working conscience and poor moral development. However- since moral development depends on a combination of what is learned and reasoned/rationalized- if one is lacking then they can override their conscience. The mentally ill can sometimes have a disconnect in their ability to reason through moral/ethical concerns. I don't mean that it controls or determines behavior but rather the conscience will give someone an intuitive snap judgment/reflex that they don't have to act on. Conscience isn't something that we have to think about at all.

And- I feel like I went off on a tangent here. I probably should have cut off after the second paragraph.

 

[golgotha61]

I am curious as to why some think it is impossible. I wanted to set a thread that would allow me to talk about this with Christians, since I am limited to what and where I can post.

As I have posted before, the acceptance of morality requires an acceptance of the existence of good and evil; right and wrong. Moral determinations can only be applied if there is a moral law and if there is a moral law you must posit a moral law giver. This moral law giver is God.

As you have posted before, I believe that you attribute morality to an evolutionary process. And since you are an atheist, you rely on science and evolution for the explanations about man in all areas of his existence. If you believe that everything about man can be explained by science in evolutionary terms, then our belief that we are exploring truth is merely the result of our physical wiring over which we have no control. This then is determinism and if determinism is what you believe in, then you cannot make a truth statement.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

I wrote an essay on it. You care to read it?

 

[football5680]

Objective morality does not exist without God. Without God, good and evil is simply an opinion and why would your opinion outweigh another person's opinion?

 

[dysert]

I am curious as to why some think it is impossible. I wanted to set a thread that would allow me to talk about this with Christians, since I am limited to what and where I can post.

First off, I'd want to be sure we're talking about the same thing when we use the word "morality". Google defines morality as, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". If that's what you mean by morality then there's the question of how one defines right versus wrong or good versus bad. Who's to say that stealing is wrong? Or sleeping with another man's wife? Or killing someone? Is "right" whatever society says it is and can therefore change over time or if someone else's idea of "right" gets more votes? Seems to me that trying to establish morality without an objective baseline is fraught with problems.

 

[Joshua260]

I like merriam-webster's definition: Beliefs about what is wrong behavior and about what is right behavior.

So we can certainly all have our own morality (beliefs about what is right or wrong), but how can we tell who's beliefs are correct without checking them against a standard? Is there a standard? Yes there is, and it's defined by God.

There are moral values and duties which flow from a God who's nature is good, and these are the standards with which we should check our moral beliefs.

 

[Rubiks]

Depends on what you mean by morality. If you mean "transcendent moral dos and don'ts," like you "ought" to love your neighbor, Then that is impossible without God. Particles put together simply do not create these types of value. Now if you mean a common shared notion among human beings what you should do, then yes, those types of values can exist, but they exist in the mind only.

 

[alien444]

As I have posted before, the acceptance of morality requires an acceptance of the existence of good and evil; right and wrong. Moral determinations can only be applied if there is a moral law and if there is a moral law you must posit a moral law giver. This moral law giver is God.

As you have posted before, I believe that you attribute morality to an evolutionary process. And since you are an atheist, you rely on science and evolution for the explanations about man in all areas of his existence. If you believe that everything about man can be explained by science in evolutionary terms, then our belief that we are exploring truth is merely the result of our physical wiring over which we have no control. This then is determinism and if determinism is what you believe in, then you cannot make a truth statement.

You are correct in your summation except on two critical points. 1) I only believe in genetic determinism up to a certain point where self-realization and self-control can harness reason as a method of controlling ones actions. AND 2) If God is the moral law-giver then morality must be absolute, if this is the case then how can moral precepts change over time. There are certainly moral precepts that were once thought by Christians to be the will of God that you and other Christians now do not believe. It is not just an issue of cultural shifts in morality that do not reflect Christian morality. It is an issue of Christians themselves changing the moral precepts that they once believe to be true. Where is the evidence in this of an absolute moral law giver?

 

[alien444]

I don't know why people think it is impossible either. Morality is learned behavior. Studies have shown that moral development is gained via how one is raised and empathy (in particular) certainly can be learned. So- I think that moral development is a nurture issue. Generally people learn about morality/ethics and how they should act in various situations from their families, their religions, and society (laws).

Yes and I also think there is strong evolutionary factor as our development as social animals has created empathy and reciprocal altruism.

If I had to guess, I would say this view of no morality without God occurs because people confuse conscience with morality and often attribute conscience as being directly God-given or influenced.

True. I think the natural and cultural impulses to behave in a certain way are often attributed to some kind of internal moral compass given by God.

