The Moral Argument

[Sapiens]

In the computer software industry, there's a saying "Garbage in, Garbage out".
It means if you put in faulty data, you're going to get faulty results.

Moral values are based on your circumstances and circumstances are based on evolution and science.

You have 4 people on a spaceship but only enough oxygen for 3 people to reach your destination where your job is to save the lives of millions with a cure for a disease you're bringing.

The 4th person is terminally ill and will certainly die within a week after reaching the destination even if there was enough oxygen for all four to get there, but there's only enough oxygen for three.

Do you toss the fourth person out the air lock? Or do you allow them to live knowing you won't make it to the destination and others will also die?

The green line in my signature is always true and always has been. A persons beliefs would not change it.

I agree with your saying. Faulty premises=Faulty conclusions. I would like to point out to you that your beliefs that all circumstance are based on evolution (I take the liberty to assume you mean the evolution theory) is exactly that: a belief. If you have paticipated in a lot of debates/discussions (especially concerning the beginnings of the universe) then you'll have noticed that knowledge about the beginning is and can only be speculatory. Yes, I assume that the big bang theory goes hand in hand with the evolution one.

If you choose these naturalistic and atheistic models as basis for your beliefs, then I can easily understand why you don't believe in moral values. People are nothing and life is meaningless. Beautiful nihilism.

Are these really the best beliefs to believe in? Personally, I think not.

This is purely hypothetical of course, but I would guess the fourth person would sqcrifice himself knowing the implications of the missions. An interesting ethical dilemma, what did you want to show?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I agree with your saying. Faulty premises=Faulty conclusions. I would like to point out to you that your beliefs that all circumstance are based on evolution (I take the liberty to assume you mean the evolution theory) is exactly that: a belief. If you have paticipated in a lot of debates/discussions (especially concerning the beginnings of the universe) then you'll have noticed that knowledge about the beginning is and can only be speculatory. Yes, I assume that the big bang theory goes hand in hand with the evolution one.

If you choose these naturalistic and atheistic models as basis for your beliefs, then I can easily understand why you don't believe in moral values. People are nothing and life is meaningless. Beautiful nihilism.

Are these really the best beliefs to believe in? Personally, I think not.

Suppose I grant everything you've said here. That the cornerstone theories of biology and cosmology - predicated on decades of critically robust data from dozens of lines of convergent fields of study - are somehow 'speculative'. Your assertion that atheism and naturalism are equivalent to nihilism. Your implicit assertion that Yahweh somehow imparts 'meaning' onto human life by means of... what exactly? Magic? Who cares. I grant it.

All of it. Granted. Now, are you any closer to demonstrating the veracity of your own moral philosophy? Are you any closer apprehending, understanding and gleaning the existence of any 'objective moral values'?

No. All you have is a convoluted argument from consequence fallacy. You've said effectively nothing.

And again, that is granting your naked assertions.

 

[Murby]

(I take the liberty to assume you mean the evolution theory)

Science and "Evolution" means anything that happens.. from the big bang to yesterday's rain and tomorrow's events.. How we react to those events is a matter of science.

If you choose these naturalistic and atheistic models as basis for your beliefs, then I can easily understand why you don't believe in moral values. People are nothing and life is meaningless. Beautiful nihilism.

Actually, most times I find it to be the exact opposite.. Seems like religion, and the gazillion interpretations that conflict with each other, tend to provide grounds and excuses for throwing moral values away at a whim. That's why there's been so much killing centered around religion. Lies and opinions can vary from day to day but they can't run from history and history is pretty clear.
I find that people without a belief system tend to be much more reliable and ethical in all areas, your statement against this sounds like it was something dictated to you by a leader of your belief system as its been brought up and mowed over in other threads.. No religion = no moral code.. Clearly some kind of self supporting propaganda.

This is purely hypothetical of course, but I would guess the fourth person would sqcrifice himself knowing the implications of the missions. An interesting ethical dilemma, what did you want to show?

And if the sick person didn't want to make that sacrifice?
Its simply shows that circumstances, not god or religion, always dictate morality..

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, I assume that the big bang theory goes hand in hand with the evolution one.

