A World With No 'higher' Moral Or Ethical Authority

Great Debates
61

posted by ** Marley23**

That’s a myth. Choosing where to place your faith requires intelligence. Those informed and uninformed guesses often determine ones survivability, and standard of living etc. Maintaining a faith or belief often but not always takes the same intelligence. It is only when the belief is proven right or wrong that it can be determined if it was stupid or intelligent hold it.

“Does god exist” ….is up for grabs. It may well be that atheists and agnostic are the most insensitive, least evolved and primitive people on the planet in terms of “self” knowledge. Who knows? (generally speaking that is, as most theists are wrong)

What you believe in determines to large extent what you take your “self” to be. Where you place you faith defines you, and if that isn’t an indication of intelligence what is?

Quite often one has to keep wondering to maintain (or abandon) the belief. Generally speaking “Believing” is an on going process.

Yes, the original cliche is, “There are no atheists in foxholes”……….but in terms of the laurie’s OP we would all be either agnostics or atheists in foxholes and otherwise. That’s why I think the OP is confusing etc; there’s no one walking around saying “I believe in god”…… but there are many saying “I believe god does not exist”, or” I don’t know if god exists or not”…meaning humans still retain the concept of gods and higher powers.

Well without the concept of gods etc. there would be no agnostic, atheists, deists or theists. The words wouldn’t exist with their current reference, they wouldn’t mean what they mean now.

And I agree with your last sentence above.

62

posted by ** Marley23**

That’s a myth. Choosing where to place your faith requires intelligence. Those informed and uninformed guesses often determine ones survivability, and standard of living etc. Maintaining a faith or belief often but not always takes the same intelligence. It is only when the belief is proven right or wrong that it can be determined if it was stupid or intelligent hold it.

“Does god exist” ….is up for grabs. It may well be that atheists and agnostic are the most insensitive, least evolved and primitive people on the planet in terms of “self” knowledge. Who knows? (generally speaking that is, as most theists are wrong)

What you believe in determines to large extent what you take your “self” to be. Where you place you faith defines you, and if that isn’t an indication of intelligence what is?

Quite often one has to keep wondering to maintain (or abandon) the belief. Generally speaking “Believing” is an on going process.

Yes, the original cliche is, “There are no atheists in foxholes”……….but in terms of the laurie’s OP we would all be either agnostics or atheists in foxholes and otherwise. That’s why I think the OP is confusing etc; there’s no one walking around saying “I believe in god”…… but there are many saying “I believe god does not exist”, or” I don’t know if god exists or not”…meaning humans still retain the concept of gods and higher powers.

Well without the concept of gods etc. there would be no agnostic, atheists, deists or theists. The words wouldn’t exist with their current reference, they wouldn’t mean what they mean now.

And I agree with your last sentence above.

63

posted by ** blowero*

As I mentioned to ** Marley23** faith requires intelligence. If humans lost or never had the capacity to believe in a god or higher power they would be “less” then they are now, actually they would be less human. In fact the OP is rather an insane scenario since we cannot live without believing in many things. Knowledge is sparse. If “beliefs” exist and we have the concept of “gods’ and higher powers etc. how could at least some of us not extend our beliefs in that direction?

If we did not possess the concept of god or no human believed in god would there be less to wonder about?

Well we have to believe in some ‘thing’, and since it is our nature to wonder, imagine, speculate and posit as many possibilities that can be thought of, I don’t see how our ‘wondering’ can be stopped at the god concept, if we have it. Some humans will believe in some of those speculations.

64

I don’t see why a morality based on a God or gods is more or less arbitrary than any other. Some people give money to charity and volunteer their time helping the homeless/illiterate/elderly/sick because they believe God wants them to. Other people kill abortion doctors because they believe God wants them to. Some people stop taking drugs or committing crime because they think that’s what God wants, and others drive planes into skyscrapers for the same reason.

The problem with postulating the existence of a higher moral authority is that people are still going to disagree about what this entity wants. How are we supposed to know? Because of what is written in a book? Which book do we choose? The Torah? The New Testament? The Koran? The Vedas? The Avesta? And then, how do we interpret this book? How, finally, do we construe a sentence as simple as, “Thou shalt not kill.” Does this include the death penalty? Does it include fetuses, or, for woman who use IUDs, 3-day old zygotes which are nothing but a tiny ball of cells? All we really know about this alleged higher force is that, whatever he/she/it/they wants, it sure ain’t telling.

Perhaps there is an intellectual difference between saying that one action is absolutely right and another is absolutely wrong, though we cannot be sure which is which, and saying that nothing is absolutely right or wrong, that we arrive at a definition of morality based on shared values. I cannot see any functional difference.