I think the answer to that lies in what you think helps to form conscience to begin with. I personally believe that conscience certainly has an intuitive aspect inherent in people that helps us come to judgments on how to act.

Right, this is the evolutionary factor.

It is pure nature and most people are born with a conscience (yet I think that there are some people whose conscience is turned off or ignored for whatever reason- parts of their brain don't function like everyone else- and there have also been studies done on this).

Right, like psychopaths or sociopaths or individuals who environment is so dysfunctional or toxic that it perverts their natural impulses; or an environment where immorality is a means of survival.

One's conscience helps him/her to form snap judgments as to how he/she should act in any given situation. When people act against their conscience they will generally experience feelings of guilt/remorse and when they act in accordance with their conscience they will generally feel good about their actions.

Exactly, and this is genetic-----not our "soul".

Conscience drives morality. Morality doesn't drive conscience but I believe that one's morality can override conscience. For example, I think that one can have a perfectly working conscience and poor moral development. However- since moral development depends on a combination of what is learned and reasoned/rationalized- if one is lacking then they can override their conscience. The mentally ill can sometimes have a disconnect in their ability to reason through moral/ethical concerns. I don't mean that it controls or determines behavior but rather the conscience will give someone an intuitive snap judgment/reflex that they don't have to act on. Conscience isn't something that we have to think about at all.

And- I feel like I went off on a tangent here. I probably should have cut off after the second paragraph.

No, good post. We agree on a lot. It is far more complicated than just saying "God created right and wrong".

 

[alien444]

I wrote an essay on it. You care to read it?

Sure. Where can I find it?

 

[alien444]

Objective morality does not exist without God. Without God, good and evil is simply an opinion and why would your opinion outweigh another person's opinion?

Because, while morality is relative to a certain degree, we have an evolutionary predisposition toward empathy and cooperation. That is why certain moral precepts are cultural universal.

 

[golgotha61]

You are correct in your summation except on two critical points. 1) I only believe in genetic determinism up to a certain point where self-realization and self-control can harness reason as a method of controlling ones actions.

How and why does determinism stop when self-realization is accomplished?
Doe this mean that evolution stops at some point?

Reason only needs to be harnessed in relation to our actions if there is some impetus to control the actions. If the actions needs control in order to advance the species, then, in evolutionary terms, this would be natural selection. However, if it is a moral compass that harnesses reason for controlling ones actions, then this is derived from moral laws.

If God is the moral law-giver then morality must be absolute, if this is the case then how can moral precepts change over time.

Morality changes as man ignores God's laws and decides to employ reason as the moral compass.

There are certainly moral precepts that were once thought by Christians to be the will of God that you and other Christians now do not believe.

You will need to give examples here. Perhaps there is something that I have missed.

It is not just an issue of cultural shifts in morality that do not reflect Christian morality. It is an issue of Christians themselves changing the moral precepts that they once believe to be true. Where is the evidence in this of an absolute moral law giver?

If we rebel against God's laws and we all do, it has no effect on His laws being absolute. His laws are absolute based on His character and power, not on who violates them. If I break a law, the law does not change, I am punished for breaking it and this demonstrates the absoluteness of the law. For the Christian, the only way for this punishment to be absolved is through the blood of Christ. He paid the price for the broken law, and the price is death.

 

[alien444]

How and why does determinism stop when self-realization is accomplished?
Doe this mean that evolution stops at some point?

Reason only needs to be harnessed in relation to our actions if there is some impetus to control the actions. If the actions needs control in order to advance the species, then, in evolutionary terms, this would be natural selection. However, if it is a moral compass that harnesses reason for controlling ones actions, then this is derived from moral laws.

What I am talking about is the self-realization that comes from mindfulness. Mindfulness, as you are probably aware, is an actively attentive focus on the events of the present moment, usually practiced through mindful meditation (of which I am a practicing novice). Studies at several universities has shown than striving for mindfulness causes actual physical changes in the brain and one of the many benefits is a greater understanding of cause and effect. This contributes to one of the goals, which is to not necessarily "control" one's actions but recognize impulses to act as they occur in the body. Freewill is not the ability to make a choice between A and B, as studies have shown that decisions are made on the subconscious level giving us the illusion of conscious choice. Through mindfulness, an individual (with much much practice) can come understand the "source" of these subconscious impulses, thus improving one's control of self.

The Science of Mindfulness | Mindful

Morality changes as man ignores God's laws and decides to employ reason as the moral compass.

