No. The difference between this an my example is that I showed a reason for eating children (gourmet, a luxury item.) You have given me nothing to measure this event against to complete the equation.
Doing it just for fun would be inherently evil.
Doing it as the best chance of stopping a greater evil would not be.
You’ve completed the equation and shown me the cause for the action, so I can answer conclusively, yes.
Simple belief is not enough to justify such an act.
No. I’ll borrow an explanation from a better source. There is one interesting theory about this parable that Abraham was not only being tested by God, but also testing God to see if he was worth worshipping, and that he was the one true God.
Having read this post, i’m thinking we actually agree on quite a lot - we just differ in our reasons for believing what we do.
Sorry, I just couldn’t think of an example of an “evil” God at the time.
Hmm. Possibly. Let’s say that Mumbo Jumbo creates the universe, and as he believes headhunting is moral then, in the universe, headhunting is part of an objective moral standard. In this case, yes, within the universe that is moral.
The problems come when you look at Mumbo Jumbo himself. He believes headhunting is moral. Isn’t this, too, a subjective belief? Let’s say that MJ is omniscient - that he knows all, and sees all. Still, his belief is subjective - while he knows all, he takes that information and interprets it himself. Thus, within the plane of existence that Mumbo Jumbo lives on, headhunting may not be overarchingly moral - it is still a subjective belief on his part, godly though he may be.
Possibly. To do this, he’d also have to believe that 1) It is moral to help people and 2) He should help people discover this truth. In addition, it is required that Mumbo Jumbo follows his own moral code - just as I am sure you have broken your code at times, as I have mine, it is possible that a deity would also have the choice to break theirs - indeed, as they omnipotent, they always have that choice.
If he also follows the rules above, yes. Also, the people would need to be of sufficient brain power/sapience in order to be able to discern that morality.
True. And I do not argue against your beliefs - For all I know, they could be entirely correct. I’m just trying to point out why I, and other athiests/agnostics similar to me, believe what we believe, and why we act in what the majority morality would describe as a “good” way and don’t just rape and pillage all the time.
I’m still interested, by the way, in your answer to the question a few of us have posed: if your God appeared and told everyone that for one day, all sinning was morally good, and after that day the actions you committed would be judged as they were on that day (i.e. raping on that one day would still count as a moral act in the days after) would you go out and rape and pillage and so on?
Well, not really. I maybe stated my position poorly. It wouldn’t be that MJ thinks subjectively that headhunting is moral, that would just be the universe that he created. For example, had he created a universe where we evolved into praying mantises and our mates needed to eat our heads to provide the fuel for the reproductive cycle than headhunting would be moral. Since that kind of universe wasn’t created (or another one that makes it moral wasn’t) than it’s not.
I’m not sure humanity’s moral codes would apply to a creator/omniscient/omnipotent God. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t, so I doubt this argument.
I think that sapience is a prerequisite of morality. Without it, we’re like praying mantises acting instinctually and are beneath (or above) morality. We follow instinct.
Ok.
I understand you’re asking this question as an allegory or hypothetical, but to answer it literally my response to such an event would be to assume that I had gone insane or were hallucinating.
His words would be at odds with the discernable moral code of my existance as I’ve come to understand it, and the best explanation for the discrepancy would be that I’ve gone bonkers.
I would not trust my own mind in this. I think that God would communicate to me through the nature of the universe and that if the moral laws changed God would change the universe to reflect them so that they were apparent rather than by magically appearing and issuing off the wall edicts.
But to answer your question as I think you meant it. I’d spend the day protecting my family from all the moral dogooders who were going to try to rape or pillage them rather than doing any raping or pillaging on my own.
I’m not sure what you’re saying, here. Well, it seems clear to me, but I must not be understanding you fully. Surely a deity has opinions and beliefs itself, and thus the universe created by it would follow those beliefs? Unless the deity is such a being that it cannot be wrong - however, in this case, it means it is also subject to an objective - that “This deity cannot be wrong”. As such, it would not be omnipotent.
Why wouldn’t they? Is a creation deity not a sapient being? By all logic, it must be. Does a creation deity have opinions? Looking in the bible, we are able to see that the christian God certainly has opinions. Does a deity act on those opinions? Again, looking at the bible - the cGod certainly does. Is a deity constrained by those moral codes? No, logically, it cannot be - omnipotence means that there can be no constraints on that deity. All of these things are equally applicable to humans - sapience, opinion formation, action based on those opinions, ability to act contrary to those opinions. What makes you say that a God would not have moral codes, similar to humanity? And, if it did, then logically it too would have to believe ( or know, being a deity) that certain actions are “moral”.