Astronomy and biology do not go hand in hand except by the methods used to arrive at conclusions about widely different fields of study. They go hand in hand in the same way as how medical science goes hand in hand with geology.

If you have paticipated in a lot of debates/discussions (especially concerning the beginnings of the universe) then you'll have noticed that knowledge about the beginning is and can only be speculatory.

Not true. If a theory predicts something, and then that something turns out to be true, then that isn't speculation. That is a theory with predictive power, and then it has much more validity. The Big Bang Theory said that a giant explosion started the universe, and then later we found that there is a reverberating noise from said explosion emanating from ever corner of the universe. There is plenty more evidence, but this isn't the natural sciences section, so I don't want to go deep into things. This is just an example of conclusions made not from speculation.

If you choose these naturalistic and atheistic models as basis for your beliefs, then I can easily understand why you don't believe in moral values. People are nothing and life is meaningless. Beautiful nihilism.

Imagine for just a moment that there was no God. Does that mean that everything you've ever done that was a good thing was meaningless, or does it mean that you were putting meaning into something yourself. Why is God the only being capable of making something meaningful? Why can I not choose to create my own meaning?

 

[Murby]

Why can I not choose to create my own meaning?

Because religion requires money to survive.. If you are allowed to create your own meaning, then the money evaporates....

Its called self perpetuating propaganda.

 

[Sapiens]

No.

A means of independently evaluating something, in a manner that should result in consistent conclusions.

Does the Earth rotate and orbit the Sun? How do we objectively test that?

Somewhat unreliable. Personal experience tells us that the Earth hangs in space while the cosmos rotates around it.

Rotating Stars

• Davian
• May 26, 2014

Australian Astronomical Observatory

I agree and that's why I said moral right exists indpendently of us being able to discern it. Like all knowledge, it needs to be discovered but cannot be invented. You don't decide if the earth is flat or round; it either is or isn't.

 

[Sapiens]

Define "morality". In the manner I use the word, there is no need for gods, it simply describes how social critters (humans, for example) get along in society, based on a varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract.

What do you mean by that word?

Why was it wrong, from a theistic perspective? As I saw in a recent exchange on the "problem of evil", maybe "God" had a reason for allowing it to happen (other than not existing).

Yeah, something like that. I'll just use the Oxford dictionary definition:

"Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/moral

I didn't say that you need to believe in God to have a (good) morality but the argument says that they would not exist, or at least there would not be reasons for them to exist without God also existing.

Why? Because humans have an intrinsic value and their well-being is important to God.

 

[Sapiens]

Astronomy and biology do not go hand in hand except by the methods used to arrive at conclusions about widely different fields of study. They go hand in hand in the same way as how medical science goes hand in hand with geology.



Not true. If a theory predicts something, and then that something turns out to be true, then that isn't speculation. That is a theory with predictive power, and then it has much more validity. The Big Bang Theory said that a giant explosion started the universe, and then later we found that there is a reverberating noise from said explosion emanating from ever corner of the universe. There is plenty more evidence, but this isn't the natural sciences section, so I don't want to go deep into things. This is just an example of conclusions made not from speculation.


Imagine for just a moment that there was no God. Does that mean that everything you've ever done that was a good thing was meaningless, or does it mean that you were putting meaning into something yourself. Why is God the only being capable of making something meaningful? Why can I not choose to create my own meaning?

Sorry, I don't know how to quote sections of your post so I'll go by paragraph.

1. Ok, I meant it presupposes that it's true. If God created the universe and all living species (the way he wanted them) less than 10 thousand years ago, then naturalistic evolution over millions over years cannot be correct.

2. Yeah, I meant that we cannot be sure. Here's what I meant by speculation: you hear noise, that is evidence. You say the big bang is the cause, that's a proposed explanation, a speculation in my terms.

3. Yes, it would mean exactly that. If I was born for no special reasons, if I live my life for no special reasons (objectively) and then if I die for no special reasons, then it was inconsequential and meaningless. There was no point to my happiness, no point to my suffering. And the result I would get at the end would be the same: death.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah, I meant that we cannot be sure. Here's what I meant by speculation: you hear noise, that is evidence. You say the big bang is the cause, that's a proposed explanation, a speculation in my terms.