Then where are God's true unchanged moral laws. Can you explain to me exactly what they are? Has there been a time where humanity followed God's laws correctly?



If we rebel against God's laws and we all do, it has no effect on His laws being absolute. His laws are absolute based on His character and power, not on who violates them. If I break a law, the law does not change, I am punished for breaking it and this demonstrates the absoluteness of the law.

So if God's punishment is the demonstrable evidence of this absolute morality, then can you demonstrate it to me or will I have to wait for the afterlife?

For the Christian, the only way for this punishment to be absolved is through the blood of Christ. He paid the price for the broken law, and the price is death.

One's moral choices have to be the responsibility of the individual who makes them. The only way to "atone" for one's immorality is to actively seek justice for those who were wronged. This is why murderers in prison are absolved of their sins by accepting Jesus without having to make any effort to heal the damage of all those affected by their actions. No one can pay for my actions except for me--I have full responsibility----that's morality.

i

 

[hedrick]

There's a difference between people's actual personal morality and intellectual justifications of morality. In the US at least, most people grow up with a lot of Christian ideas of morality. I think on many issues there's little difference between Christians and others. That's not true in all cultures, however.

But I think the usual claim is that there's no good intellectual basis for morality without God. That's different than the question of personal morals. I understand the argument, but I think C S Lewis actually makes a pretty good case that morals cross humanity, and do not depend upon a specific religion. See "The Abolition of Man." He proposes a theology that is called "reflective equilibrium." You can see a treatment of it online in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

How well that equilibrium will continue without Christianity is a bit unclear to me. From what I know of them, I wouldn't want to live in most non-Christian cultures. This makes me wary of the claim that morals will do fine without Christ.

 

[golgotha61]

What I am talking about is the self-realization that comes from mindfulness. Mindfulness, as you are probably aware, is an actively attentive focus on the events of the present moment, usually practiced through mindful meditation (of which I am a practicing novice). Studies at several universities has shown than striving for mindfulness causes actual physical changes in the brain and one of the many benefits is a greater understanding of cause and effect. This contributes to one of the goals, which is to not necessarily "control" one's actions but recognize impulses to act as they occur in the body. Freewill is not the ability to make a choice between A and B, as studies have shown that decisions are made on the subconscious level giving us the illusion of conscious choice. Through mindfulness, an individual (with much much practice) can come understand the "source" of these subconscious impulses, thus improving one's control of self.

A couple things need ironed out here. This mindfulness philosophy is based on Buddhism which is full of moral codes and complicated rules. For instance: It begins with the four noble truths of suffering and cessation which then moves to an eightfold path to end suffering. By the way, Gautama's desire to understand evil, suffering, and the answer to life's mysteries is what led him out of Hinduism into developing the philosophy called Buddhism. From the eightfold path emerges hundreds upon hundreds of other rules to deal with contingencies. Then there is the process of restoration to one's position of discipleship because of a violation of one of the four offenses. The rules go on and on.

I fear that the deeper illusion is the idea that recognition of our impulses somehow can alter our reaction to these impulses. Control is necessary in order to alter the reaction to these impulses. It is like looking into a mirror, recognizing the filth on our face and walking away, thinking that the filth will somehow be cleansed just by looking at it.

Your denial of the ability to choose because we are controlled by the subconscious is stepping into another determinative philosophy. You left genetic determinism only to enter another form of determinism which puts you in the same situation of not being able to make a truth statement.

In September of 2012 I interviewed a Tibetan Lama in Richfield, Ohio. When I questioned him about reincarnation, he ended his comment by saying that "there is only and end and never a beginning." This is illogical since anything that ends must necessarily have a beginning.

The benefits of these meditations that are listed on the website that you posted are repeated when Christian meditation is substituted. We are called to meditate on God's word: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things" (Philippians 4:8 (NIV)). We are also called to obedience and this means that when we are made aware of our sins, we turn from them and live differently. But, this is not accomplished by reason or will but by the power of Holy Spirit that lives within the Christian.

Before I answer your additional questions, you need to address the statements that you made:

There are certainly moral precepts that were once thought by Christians to be the will of God that you and other Christians now do not believe.

You need to give examples of this observation.

One's moral choices have to be the responsibility of the individual who makes them.

This is true.

The only way to "atone" for one's immorality is to actively seek justice for those who were wronged.

