You don't know what you do not know

[Chriliman]

I meant "morals" as in judgement-making about right/wrong.
Animals exhibit behavior that promotes their survival, individually or socially, depending on the sort of animal.
I'm not sure if they make judgements about it though.
Sorry about the confusion.

I think the fact that animals exhibit any kind of observable morality shows that morality is objective, not humanly subjective. If morality were completely humanly subjective then animals would be amoral, but they're not. So where did morality in animals come from? You can't say nature or the cosmos because both are amoral (exhibiting no morality)

Atheism does not have an answer for this. Doesn't that make you want to question the claims of God a little deeper?

 

[Davian]

I think the fact that animals exhibit any kind of observable morality shows that morality is objective, not humanly subjective. If morality were completely humanly subjective then animals would be amoral, but they're not. So where did morality in animals come from? You can't say nature or the cosmos because both are amoral (exhibiting no morality)

What do you mean, where do they come from? Social animals evolve behaviours that allow for them to exists in groups. "Morals" co-evolve with the species. Why do wolves not eat their young? They don't eat their young because the wolf ancestors that did eat their young went extinct. Your question does not make sense.

Atheism does not have an answer for this.

The hobby of not collecting stamps does not either.

Doesn't that make you want to question the claims of God a little deeper?

The claim of a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

No, not really.

 

[jayem]

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 KJV

I like Voltaire's definition (and I'm paraphrasing): Faith consists in believing impossible things, because they are impossible.

 

[durangodawood]

I think the fact that animals exhibit any kind of observable morality shows that morality is objective, not humanly subjective. If morality were completely humanly subjective then animals would be amoral, but they're not. So where did morality in animals come from? You can't say nature or the cosmos because both are amoral (exhibiting no morality)

Atheism does not have an answer for this. Doesn't that make you want to question the claims of God a little deeper?

Yes. Morality IS objective!
But its not absolute.
Morals are rules for behaviors that promote survival for animals and/or their groups. For humans we can add rules that promote human flourishing and enduring happiness. God is not needed for these to develop nor to be codified by the wise amongst us.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes. Morality IS objective!

Morality is either absolutely objective (unchanging) or it's subjective (based on the individual). You seem to agree that morality is absolutely objective(unchanging). Which means humans could not have created it because we are subjective beings who are not capable of being absolutely objective.

If morality is based on the individual, then it doesn't matter what we humans collectively view as good moral action because what is good moral actions is determined by each individual, thereby rendering morality meaningless.

 

[durangodawood]

Morality is either absolutely objective (unchanging)...

Nonsense.
Objective doenst mean unchanging by any definition.
Objective means out there in the world available for scrutiny.
And, like most things we can observe in the world, it changes.

 

[Chriliman]

Nonsense.
Objective doenst mean unchanging by any definition.
Objective means out there in the world available for scrutiny.
And, like most things we can observe in the world, it changes.

Is it always morally good to reward someone for doing good and always morally good to punish someone for doing wrong? If so then morality is unchanging(humans cannot create something that is unchanging).

If not then it could be seen that it is morally good to reward someone for doing wrong and also good to punish someone for doing good, rendering morality meaningless.(Humans can create a backwards view of morality).

 

[durangodawood]

Is it always morally good to reward someone for doing good and always morally good to punish someone for doing wrong?....

No, its not always good. For example, an important part of parenting is recognizing when to stop giving "rewards" for good behavior and instead simply having expectations of good behavior.

Anyway. I never said humans created morals (unchanging or otherwise). What I DO say is enduring morals are based on the natural facts of being human.

 

[Chriliman]

No, its not always good. For example, an important part of parenting is recognizing when to stop giving "rewards" for good behavior and instead simply having expectations of good behavior.

Is it always morally good to balance reward with punishment in a way that results in good behavior? If so then morality is unchanging. Humans cannot create something that is unchanging.

I think the only way you can refute this is if you change what good morality means. Artificially changing the meaning of morality, which is naturally unchangeable is something humans are capable of, but creating something artificial(changeable morality) and replacing it with what's real(unchanging morality), is not wise and will lead to confusing what is unchangeably good and what is unchangeably bad.

 

[durangodawood]

Is it always morally good to balance reward with punishment in a way that results in good behavior? If so then morality is unchanging. Humans cannot create something that is unchanging.....

This is a dead end. The specifics of how you promote good behavior are fluid. They change.