Except that you have these things in the wrong order, and that is very important. People didn't hear a noise and call it The Big Bang. People looked at the universe and said, "it looks like it exploded from something. Is there any evidence of a great big explosion?" And then later they found the evidence that supported their theory when they heard the noise of the Big Bang.

And no, presuppositions are not how science works. You start with a hypothesis: "Is this true?". Sometimes you find evidence, sometimes you don't. The Big Bang started as a hypothesis that no one assumed was true, in fact it started out as "fringe" science when it was first conceived. Only after finding a lot of evidence do people believe it to be true because there is evidence that is objective (everyone can look into it for themselves).

This bit is way off track though. Make sure you notice my other post that is a direct response to the OP.

if I live my life for no special reasons (objectively)...

But you did live your life for special reasons! Isn't giving to the poor something special? Isn't helping the sick special? Isn't being a comfort for other people special? These things are only special because God tells you to do them? Then that means you only do them because God tells you to. And then your motivations for doing them make your sense of morality about them suspect.

On the other hand, if you do them because they are good, and the Bible showed you what is good, but later you find that God is not real, then you can still feel good that your life had purpose, just that purpose wasn't designed by a god. It was you creating a purpose for yourself and ascribing it to a god.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because religion requires money to survive.. If you are allowed to create your own meaning, then the money evaporates....

Its called self perpetuating propaganda.

As cynical as I am, I'm not that cynical. Money and power were likely a big part of religions becoming so organized and dogmatic at the start, but there are plenty of dirt poor churches to show people believe in their religion without their leaders demanding money.

 

[Davian]

Yeah, something like that. I'll just use the Oxford dictionary definition:

"Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/moral

I didn't say that you need to believe in God to have a (good) morality but the argument says that they would not exist, or at least there would not be reasons for them to exist without God also existing.

Why? Because humans have an intrinsic value and their well-being is important to God.

You have not explained or demonstrated anything. You have simply declared it so.

As I said, the "morality" that I defined in my post, and that you pulled from the Oxford dictionary, does not exist in the absence of humans. It evolved along with us, and will disappear with our eventual extinction.

I want to know what you mean by "morality", outside of those definitions.

 

[Davian]

I agree and that's why I said moral right exists indpendently of us being able to discern it.

You claimed it, but you have yet to demonstrate it.

Like all knowledge, it needs to be discovered but cannot be invented.

Another unevidenced assertion.

You don't decide if the earth is flat or round; it either is or isn't.

Yet that is testable, and demonstrable.

And all the people that believed it flat never succeeded in unrounding it an inch. (Asimov)

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.

To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented.

Any society that values murder, theft, greed etc. is dead, because those things are antithetical to society. That's why you don't see them. No appeal to magic necessary.

To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life.

Atheism isn't a philosophy, so that's hardly surprising. Do you also fault your toaster for not mowing the lawn?

While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded.

Atheism isn't a belief system.

But I agree with your sentiment, which is why I've never once in my life been a religious person.

Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.

See my reply to the OP above. It's one thing to merely assert these things. It's quite another thing to actually validate them in any meaningful fashion. I could replace the word 'God' with 'mayonnaise' in everything you've said here and it would be exactly as substantial.

How, for example, does Yahweh impart meaning into human life?

 

[Sapiens]

Science and "Evolution" means anything that happens.. from the big bang to yesterday's rain and tomorrow's events.. How we react to those events is a matter of science.


Actually, most times I find it to be the exact opposite.. Seems like religion, and the gazillion interpretations that conflict with each other, tend to provide grounds and excuses for throwing moral values away at a whim. That's why there's been so much killing centered around religion. Lies and opinions can vary from day to day but they can't run from history and history is pretty clear.
I find that people without a belief system tend to be much more reliable and ethical in all areas, your statement against this sounds like it was something dictated to you by a leader of your belief system as its been brought up and mowed over in other threads.. No religion = no moral code.. Clearly some kind of self supporting propaganda.


And if the sick person didn't want to make that sacrifice? Its simply shows that circumstances, not god or religion, always dictate morality..