This is partially accurate. If the one sinned against is another person, then we need to be reconciled to him and then to God. If it is against God alone, then we need to be reconciled to Him. Atonement is accomplished by satisfying the cost of sin and the cost is death. If you choose to pay your own debt, you will. However, Christ has already paid the price with His death and He has proven it is efficacious by His resurrection.

This is why murderers in prison are absolved of their sins by accepting Jesus without having to make any effort to heal the damage of all those affected by their actions.

I don't follow your reasoning here. Could you expand your thoughts here?

No one can pay for my actions except for me--I have full responsibility----that's morality.

This is not accurate unless you choose it to be. Christ has paid for your sinful actions and all that is required is for you to believe, accept, and follow Christ.

 

[alien444]

A couple things need ironed out here. This mindfulness philosophy is based on Buddhism which is full of moral codes and complicated rules. For instance: It begins with the four noble truths of suffering and cessation which then moves to an eightfold path to end suffering. By the way, Gautama's desire to understand evil, suffering, and the answer to life's mysteries is what led him out of Hinduism into developing the philosophy called Buddhism. From the eightfold path emerges hundreds upon hundreds of other rules to deal with contingencies. Then there is the process of restoration to one's position of discipleship because of a violation of one of the four offenses. The rules go on and on.

Sorry about the length of this post:just kept typing away


I am very aware of the tenets of Buddhism, but there is no reason at all to ground what can be a very rewarding, enlightening philosophy in claims about the supernatural. Secular meditation (like atheism) does not have rules or a belief system no more than say, walking. At first it can be about stress relief and relaxation, and then may progress into sustained acceptance of the present moment without trying to change it, and after much study can ultimately lead to a better understanding of self and what self actually is. Religion does not own the knowledge that one can attain from mythology, nor the visceral experience that can come from the spiritual (for the literal lack of a better term) exploration of the self.

I fear that the deeper illusion is the idea that recognition of our impulses somehow can alter our reaction to these impulses. Control is necessary in order to alter the reaction to these impulses. It is like looking into a mirror, recognizing the filth on our face and walking away, thinking that the filth will somehow be cleansed just by looking at it.

Your denial of the ability to choose because we are controlled by the subconscious is stepping into another determinative philosophy. You left genetic determinism only to enter another form of determinism which puts you in the same situation of not being able to make a truth statement.

I understand what you are saying, but I believe there is genetic determinism and then their is genetic determinism. Just because I realize the genetic foundation for human nature, does not mean I have to get bogged down in the idea that we are all just meat robots incapable of freewill. The existence of Freewill is a reinvigorated, modern philosophical, psychological, and neurological debate, and unless I am swayed by new evidence I still believe in freewill. This is a lot to sum up in such a forum, but I prefer the analogy of NYU Prof. Jonathon Haidt. Haidt envisions our subconscious, instincts, and desires (like/dislike--id, if you will) as an elephant. On this elephant is a small rider, symbolizing our reasoning capacities. Much of the day, the average person makes decisions, gets angry, loves his family, commutes to work, and decides to skip desert at lunch. Sometimes the rider struggles to briefly control the elephant (like in skipping desert), sometimes the elephant is uncontrollable (Road Rage during a commute), and sometimes the elephant and the rider work as an indistinguishable unit (sharp focus on a task). Most of the time, trying to force an elephant to do something that it doesn't want to do is as hard as the analogy would suggest. One must put in great effort and work in order to eventually train the elephant. Mindful meditation is a useful tool (if not the only tool) that can be used for the rider to train the elephant (and get scientifically demonstrable results--including physical changes in the brain btw). This analogy is much more complicated, but you get the idea.

Jonathan Haidt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Happiness Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, the point is that I refuse to submit to this reductionist characterization that belief in a genetic basis for human nature paints one into a corner where "truth statements" are no longer possible and freewill is an illusion.

In September of 2012 I interviewed a Tibetan Lama in Richfield, Ohio. When I questioned him about reincarnation, he ended his comment by saying that "there is only and end and never a beginning." This is illogical since anything that ends must necessarily have a beginning.

I think eastern philosophy and Buddhism have a lot to offer in nearly every conversation about human nature, and I think Zen can be an interesting mental exercise, but I can't really say if this guy is right or not, but I do think his statement is leaving something crucial out.

The benefits of these meditations that are listed on the website that you posted are repeated when Christian meditation is substituted. We are called to meditate on God's word: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things" (Philippians 4:8 (NIV)). We are also called to obedience and this means that when we are made aware of our sins, we turn from them and live differently. But, this is not accomplished by reason or will but by the power of Holy Spirit that lives within the Christian.

