# A question to all of you believers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 29, 2006, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634 "2006-08-29T05:52:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/41 "2006-08-31T05:10:41Z")
> [@Stalky](#): > > I don’t think that debating the objectivity of the smell of roses was **Diogenes** ’ point. I rather think it was an example pulled from the top of his head that he regrets somewhat. The smell of roses is a sensory experience, and therefore it can only be experienced subjectively. The parallel to morality is tenuous, but significant. Morality is a code of conduct, but specifically a personal code of conduct, and therefore it is not fully available to objective analysis. Morality implies a subjective frame of reference because it relates directly to internal choices and thoughts. > > While the flowers don’t really help illuminate the point they do help demonstrate the internal nature of moral decisions, and the difficulty of relating the understanding of morality to anything objective or demonstratable. > > Apologies in advance if i misconstrued your position in any way Dio. No, you pretty much nailed it. My moral compass is not based on any kind of “belief,” but entirely upon my owm emotional responses to my own actions. I nurture my children because it makes me feel good to nurture my children, not because I think there’s any kind of rule about it or because “I believe it is right.” I avoid hurting people because it makes me feel bad to hurt people, not because I think it’s violates any sort of external rule. This is the part where somebody brings up serial killers or Nazis and asks if they’re just following their own moral compass and what makes mine more “valid” than theirs. The answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the second is that the word “validity” has no application to morality any more than it has any application to taste in beer. The next question then is what gives anybody the right or authority to place any behavioral parameters on others? (If you think rape is wrong and I think it’s right, who are you to tell me I can’t do it?) The answer is that the “authority” (for lack of a better word) comes from your own moral sense and needs to come from nowhere else. If you feel morally obligated to protect others from rape, then that’s what you do. It doesn’t have to be justified. You’re just following your own code. If that conflicts with someone else, then there’s going to be a power struggle and whoever wins, wins. Fortunately, this doesn’t lead to the kind of anarchy and chaos that it sounds like it might because, as it turns out, a lot of our emotional responses to such things are hardwired into our biology and basically shared. Most people have an empathic response which causes them to feel distress and anxiety at the suffering of others. That means it’s pretty easy for the vast majority to agree that we can pool our collective power to try to prevent a microspcopic minority from engaging in behavior which destabalizes our communities or causes us severe emotional distress. ---
**Author:** ![Lobelia\_Overhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/54ee81/32.png) [@Lobelia\_Overhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobelia_Overhill)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/42 "2006-08-31T13:31:00Z")
Been there, done that. Morals haven’t changed, I just don’t go to Confession when I think Immoral thoughts these days… ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/43 "2006-08-31T13:36:07Z")
> [@Stalky](#): > > Objective morality would be based on what we understand of evolutionary theory. It would be whatever is best for the continued survival, diversity, and reproduction of the human species (both in total, and it’s constituent members.) Thou Shalt Not Murder, Rape, Steal, Lie ect. are logical ethical limitations on behaviour that have the effect of working generally toward the common good of the species. They help ensure that we survive to reproduce, that we remain diverse, and maintain the quality of our offspring. Though you have backed away from this as an objective morality, I would contest it even as the necessary morality taken from your basis in evolutionary theory. It is not objectively better, from an evolutionary standpoint, not to murder, rape, steal, and lie. Observe the “morality” of non-sapient species which we can say is based purely on instinctual evolutionary pressure. Murder, rape, theft, and deception are not uncommon. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/44 "2006-08-31T13:41:41Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No, YOU made an assertion that any kind of non-subjective morality can possibly exist. That’s like saying objective beauty can exist. I don’t have to prove that different individuals have different subjective feelings about what is “moral.” You are the one who has to prove that those feelings are anything but feelings. You’re weaseling, again, or at least trying to. You made the following assertion: > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Morality is an aesthetic, not a belief. You have produced no evidence for it. I repeat, produce some evidence for this unsupported assertion. Your word for it is not good enough. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/45 "2006-08-31T13:46:24Z")
Have I spent rather a long time believing in illusions ? My understanding of ‘Morals’ is that they are absolute, generally faith based My understanding of ‘Ethics’ is that they are rules that one accepts, probably defined by society, but I suspect slightly Darwiniastically evolved. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/46 "2006-08-31T14:37:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You’re weaseling, again, or at least trying to. > > You made the following assertion: > You have produced no evidence for it. > > I repeat, produce some evidence for this unsupported assertion. Your word for it is not good enough. If it’s not a belief for ME, then it’s not a belief. Prove it’s a belief for ME. That is YOUR assertion and that is YOUR burden. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/47 "2006-08-31T14:41:57Z")