You know, if you think my statement was wrong, you could just have said so and showed me why. Perhaps you could've tried to show me how moral values exist without God, since that's what you seem to believe. And if you don't think they exist, why do you care that there has been so much killing centered around religion? Tough life mate.

It is true, people have trouble agreeing on what is true and what is right. Moreover, people, including me, often mistake wrong for right. That is why there are wars. That's exactly my point, right and wrong exist, and we intuitively know so but we have some trouble discerning which is which.

"your statement against this sounds like it was something dictated to you by a leader of your belief system."

Well, that's interesting, I was going to tell you the same thing. Mate, one cannot not have a belief system. You're exposing yours right now.

 

[Moral Orel]

Perhaps you could've tried to show me how moral values exist without God, since that's what you seem to believe.

You've asked this a few times, so I'll take a crack at explaining in an overly simplistic way.

If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented.

And the explanation ties directly into this as well, and explains why there is a commonality between moral codes amongst most humans.

Imagine a group of 12 cavemen. They all fight amongst themselves, kill each other, steal from each other, etc. A world without morals. Then 2 of the cavemen get a bright idea. "How about we work together? Then we can boss around all the other cavemen!" But why would these two cavemen work together if they have to worry about the other taking their things or killing them? So they agree to not kill each other or steal from each other. Thus, "Don't kill" and "Don't steal" are born as the first moral codes.

What other moral codes could possibly come first? Every moral code in the world has to start with protection of one's own "stuff", whether that be life or property. Why would you expect that there would be differences to the basis of moral codes between different tribes of people? They aren't just a random assortment of rules, they serve a purpose. Those morals which serve that purpose the best, i.e. fostering cooperation, get passed down and expanded.

There's more to it than that, such as how evolution ties in, but that is the basis. The better a tribe works together, the more likely that tribe continues to exist to pass down its moral codes. Which is why I never understand why people say, "evolution means survival of the fittest, so the strong would always just kill the weak, therefore evolution would make there be no morals". Poppycock. Ten men are stronger than one, so cooperation evolved.

Think of this: did God invent roads? If not, then why do we see some form of road in every civilization around the world? What about homes? If God didn't invent them, then why do we see every civilization around the world build structures with a roof and walls? Why don't we see a wide array of structures and infrastructure across the globe that don't have the same common basis?

Just look at how morality continues to evolve today. We've learned that diplomacy is better than war, something that the OT advocates the opposite. We've learned that no human should ever own another human, something that even the NT condones after the OT advocated and coordinated it. If all the best morals come from God, then why does "His Word" tell us to have bad morals?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

1. How could they exist without God, according to you? I will say that moral values cannot exist objectively, in a sense, but rather subjectively. Allow me to explain my reasoning. When I say "objectively", here, I mean impersonally like 1+1=2 or the earth is round, which are objective truth which can exist and stay true without us. When I said "subjectively", I didn't mean relative but that moral values cannot exist without us; they require subjects. What I argue for, is that the existence of God is the best explanation of their existence. If God does not exist, then a human life holds no special value, objectively speaking, in that it isn't really different from a rock, for example, in terms of importance. For a human life to hold real value or for moral values to exist, they require an objective and yet subjective reference. I say that is God. So a godless and purely naturalistic universe could not explain this.

2. I guess it might depend on what you would consider proof. It cannot be obtained using the scientific method because it requires personal judgment. Through the possible explanations and arguments, we'll see what the best is.

When I say "objectively", here, I mean impersonally like 1+1=2 or the earth is round, which are objective truth which can exist and stay true without us. When I said "subjectively", I didn't mean relative but that moral values cannot exist without us; they require subjects.

You say that objective moral values exist, but you suggest in the first premise that they wouldn't exist without God. You then go on to say that objective things are of the nature "2+2=4" which you seem to believe has a truth value regardless of if God or even nature itself exists. So your argument is self-refuting, provided I understand your intentions clearly.

 

[Murby]

You know, if you think my statement was wrong, you could just have said so and showed me why. Perhaps you could've tried to show me how moral values exist without God, since that's what you seem to believe. And if you don't think they exist, why do you care that there has been so much killing centered around religion? Tough life mate.