Meditation at its best is not contemplation. If there is a goal of mindfulness, it is to quiet the neurosis of the mind and to be content and aware of the present moment.

This is true.

This is partially accurate. If the one sinned against is another person, then we need to be reconciled to him and then to God. If it is against God alone, then we need to be reconciled to Him. Atonement is accomplished by satisfying the cost of sin and the cost is death. If you choose to pay your own debt, you will. However, Christ has already paid the price with His death and He has proven it is efficacious by His resurrection.

If God's nature is the basis for an absolute moral standard, then all sins are sins against God. This is a problem as an individual can receive forgiveness from God, thus releasing him/herself from the guilt and moral responsibility to make amends to those harmed by the action.


Of course we disagree as to the validity and the scope of the "proof" that Christians can present for the efficacy of Christs' crucifixion, and for that matter we disagree on "sin" even being a thing. I read today that The Son of Sam claims that God has forgiven his sins. This very well may give him peace and within the tenets of Christianity may be valid, however the only people that can forgive him are the individuals whose lives he devastated. If they chose not to do so, then he deserves to live with the guilt and remorse of his actions.


I don't follow your reasoning here. Could you expand your thoughts here?

see above and below


This is not accurate unless you choose it to be. Christ has paid for your sinful actions and all that is required is for you to believe, accept, and follow Christ.

This is one of the colossal failures of Christianity as a moral philosophy. Forgiveness should require effort, self-examination, and self-sacrifice, and from the forgiveness of others and ultimately ourselves we may not only find peace but become a better person.

You need to give examples of this observation.

You asked this in response to this question:"There are certainly moral precepts that were once thought by Christians to be the will of God that you and other Christians now do not believe."

I could say slavery, the role of women in society, or witchcraft for a few examples--but you would just say these were perversions or misunderstandings of God's nature. Fifty years from now (or less) there will be someone saying the same thing about Christianity's current view on the morality of homosexuality. I could also say that the Golden Rule has logical flaws and that Jesus never presented a new moral philosophy, but you will just say that I can't make moral judgements without an absolute arbiter (i.e. your God)

Instead if going through that, I wonder if I could attempt to clarify exactly where it is that we disagree

Am I correct that you are asserting that:
1) Describing a behavior as "Right" or Wrong" can only be done if the subjectivity of those terms are removed by an absolute standard, and that absolute standard is God?
2) As an atheist, I can only speak in subjective terms about morality because I am not basing moral judgments on the absolute standard created in God's nature?
3) An individual who believed in a God other than the Christian God, could speak objectively about morality because they would then have an absolute standard by which to measure what is moral, even if you disagreed about the existence of their God?
4) God has communicated his absolute standard to humans in the bible and through the words and actions of Jesus?

I am asserting that:

1) what we deem to be moral is fundamentally genetic.

2) Morality is relative, but that an objective man-made standard can exist by which all moral actions may be deemed right or wrong.

3) Evidence of an absolute moral standard revealed in Christianity is not demonstrable.

Now if #1 of what you are asserting is true, it seems that you have me at a slight disadvantage, because if I can make NO "truth statements" about morality, then I imagine the conversation necessarily ends there unless I can first prove that God does not exist. If I cannot say that an action is "right" or "wrong" then I imagine for the same reasons, I cannot disagree with you on anything about human nature because literally everything that you say is "right" because your God created human nature. This is the same problem as arguing the existence of God against someone who only wants to use "faith" as the basis of their belief. Anytime any flaw of logic is demonstrated, then the faith card can always be slammed down on the table thus "winning" the argument. I stopped seriously debating people who resorted to this (along with creationists) a long time ago. You say I cannot say any “truth statements” about morality because I have no absolute standard by which to judge an actions morality. So I either have to prove that human nature, and thus morality, is the product of evolution, or disprove the existence of God.


As I stated above, I do have an "objective" standard by which to judge moral behavior (I can explain in detail later if you like), but as far as absolutism goes, I don't know if anything is "absolute" (I doubt it) and this certainly includes the absolutism of morals.


Understanding human nature through the evolutionary process (Evolutionary Psychology)is a fairly dramatic paradigm and cultural shift that both builds on and replaces much of the psychological, sociological, and philosophical theories of human nature from the 20th century by finally combining biological evolution with the evolution of the brain (and mind). If you want proof, I am afraid you will just have to read the material. As far as me proving God doesn't exist, well you know how that goes.