 

[durangodawood]

.....I think the only way you can refute this is if you change what good morality means. Artificially changing the meaning of morality, which is naturally unchangeable is something humans are capable of, but creating something artificial(changeable morality) and replacing it with what's real(unchanging morality), is not wise and will lead to confusing what is unchangeably good and what is unchangeably bad.

Humans dont create enduring moral values. We discover them.
They are based on human nature.
This makes sense whether you think humans were created by a deity,
or whether we evolved naturally.

 

[Chriliman]

Humans dont create enduring moral values. We discover them.
They are based on human nature.
This makes sense whether you think humans were created by a deity,
or whether we evolved naturally.

If moral values existed before humans(which is why we discover them) then how do we explain that without either saying nature has morality or God has morality?

If we emerged from amoral nature, then where does morality come from other than ourselves? If it comes from ourselves, then we don't discover moral values, we create them.

So the implications of saying nature is amoral and that we emerged from nature is that we create morality.

The implications of saying nature has moral values and that we emerged from nature and discover those moral values, is that nature is sentient.

 

[durangodawood]

If moral values existed before humans(which is why we discover them) then how do we explain that without either saying nature has morality or God has morality?

If we emerged from amoral nature, then where does morality come from other than ourselves? If it comes from ourselves, then we don't discover moral values, we create them.

So the implications of saying nature is amoral and that we emerged from nature is that we create morality.

The implications of saying nature has moral values and that we emerged from nature and discover those moral values, is that nature is sentient.

Human morality didnt exist before humans. We discover the rules as we go, as we learn about our selves as indivduals and as societies. We make huge errors, and fail, and discard those rules that dont work. We build on the rule that do work.

 

[Chriliman]

Human morality didnt exist before humans. We discover the rules as we go, as we learn about our selves as indivduals and as societies. We make huge errors, and fail, and discard those rules that dont work. We build on the rule that do work.

We were talking about morality, knowing right from wrong. If we agree that animals have a sense of morality and that this sense they have can be observed then this proves morality exists sans humans. So in order to talk about objective morality we don't need to include "human morality" at all because humans did not create morality.

 

[durangodawood]

We were talking about morality, knowing right from wrong. If we agree that animals have a sense of morality and that this sense they have can be observed then this proves morality exists sans humans. So in order to talk about objective morality we don't need to include "human morality" at all because humans did not create morality.

Thats fine. Probly make the discussion easier to limit it to (other) animals.
Of course morality exists for other animals. Certain behaviors will help the group survive. Other behaviors will doom it. Apes and other intelligent animals might even have some sense of norms that reflect these facts.

These are objective (out there, available for scrutiny) facts about the world. But that doesnt mean they were decreed from 'on-high'.

 

[Chriliman]

Thats fine. Probly make the discussion easier to limit it to (other) animals.
Of course morality exists for other animals. Certain behaviors will help the group survive. Other behaviors will doom it. Apes and other intelligent animals might even have some sense of norms that reflect these facts.

These are objective (out there, available for scrutiny) facts about the world. But that doesnt mean they were decreed from 'on-high'.

The objective facts narrow down the possibilities quite a bit. We can conclude that neither humans or animals created morality.

This either means morality is intrinsic to nature or it's intrinsic to God. I'd argue that if we conclude morality is intrinsic to nature then this points to the nature of God as being eternal moral existence.

 

[durangodawood]

The objective facts narrow down the possibilities quite a bit. We can conclude that neither humans or animals created morality.

This either means morality is intrinsic to nature or it's intrinsic to God. I'd argue that if we conclude morality is intrinsic to nature then this points to the nature of God as being eternal moral existence.

When you say "morality"
Are you referring to the rules for behavior that promote survival and/or happiness?
Or are to referring to the sense of right/wrong that we may have regarding our own behavior?

 

[Chriliman]

When you say "morality"
Are you referring to the rules for behavior that promote survival and/or happiness?
Or are to referring to the sense of right/wrong that we may have regarding our own behavior?

I think morality can encompass both, don't you?

 

[durangodawood]

I think morality can encompass both, don't you?

Yes.
The thing is, both of those have plausible natural explanations.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes.
The thing is, both of those have plausible natural explanations.

I agree morality is natural, the question is: what is the nature of morality? Our discussion has led us to the conclusion that even if you take human and animal life away, morality must still exist. IOW, morality must be intrinsic to nature, regardless of the life that emerges from nature. This conclusion has deep implications in favor of the existence of an eternal moral God.