Moral values are mostly attributed to a sense of what's good for the community or the individual. Its not complicated, and certainly doesn't require a god. In fact, if someone thinks morals come from god, perhaps they can explain the whole slavery thing under Leviticus?
Your moral values are dictated to you by the circumstances you find yourself in.. when all is good and comfortable, our morality tends to be generous, forgiving, and all around peachy.. But when circumstances drive us to levels of survival, those morals evaporate and become subservient to the evolutionary imperative for survival.

It is true, people have trouble agreeing on what is true and what is right. Moreover, people, including me, often mistake wrong for right. That is why there are wars. That's exactly my point, right and wrong exist, and we intuitively know so but we have some trouble discerning which is which.

Imagine two scales from zero to one hundred.. Each sliding scale is independent of the other. One scale is a measure of how "right" or "moral" something is, the other scale is a measure of how "wrong" or "immoral" something is.
Remember, the two scales are not connected together.. they operate completely independently of each other.
See where this is going? There is no fundamental reason or law that prevents the two scales from overlapping at the "50" midpoint. Morality and the concept of right and wrong do not operate as ratio's to each other.. Its not always 0/100 or 50/50 or 80/20.. It is possible for something to be both 100% right and 100% wrong at the same time.. Or 50% right and 80% wrong.
A lot of people don't understand this concept and religion certainly doesn't teach it.. but when you step back with an objective analysis, you see it everywhere. I believe a person with deep religious beliefs that are based on static (unchanging) knowledge (IE: The bible) will be challenged to see this concept as their perceptions of morality are deeply ingrained through a process of indoctrination and a more black and white system. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I do view it as potentially limiting.

"your statement against this sounds like it was something dictated to you by a leader of your belief system."
Well, that's interesting, I was going to tell you the same thing. Mate, one cannot not have a belief system. You're exposing yours right now.

When folks refer to a "belief system", they are referring to religion.. not whether you believe your wife is going to come home from work that night. Of course I have beliefs.. but there is no "system".. my beliefs change as evolution and science changes. What I believe today, might change tomorrow.. In other words, my beliefs are dynamic as they are based on knowledge.. opposed to that would be someone who's beliefs are static and unchanging.. as in a belief system that is dictated by a book that never changes and written by people with extremely limited knowledge or understanding.

 

[Sapiens]

Suppose I grant everything you've said here. That the cornerstone theories of biology and cosmology - predicated on decades of critically robust data from dozens of lines of convergent fields of study - are somehow 'speculative'. Your assertion that atheism and naturalism are equivalent to nihilism. Your implicit assertion that Yahweh somehow imparts 'meaning' onto human life by means of... what exactly? Magic? Who cares. I grant it.

All of it. Granted. Now, are you any closer to demonstrating the veracity of your own moral philosophy? Are you any closer apprehending, understanding and gleaning the existence of any 'objective moral values'?

No. All you have is a convoluted argument from consequence fallacy. You've said effectively nothing.

And again, that is granting your naked assertions.

Ok, ok, ok. I didn't know about the consequence fallacy. It's not that my point was not good but I presented it somewhat badly, both in order and content, I admit. What I wanted to show is that in light of uncertainty, we have to choose between, yes, the most plausible possibility but also in light of the most advantageous to believe, if it ultimately comes down to a choice.

Now, I will please ask you to give me a bit of a chance, you're like ten people on my case and I'm one. I've got to respond to everyone and often I'm just on my cell to do that (takes longer). Besides, I've got studies to do. Please be indulgent with me.

BTW, unlike many people here, I am still beginning the art of argumentation. I'm discovering things as I go along.

Concerning your first paragraph, is it so because a lot of people, even with good reputations in their field, say it is so? Hey man, there's like two billion people on earth that are Christian. The Bible is the most printed book in the whole world, maybe it's true? Nobody was there when the earth started, and those who might have been are no longer around to tell about it (except God of course).

I think the best proof we might have, is based on our intuition. Despite the fact that we might be imperfectly capable to discern them or that we don't neccessarily agree on what is which, at least we know good and bad, true and false exist.

Source: http://shenvi.org/Essays/MoralArgument.htm

 

[Moral Orel]

The Bible is the most printed book in the whole world, maybe it's true?

Argument from popularity. More people are not Christian than are, so maybe it's not true?