 

[aiki]

I am curious as to why some think it is impossible. I wanted to set a thread that would allow me to talk about this with Christians, since I am limited to what and where I can post.

Morality is possible without God. In fact, a universal, objective morality is clearly apparent among human beings. But the best explanation for this, I think, is not evolution but a Moral Law Giver (aka God). In short:

1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.) Objective morals and values do exist.
3.) THerefore, God exists.

The argument is not that one must believe in God in order to be moral. The argument is that the objective morality innate to human beings is best explained by a Moral Law Giver.

You have suggested in another thread redefining morality to mean "whatever maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people." But this is not what morality has normally/traditionally meant. As I have pointed out before, this kind of definition for morality is fraught with problems, and the maneuver of redefining morality is rather an ad hoc one obviously meant simply to convenience the person grasping for any other ground for morality than the one the Moral Argument proposes.

You have also urged us to believe what Evolutionary Psychologists theorize concerning the development of human morality but, again, I pointed out that this area of "science" has many detractors (not Christian, but secular ones) from other more established fields of science. Boiled down, evolutionary psychology amounts to a great many "just-so" stories dressed up to sound plausible with the hope that plausibility will be mistaken by the masses for probability.

Selah.

 

[alien444]

Morality is possible without God. In fact, a universal, objective morality is clearly apparent among human beings. But the best explanation for this, I think, is not evolution but a Moral Law Giver (aka God). In short:

Hey aiki, Glad to see you have joined the conversation.

1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.) Objective morals and values do exist.
3.) THerefore, God exists.

This has been William Craig's argument for some time and I disagree with the both your and his premise and conclusion.

I would set forth the following:
1) If God exists, then objective/absolute moral precepts and duties must exist.
2) Objective moral precepts and duties do not exist
3) Therefore, God does not exist.

To be clear I would like to offer these definitions of objective and absolute.

objective:
1) not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

2) intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

3) of or pertaining to something that can be known; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

absolute:
free from imperfection; complete; perfect:

I see no evidence, nor do I think any can be presented, that demonstrates the existence of either objective or absolute moral precepts or duties. For example, if all humans were to disappear from existence, morality as a concept would disappear, as it is a human construct not create by God. Furthermore if morality is a creation of, or an extension of God and God's nature, then it would necessarily be perfect; I see no examples of perfect moral precepts. I think your argument disingenuously ignores that objective morality from a Divine Moral Law Giver would necessarily be demonstrably absolute. Now, regarding the first definition of objective, I do believe that an unbiased, and factually based system of morality can be constructed but claim it can be absolute because I do not believe that morality is static; it evolves as a societies needs and values change.




The argument is not that one must believe in God in order to be moral. The argument is that the objective morality innate to human beings is best explained by a Moral Law Giver.

Once again, I see no evidence of an "innate objective morality" in human beings. There are near universal condemnations of certain actions, but they are not objective/absolute. These near-universals are products of our evolution as social animals. One sure way to be ostracized or expelled from a group is to unjustly murder a member of that group. Our ancestors evolved in small groups for millions of years, and modern humans lived in these small groups for hundreds of thousands of years, and survival and reproduction crucially depended upon acceptance. Our brains evolved in these environments and developed "strategies" in which to further and refine the success in our social behavior.

It is difficult to argue that the immorality of murder is an objective (Def. 1 & 2) or absolute (perfect) precept. The Christian God as Moral Law Giver may condemn murder, but the both the bible and Christianity have long histories of murder. I don't see that moral precept reflected back in the bible or Christian (western) civilization with absolutism or objectivity.

You have suggested in another thread redefining morality to mean "whatever maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people." But this is not what morality has normally/traditionally meant. As I have pointed out before, this kind of definition for morality is fraught with problems, and the maneuver of redefining morality is rather an ad hoc one obviously meant simply to convenience the person grasping for any other ground for morality than the one the Moral Argument proposes.

That was not my best attempt at summing up a moral philosophy in one sentence.I do believe the BEST way to construct the MOST objective/absolute moral precepts are scientifically based. John Stuart Mills Utilitarian Philosophy, Sam Harris' Moral Landscape, Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, for example, bring us the closest to a working construct of morality. A best way to attempt a summation of all of this work is Harris' description:

"moral actions increase the well-being of conscious creatures"

This construct is neither absolute or entirely objective. You must first agree on the statement that "some states of being are better than others" before an objective standard can be established. What is "well-being" you may ask, well it is a term that can only be defined as well as "mental health" can be defined. If one's "mental health" can be determined by scientific facts then one's "well-being" can be as well.