> [@flight](#): > > Though you have backed away from this as an objective morality, I would contest it even as the necessary morality taken from your basis in evolutionary theory. It is not objectively better, from an evolutionary standpoint, not to murder, rape, steal, and lie. Observe the “morality” of non-sapient species which we can say is based purely on instinctual evolutionary pressure. Murder, rape, theft, and deception are not uncommon. Humans are a social animal. We are evolved to survive in populations, not as individuals. Therefore our “ethical” hardwiring (e.g. the empathic response) serves to protect the stability of _communities_ rather than to serve the immediate self-interests of individuals. Humans are not the only animal for which this is true. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/48 "2006-08-31T17:25:43Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > But, to answer as best I can: I believe my behavior would be much the same as it is now, but more selfish. I would be less likely to go out of my way to do things that don’t benefit me: anonymous charitable donations, for example. As a Christian, I try to keep in mind Jesus’s words that “whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me.” WIthout that perspective, “the least of these” might just be poor, probably undeserving, schmucks with no connection to me, so why not ignore them? If they’re no longer precious to God and made in his image, but just another biological entity that’s going to die sooner or later, it’s harder to care what happens to them now. For me, losing any faith had the exact opposite effect. Instead of those poor people being poor for a reason, or having some great potential future in heaven, or being under God’s watch, suddenly all they have is me. All we have is each other. All we’ve got is one life. I can’t just say that they’ll be rewarded in heaven, and I don’t have to believe in some dude claiming the poor will always be with us. ---
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/49 "2006-08-31T17:45:25Z")
No, because my morals are grounded in humanity, not divinity. ---
**Author:** ![Okie\_Tokie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecae2f/32.png) [@Okie\_Tokie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okie_Tokie)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/50 "2006-09-01T12:48:22Z")
I have made a LONG study of religion in an attempt to answer my questions about why I don’t believe in fairy tales. I believe in strict evolutionary theory. In the early days of mankind, those who believed that the shaman, witch doctor, healer, holy man, etc. could heal them actually lived longer than those who did not believe. Those who lived longer were able to procreate more, have more DNA replicate and pass on the ability to believe. Man is born with a need to believe in a higher power. Like language and music, religion is learned. Would there be religion without language or music? Did you ever know a evalgelical preacher who could not sing and sermonize? The same evolutionary brain structure which allows learning of music and languages also controls the belief in God(s). If a human believes in God, there is a god. Up until death. After that, who knows? Party On. Okie Tokie ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2006, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/51 "2006-09-01T13:18:16Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If it’s not a belief for ME, then it’s not a belief. Prove it’s a belief for ME. That is YOUR assertion and that is YOUR burden. OK, so you don’t have an answer. Shit, you don’t even have a coherent position. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/52 "2006-09-02T12:23:31Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that what you are doing here is providing an answer, possibly a very good answer, but to the wrong question. The question you are answering is, “Given that human beings have a sense of morality, that certain things are right or wrong, morally good or morally bad, _why_ do we have such a sense? What explains its presence in humanity?” > > But that’s different from saying what if anything _is_, objectively, right or wrong, and why. That doesn’t tell me what I should do. > > You’re giving the kind of answer science gives to the kind of question science can address. Science can tell us what _is_, and why, but it can’t tell us what _ought to be_ or why. Science can’t tell me what I should do. It might be able to tell me what I should do in order to reach a certain goal, but it can’t tell me what my ultimate goal should be. In a Godless universe, there may not even be such a thing as “what I/we should do, period.” > > Which brings me back to the OP. If I woke up tomorrow disbelieving in God, I would be likely to accept your theory as to the source of human morality. And, accepting that, I would be hard pressed to see why I must follow it. Why should I follow a morality that an impersonal process like evolution or biological instict has foisted upon me? If I feel like disobeying or disregarding it, why shouldn’t I? Even if I, as a result of evolutionary theory, have an instictive fear of snakes or spiders, it may be advantageous to me, either personally or as a representative of humanity, to choose to disregard or go against that fear in certain situations. Why isn’t it equally valid to choose to disregard morality? Certain things we do even if we would rather not do such as stealing, killing or harming others ends up harming us in the long run. If we look out for others or make laws it is to help civilization continue and is also for our own betterment. Most of the 10 commandments are just common sense such as: If I can steal from you or kill you it would give others the right to do the same so being good to others is a way to have a better world. Some cultures have different moral codes,such as even in the way we dress in our culture it is considerd immoral to go with out clothing, but in others it is not. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2006, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/53 "2006-09-02T15:33:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > OK, so you don’t have an answer. I did answer you quite clearly. > [@](#): > > Shit, you don’t even have a coherent position. You just don’t understand the conversation. You keep demanding that I prove that morality is “not a belief,” but it seems to escape your comprehension that that it’s nonsensical to demand that someone else prove they “don’t believe” something. I have no moral “beliefs,” yet I still have a personal morality, therefore morality is not a belief. QED. The burden is on you to either prove that I have no personal morality or that my personal morality is based on “belief” rather my own selfish desire to avoid behaviors which cause me biologically programmed emotional distress or “guilt.” “Belief” itself is still a subjective emotional response to external stimuli (i.e an aesthetic) anyway, so there’s no way to avoid having to define morality as an aesthetic and aesthetics don’t have to be “justified.” ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/54 "2006-09-06T03:18:02Z")
There have been many periods in my life when I did not believe in a God, and while that didn’t lead me to throw all my principles out the window, I did feel less accountable and did get myself in more trouble by making bad choices. It’s sort of like that thing about false idols - praying to God for guidance brings me out of myself and into the bigger picture. If I’m just being self-referential, then I don’t reach as far or try as hard, and it’s easier to rationalize my choices. That’s not to say I keep on the straight and narrow out of fear. I don’t buy the Judeo-Christian “thunderbolts and lightning” literal God in the Bible for one minute, either. Some of the principles in the Bible, however, have been valuable and meaningful to me. Along with many other religious texts. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/55 "2006-09-06T15:04:20Z")
[QUOTE=Gozu] This is a question for those among you who believe in God(s) and consider yourself moral people. Let’s say you just wake up tomorrow morning and you don’t believe in God(s) anymore. Would your set of morals change? Would your behavior change? If so, how? Otherwise, why not? [/QUOTE] Disclaimer: I do not ascribe to any name-brand religions. Short answer: I don’t really know. “Absence of God” probably implies different things to me than it does to you (or, for that matter, to most theistic people), although this board really is a special and different place. I know the conventional image is that folks with religious beliefs ascribe to a set of “moral rules” or “moral values” and confine their behaviors accordingly in a way that has more to do with “obedience to a god who punishes the disobedient” than with “what is inherently right and how shall you live to make your life meaningful and rich and fulfilling etc”; that conventional image is one I’ve encountered among the religious themselves and among atheists and agnostics who wonder at the religious for being so intimidated by a tyrannical entity the existence of whom they find less than compellingly demonstrated. The best “translation into the atheist” I can give would run kind of like this: If you woke up tomorrow totally convinced that every value, belief, priority, and principle you previously ascribed to, _and every possible alternative for that matter_, was totally arbitrary —that not one single jot of any of it was “good” in any meaningful way, none of it defensible from logic, first principles, appeal to anything such that the appealing to didn’t itself seem totally random and arbitrary, such that no moral position or human behavior seemed to you to be in any shape way fashion or form any worse or any better than any other…if everything from the most reductionistic of nerve-ending pleasures to the most abstract sense of happiness felt to you like bait, manipulation, conditioned response, indoctrinated ideological content, etc, and you despaired of anything ever again allowing you to feel like more than a pathetic blob of autonomic nerve tissue… Would your set of morals change? Would your behavior change? If so, how? Best answer I can give you is that I would not _have_ a set of morals (pretty much by definition, see above, nothing would matter). My behavior, similarly, would not matter, but I’m not sure how I would behave…I’d probably sit around bleakly for awhile and then shoot myself, but I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634/56 "2006-09-06T15:36:59Z")
As a recently ex-Catholic, I still believe in the same basic morals, but I have a harder time adhering to some, and an easier time following others. I believed because I thought the religion supported the morals I already had, not the other way around. In most ways, I still think this. My behavior and feelings have changed, because I no longer believe God wants me to destroy myself to please him. That’s made a difference, all right. I can’t say I woke up and stopped believing in God (I’m not sure, now) but losing faith in his Church is a fairly similar experience. It was never easy, but I always had that absolute certainty that it would be all right in the end. I no longer believe that, and it’s hard to lose it, but it’s also helped me in many ways. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-to-all-of-you-believers/370634.md?page=2)