65

Iamthat:

And I voiced my disagreement with that assessment before you even posted it. What is intelligent about faith? What is unintelligent about skepticism?

That capacity is probably biologically based, so maybe there’s some sense in what you’re saying here. Then again, the OP said nothing about “losing” any kind of capability. I don’t see why I’m not capable of believing in god; I just don’t. He’s asking what would happen if people stopped believing, not if they were unable to believe.

In fact, it’s irrelevant to the question if we “cannot live without believing in many things,” false as I think that comment is. This thread is about one particular thing to believe in: god. As far as knowledge being sparse goes, my experience is that often, knowledge is sparsest when there’s a lot of belief around.

You haven’t explained why men in the sky are a valid basis for morality, or answered any of the other questions I asked in that post.

The ‘golden rule,’ for example, strikes me as an entirely rational basis. If I do not hurt you, you should not hurt me- because if you do hurt me, you will get the same in return. What’s irrational about that? Especially in comparison to something like “god, who is immune from right and wrong, says that you should do this because it is right- even though since he is the source of all morality, he could decide that it is wrong tomorrow.” Nevermind that it hasn’t been proven by any stretch that god exists, either by you or anyone else - is a morality based on a fiction ever sound?

66

I believe I live in a world, as the OP title states, there “no ‘higher’ moral or ethical authority” where the higher authority is defined as any type of divinity. That some people need to invent a divinity to explain what occurs around them and to define an inherent moral compass that exists in the vast majority of the population is a personal choice.

I find it highly insulting for someone who has invented a divinity to tell me that simply because I don’t need such an invention that I am not morally obligated not to kill, maim, rape and kick puppies. To throw the insult back at you (collective), I find anyone who NEEDS a divinity to justify moral actions to be morally bankrupt and driven only by fear.

67

Yes, it is unproven. That’s why I began by stating that Einstein is not the final authority, and that I was quoting him because he expressed the concept well. Maybe you missed that part of my post.

Nevertheless, there is a rational basis. Not hurting others is the basis of morality, even if you use a story from mythology to illustrate it. It may well be that not hurting others isn’t enough of a basis for some; it may be that some truly want to hurt others and without a promise of heaven and a threat of hell, they can’t stop themselves. (Apparently, they can’t stop themselves anyway.) It may be that some aren’t able to consider the long-term consequences of their actions, and therefore need a rulebook to follow. But this is not more rational than simply recognizing the value of not hurting others–quite the opposite.

You say that without God, moraity is arbitrary. With or without God, morality is not absolute, but “arbitrary” isn’t the right word. Morality without God is based on what’s good for humans, not on a list of rules handed down but never explained. It is far less arbitrary than the “because God said so” method.

**

Actually, you’re the one with the emporer. That old fable applies perfectly to your position; I don’t see what it has to do with ours.

68

The question was, “Does [not believing in God] eliminate some aspects of human intelligence?”

While I suppose faith does require intelligence in the sense that a person with no intelligence to speak of would not be able to survive, let alone have faith in anything, believing in God (or Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy) does not require MORE intelligence than not believing in these things. Therefore, I repeat that I don’t see how not believing in God “eliminates some aspects of human intelligence”.

But it doesn’t require any more intelligence than any other arbitrary choice, like whether you’re going to have turkey or tuna for lunch. The very definition of faith is that one believes something without evidence or reasoning.

Well now this makes no sense at all. If a person hazards a random guess at something which required no particular amount of insight, he is not vindicated if events just happen to turn out in his favor. He would simply be lucky. If I decide to hit a golf ball the wrong direction, and it just happens to bounce off a tree and go in the hole, it doesn’t retroactively make my decision a good one.

You seem to be implying that atheists are less human than theists. I find that offensive.

Nope.

Why?

69

** Marley23**

It takes faith to fly to the moon.

I have said nothing about skepticism.

As I think I have indicated, I’m not sure what is being asked by laurie, the thread originator.

Our whole existence is pretty much based on beliefs, assumptions and speculations etc. even though most imagine other wise.

70

It does? I thought it took a shuttle. Flying to the moon - assuming this is supposed to be a literal example - requires knowledge. It requires knowledge of the laws of physics, of how to construct a shuttle (materials, etc.), and a wide variety of other things. I’m not sure how faith enters into it.

No, but since you said faith requires intelligence. I was asking if you felt the converse was true- does a lack of faith require a lack of intelligence? You seemed to imply it.

This is a pretty good example of belief/assumption/speculation, since you provide nothing to back up this assertion.

71

** blowero**

That’s it, Faith requires intelligence .

"Does [not believing in God] eliminate some aspects of human intelligence?"
It eliminates a portion of the extent and breath of our belief system and where those lost beliefs may have led. Is that a loss of intelligence?