I can readily admit that the rather unappealing crux of morality without God is genetic determinism and moral relativism. However, the "naturalistic fallacy" (is-ought) is to relent to the idea that freewill and objectivity morality necessarily cannot exist. My views cannot be boxed in so easily, I believe that freewill can exist, but requires effort and while morality is relative, an objective standard can be constructed. I can elaborate in further posts, but it really takes a lot of time and space to pull together the research of several disciplines and philosophies into one coherent post. I am aware of most critiques to these ideas so I would be happy to respond as they are brought up further.

The Moral Landscape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You have also urged us to believe what Evolutionary Psychologists theorize concerning the development of human morality but, again, I pointed out that this area of "science" has many detractors (not Christian, but secular ones) from other more established fields of science.

I think you are using "theorize" in a disingenuous manner. Scientific hypotheses become theories after the scientific process determines them reliable by established standards. I am not saying this in support of any specific theory, but you are setting up Evolutionary Psychology as a psuedo-science straw man. Most of the critics of EP are sociologists who believe we are products of cultural relativism, or anthropologists who believe we are products of cultural relativism, or psychologists who see their years of Freudian and Jungian research disappearing into history. The reason evolutionary biology and psychology have largely ignored the "mind" and human nature is because of the dark history of eugenics (particularly after WWII) and the racist theories of sociobiology in the early 20th century. As a progressive reaction, Freudian psychology developed and furthered the dichotomy of "mind and body', and cultural relativism became the politically correct paradigm for studying behavior. EP may lead to some unsettling discoveries about human nature and the "self", but it is ridiculous to assume that the brain (and thus the "mind") did not evolve with the exact same process as the heart and kidney. Most EP theories about the brain are indeed based on biological facts, and others are based on anthropological facts and historical facts. Ep is only beginning, but whether you agree with it or not, it is on its way to becoming the dominant discipline in academia and research. The human brain still has untold mysteries to be scientifically revealed, but areas of the brain effecting such crucial elements of morality as empathy, are already becoming identified and well researched.

Area of the brain that processes empathy identified -- ScienceDaily

Boiled down, evolutionary psychology amounts to a great many "just-so" stories dressed up to sound plausible with the hope that plausibility will be mistaken by the masses for probability.
Selah.

I urge you to look at the research of EP and not go directly to finding criticisms. To the point, I see no evidence of an innate objective/absolute morality in humanity and therefore no evidence of a Moral Law Giver. If you have any evidence to demonstrate this claim, I would love to see it. Scientific facts about the brain and thus the mind, have already given support to many EP theories; as more research occurs, an even clearer understanding of human nature and morality will emerge, and with it the conversation about morality can move out of the Bronze Age and into the 21st century.

 

[aiki]

To be clear I would like to offer these definitions of objective and absolute.

objective:
1) not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

2) intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

3) of or pertaining to something that can be known; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Philosophically speaking, and as I am using it in my comments, "objective" is what is described in points 2 and 3 of your definitions above.

absolute:
free from imperfection; complete; perfect:

This is not a term I used, so I don't understand why you are defining it here...WHat's more, I would not use the term "absolute" strictly in the way you define it above. Certainly, in relation to the Moral Argument, "absolute" is better defined as,

...not dependent on, conditioned by, or relative to anything else; independent...

I see no evidence, nor do I think any can be presented, that demonstrates the existence of either objective or absolute moral precepts or duties. For example, if all humans were to disappear from existence, morality as a concept would disappear, as it is a human construct not create by God.

"Objective," at least in the sense in which I am using it, means "mind-independent," which means that objective morality exists independently of the human mind. If this is so, then objective morality is not contingent upon human beings; it exists even if humans do not.

Your argument above begs the question, too. You assume God does not exist and, therefore, objective morality is a human construct. But you have offered no good reason why your initial assumption (that God does not exist) should be accepted.

Furthermore if morality is a creation of, or an extension of God and God's nature, then it would necessarily be perfect; I see no examples of perfect moral precepts.

But what do you mean by "example"? If you mean you see no one living out God's moral precepts perfectly, then I would point you to Christ whose perfect example all Christian believers are commanded to emulate. If you mean God's laws themselves I would like to know which of His moral laws (not those laws of separation peculiar to the Israelites, or commands of war issued to them under theocratic rule) are imperfect?

I think your argument disingenuously ignores that objective morality from a Divine Moral Law Giver would necessarily be demonstrably absolute.

As I noted above, the term "absolute" has a broader usage than your definition provides. I am not willing to confine its meaning to the single definition you wish to use.

Now, regarding the first definition of objective, I do believe that an unbiased, and factually based system of morality can be constructed but claim it can be absolute because I do not believe that morality is static; it evolves as a societies needs and values change.

"Objective" entails a certain degree of static-ness. Philosophically, an objective characteristic is one that follows its object around. A hard, grey, rough rock is so whether it is buried under a thousand feet of dirt or sitting on a pedestal in a museum. Its characteristics of hardness, greyness, and roughness follow the rock around and so these characteristics are said to be objective to the rock. In the same way, objective moral values and duties do not alter with time and place. In order to be truly objective they must not. So, when you speak of a morality that is fluid, that changes with the times, you are not speaking of a truly objective morality.

Once again, I see no evidence of an "innate objective morality" in human beings.

I do. Very clearly. For example, would you torture a baby for fun? Has there ever been a circumstance in which doing so was considered a moral duty? If not, I think we have at least one genuinely-objective moral duty: one ought never to torture a baby for fun. How about murder? Would you like to be murdered? Would anybody? Has there ever been a time or place where everybody agreed that murdering was a moral duty? I'm not talking capital punishment or killing the enemy on the battlefield, here. I mean someone coming up to you and stabbing you in the heart for no apparent reason. If not, then we have another objective moral duty: You shall not murder. And so on.

There are near universal condemnations of certain actions, but they are not objective/absolute.

I disagree. I think they are precisely what you say they are not.

These near-universals are products of our evolution as social animals.

Saying so doesn't make it so. Proof, please.

One sure way to be ostracized or expelled from a group is to unjustly murder a member of that group. Our ancestors evolved in small groups for millions of years, and modern humans lived in these small groups for hundreds of thousands of years, and survival and reproduction crucially depended upon acceptance. Our brains evolved in these environments and developed "strategies" in which to further and refine the success in our social behavior.

This is just one of the many "just-so" stories evolutionists are so fond of. Plausibility is not probability.

Also, on the view you sketch out above there is no basis for claiming that morality is objectively true and thus authoritative and binding. Evolution has created a sort of herd morality for humans that is essentially the same in purpose as the "morality" that governs, say, baboons. Neither morality is superior to the other, only different.

It is difficult to argue that the immorality of murder is an objective (Def. 1 & 2) or absolute (perfect) precept.

Oh? I don't think so. Just ask anyone of they would like to be murdered.

The Christian God as Moral Law Giver may condemn murder, but the both the bible and Christianity have long histories of murder.

You appear here to be guilty of the "Is-Ought Fallacy." Do you assume that because a story in the local newspaper recounts a murder that it is therefore approving of murder or commanding the reader to murder? Of course not. This is true of the Bible, too.

If "Christians" have murdered, they have done so in contradiction to the moral precepts of their faith. Such conduct, then, cannot be said to be characteristic of the faith.

A best way to attempt a summation of all of this work is Harris' description:

"moral actions increase the well-being of conscious creatures"

This is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. WHose well-being do we mean? How is well-being defined? Why is increasing the well-being of others a morally-imperative thing? Why should a person not seek to maximize their own well-being even if doing so diminishes the well-being of others?

I can readily admit that the rather unappealing crux of morality without God is genetic determinism and moral relativism. However, the "naturalistic fallacy" (is-ought) is to relent to the idea that freewill and objectivity morality necessarily cannot exist.

Yes, this is the inevitable problem with a naturalistic basis for morality.

My views cannot be boxed in so easily, I believe that freewill can exist, but requires effort and while morality is relative, an objective standard can be constructed. I can elaborate in further posts, but it really takes a lot of time and space to pull together the research of several disciplines and philosophies into one coherent post. I am aware of most critiques to these ideas so I would be happy to respond as they are brought up further.

Well, you have offered no specifics here, so it is impossible to comment on your views.

Scientific facts about the brain and thus the mind, have already given support to many EP theories; as more research occurs, an even clearer understanding of human nature and morality will emerge, and with it the conversation about morality can move out of the Bronze Age and into the 21st century.

There is some very sophisticated thinking that has gone on regarding Mind-Body Dualism. I have not seen that merely showing that the brain and mind are linked makes them identical any more than showing that a motor produces energy makes the motor and the energy it produces identical.

God and Mind/Body Dualism | Reasonable Faith

Selah.