If we could not place our faith in technology etc. we would not have gone to the moon. Placing our faith in technology and our ability to learn etc., is a form of tool (as in capacity) that furthers and develops human potential. Having that ‘tool’ is a valued aspect of our intelligence.

The issue is not that it requires ‘more’ intelligence but that choosing where to place your faith requires intelligence.

Yes, however it is often back up by reasoning. It takes a lot of reflection and pondering before many will place their faith or choose to believe in a god. For many it’s not just a willy nilly unthinking process.

Taking a chance and being successful is good, no?

You chose to take a chance.

We are talking about humans as a whole, the entire human race stops believing. And as such we are taking about the capacity of humans to believe, and in particular to believe in a god or higher power or whatever. Obviously atheists have the capacity as we all do.

Why not?

In lieu of a lack of knowledge we have to settle for believing. If we could not believe we could not exist as we currently do.

72

So not believing in any given concept is also a loss of intelligence, right? If I don’t wonder if the tooth fairy is real, I lose the portion of my belief system where that belief may have lead.

I see absolutely no connection to the question at hand here. And I don’t think one puts one’s faith in technology the same way one puts faith in god. The technology involved in going to the moon was tested extensively, and the trip was planned in great detail for years. While something can always go wrong, if everything goes according to plan, it was going to work. I don’t see any of that applying to faith.

73

So where does the bible say you can’t torture puppies or enslave women?
Your idea that YHW is the ultimate ‘standard’ to validate morals is as arbitrary as using Allah or any other God or indeed the welfare of the proletariat. Morals are social constructs. We have morals against stealing and killing because they are workable and sensible. Not because a god ordained them. As long as morals are enforced, they work. Telling they come from God only helps with the enforcement and justification bit.

Let me replace that with another one.
Shodan, do you like to fart in public?
No?
What is it exactly that keeps you from farting in public?
Maybe just the sense that ‘It is not done’?
Whether you call it morals, ethics or etiquette that is how it works. From childhood we are imprinted by our social enviroment how to behave and how not to behave.
That’s all

74

We have faith that technology works? No, we use technology when it does work. Not one scientific method or piece of equipment is used in our space program on the basis of faith.

75

And 'round we go again.

Your rationally based argument in favor of the Golden Rule is just as circular as the most hidebound fundamentalist.

The fundamentalist argues that morality is whatever the Bible says it is. If you ask him how he knows that the Bible is valid, he responds, “Because the Bible says so”.

Atheists argue that the Golden Rule is moral, because it argues against hurting people. If you ask why hurting people is immoral, they say “Because it is against the Golden Rule”.

But to answer your question, no, a morality based on a fiction is never sound. Therefore, assuming that there is no God, all morality is based on fiction, and is therefore unsound. Q.E.D.

Same objection. An unproven assertion is not a rational basis, unless you will grant that fundamentalists asserting that the Bible is the basis for all morality is a rational assertion.

OK, so Einstein is not the final authority. Neither is anyone else, unless you can come up with proof that whatever you base your morality upon can be proven. No proof seems to be forthcoming for any non-theistic basis for morality - just the restatement of the proposition, and attempts to change the subject or restate the proposition in increasingly vehement terms.

Or circular arguments. “Morality is what works.” “How do you know that ‘what works’ is moral?” “Because it works.”

Don’t know about human intelligence. It does seem to reduce atheists to arguing in circles.

Regards,
Shodan

76

Shodan, this sentient being, “God,” that you posit, where did it get its morality from, circular argument man?

77

Uh, no; that’s not what I would say. I’ve never heard an atheist argue that the Golden Rule should be followed because it’s the Golden rule. Have you, honestly? I would say that the Golden Rule is a succinct way of stating the intuitively obvious: Hurting each other is bad.

**

You do go on and on with this “unproven assertion” bit, don’t you? You need proof that hurting each other is bad? Do you insist so strongly on proof of the God on which your morality is based?

**

As opposed to all the proof you are offering for your mythology-based morality?

I’m curious about your response, if any, to what I said earlier: that morality is based on not hurting people, whether the justification is religious or not. Not absolute, of course, but what exactly do you find irrational about it?

By the way, if I have, as you suggest, attempted to change the subject or expressed myself too vehemently, I sincerely apologize. For my education, I’ll ask you to point out where I have done this, and I promise I’ll do my best to rectify the situation.

78

You seem confused about what is being argued.

The position is not ‘it is Morality if it works’. But if a form of social behaviour works it can become amoral.

“How do you know that ‘what works’ is moral?” is rather a weird question.
Are you asking ‘how do you know a moral is moral’?
In that case you are still wanting to test it to some form of a higher moral. But the premise is that there are no higher morals.

If a culture has a certain moral then, obviously, it is moral (to them). If you don’t share that moral it’s immoral ,or just weird(to you).

79

Nope. This is precisely the spot on the track where your train of thought is derailing.

The first part, regarding divine morality, you’ve captured pretty succinctly. “Golden Rule morality”, though, if we may continue to dub it in that way, feels no need to double back upon itself for justification or validation. It just flowed, in a linear style, from the earliest social conventions that proved advantageous to complex groups as we evolved into more and more social animals. It’s self-evident that going around inflicting pain on each other, totally free of consequences, wouldn’t be in the best interest of “the tribe” – any tribe.

You’ve rearranged (and misrepresented) the fragments of what you define as the atheist’s reasoning process to turn it into a circle, but your attempt to show equivalency between them comes up lame.

Firstly, atheists don’t argue that “the Golden Rule is moral, because it argues against hurting people.” Your model seems to place the Golden Rule in an a priori role, as if it existed before we determined it was a suitable role model and then “adopted it.” As if… it were the bible or something. :smiley: You’ve got your sequence wrong, there. We (as social animals) somehow figured out, on our own, that it’s in the best interests of the group to somehow reign in the extremes of harmful behaviors committed by individuals. The “argument against hurting people” just came to came to be accepted as a worthwhile idea-- an idea that was (much) later expressed in written form as the “Golden Rule.” The Golden Rule is “moral” only in that is summarizes behavior we’ve already determined to be beneficial to the group. Moral behavior doesn’t “flow from” the Golden Rule as if it were a source, but rather grew into a socially accepted norm that if, reduced to a soundbite, would sound like the Golden Rule.

Secondly, I doubt that most atheists would answer that the reason “why hurting people is immoral” is because it goes against the Golden Rule. Nice transference there, to try to impose the same rigid authority bestowed on the bible to the Golden Rule, as if it were more than just a children’s nursery rhyme, but it doesn’t fly. Hurting people is “immoral” not because it violates the Golden Rule, but rather that it violates a code of behavior we’ve accepted as beneficial to society… a code that may be encapsulated in the Golden Rule, but not one that springs FROM it.

The fact that you’ve taken a logical, linear concept and temporarily bent it into a circle, to triumphantly show us it’s no better than its counterpart, proves nothing. Let go of it, and you’ll see that it springs right back, free of your artifical pressure, into a straight line of logical (and evolutionary) progression.

A question, Shodan (although given your squirming around the issue of why it would be inappropriate for someone to decide to kill you, based on the “nothingness” of a morality not devinely inspired, I’m not exactly anticipating a direct answer):

Assuming that divine morality is the only “valid” or meaningful one, why is it that no real uniformity exists in it’s interpretation? The range of “God-inspired” actions seen as acceptable or justifiable runs the entire gamut of human behavior. It’s moral to shoot abortionists-- or steer an airliner into a skyscraper–as long as you think your God wanted you to. Other believers, in that very same god, believe fervently that those actions are totally wrong… and represent a total rejection of said god’s wishes. Whence the confusion in your… perfect system?

80

Well that’s a rather mundane point. By that reasoning, taking a shit requires intelligence. So what?

No; belief is not equivalent to intelligence.

I disagree. It is precisely the fact that we do NOT place faith in technology that has allowed us to develop it. None of the steps that led to going to the moon would have been possible without extensive testing and application of the scientific method. This REQUIRES suspension of belief. Think about it - if I invent something, and simply have “faith” that it will work, without testing it, I won’t get anywhere. The reason astronauts were able to trust that rockets would get them to the moon and back was because they knew the rigorous steps that were taken to ensure that it would work.

As a contrast, the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult attempted to travel to space through belief alone, and were tragically disappointed.

No, that was NOT the issue; you just changed it. To make a choice requires information. Choosing is not an act of faith, but rather is an act of reasoning.

No, faith and reason are mutually exclusive by definition. Where one exists, the other does not. To the extent that one reasons the existence of God, he is not using faith. However, I personally have never heard a valid line of reasoning that would tend to prove the existence of God. The type of “reflection and pondering” that leads to God-belief is more akin to meditation than it is to reasoning.

Yes, but only after the fact. If the good outcome is completely happenstance, it does not retroactively make the decision that led to it valid. “Taking a chance” is not the same thing as making a completely arbitrary decision. The former is actually an assessment of the risk vs. the probable outcome. The latter is not. C’mon, do you really not understand that, or are you just playing games?

Absolutely not. If we don’t know the answer to a question, what’s wrong with the answer “We don’t know”? Why do we have to “make up” an answer?

That’s trivially obvious. This whole debate is about how things would be different if nobody believed in God. I think we’ve already conceded that our existence would be different. That doesn’t prove it better or worse, though.