Hmm. I’ll agree with this.
I do see what you mean - you beliefs state that your God would not do such a thing - that such a thing would be antithetical to his very nature. Understandably, if such a thing happened you would assume that the problem was on your end, rather than his. I imagine I would too, were I in your shoes.
Why? It would be immoral. Without a deity’s consent or directive, the only reason you’d have for acting this way would be love of your family - and this is what athiests believe and act upon. Imagine, that instead of God delivering this edict, he does not exist, as athiests believe. Why does the world not go to pot? Because “we have love for our family”, to simplify it down to a basic point. Your hypothetical actions on this day of sin show that you yourself would act as you think moral, even if (by some impossibility) your God himself disagrees. Take God’s existence out of that scenario - and bang, that’s how many athiests think.
Well, atheism doesn’t have a standard doctrine with regard to anything other than the non-existence of God, so it’s impossible to say “atheists believe X about Y”. That’s yet another example of how atheism is not a religion. Actual religions are collections of interrelated beliefs, not isolated opinions. Believing that breaking a mirror causes seven years bad luck is not a religion.
But you’re asking how atheists construct their morality. I can’t speak for all atheists, only myself, but I’ll try to answer your question.
Morality is a human construct. If there were no humans, morality would cease to exist. It has no existence apart from what humans imagine it to be. So from that perspective there is no absolute moral standard that I can point to and say “this is a universal absolute”.
My personal sense of morality is grounded within my intuitive sense of right and wrong. Partially this intuitive sense is the result of my natural human moral instincts and partially it’s the result of basic moral precepts that were imprinted on me by my parents when I was very young. Where exactly one leaves off and the other begins is hard to say. My parents never had to teach me that cannibalism is wrong – I suspect that’s hardwired into my brain. On the other hand I doubt human beings evolved to explicitly believe that it’s important to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions – that’s probably a rule my parents taught me.
An important thing to realize though is that these internal moral rules are not subject to change by whim. I can’t will myself to stop believing that stealing is wrong. The only way I can get around these rules that I carry inside me is to rationalize: “This isn’t stealing because the hotel expects guests to take towels home with them.” So, even though my internal morality is entirely subjective, it feels objective to me. I carry around within me my own set of moral absolutes. I know rationally that they are arbitrary, but in my gut they feel like eternal truths. My adult morality is then built upon these foundational precepts through a combination of reasoning and utilitarianism.
Community morality is then constructed by consensus. Ted Bundy may have felt that he was acting morally when he murdered. I say he wasn’t. Which one of us is right? How is an impartial judge to pick between our two positions? The answer is that impartial judges doesn’t exist. Anyone asked to judge must use his own moral sense to decide which of us is correct. And consensus says I am.
In short – I don’t know that Ted Bundy was evil because the community tells me so. I know he was evil because that’s what my heart tells me. And because most people in the community agree with me “Ted Bundy was evil” exists as a social fact and not just my personal opinion.
I won’t try and address your rather odd view of godless morality (it is derived from human brains, and majoritarianism is used only to decide its implementation), but you are wrong about cosmology.
The Big Bang has always existed. It was never created, and there was and is no creation. There was never a nothing-to-something transition. By definition, there is no such thing as before it. It is not strictly even an “event”, but a “location”. You must divest yourself of your everyday temporal intuition.
I’ll buy that, in a strictly logical sense. Although those making such arguments are unlikely to be around for long!
But the point is our subjective, personal morality isn’t entirely arbitary, any more than our aesthetic or food preferences are entirely arbitrary. We have built-in, evolved drives that contribute to our survival. Simple stuff like the pain of hunger, or the discomfort of being too hot or too cold. The pains of empathy and guilt have evolved with us, as has the pleasure of friendship, the pleasure of status/respect, the pain of disesteem. These are biological contributors to our subjective moralities.
Likewise, the consensus moralities of societies also literally evolve, “productive” moral codes causing societies or parts of societies to flourish in comparison with “destructive” moral codes. Societies tend to impart their values to their members. So there is also a socialisation contribution to most people’s subjective moralities.
The biological drives that influence our personal moralities are vastly more complicated than those that influence our food preferences. In part they are conflicting - we need empathy to work effectively in groups, but we need callousness and xenophobia when our group has to compete with another group for a scarce resource. (Think about the apemen and the water hole at the start of 2001: A Space Odessey. If there’s not enough water for both groups, one has to drive the other away. Empathy is a handicap in war.)
If Dio could not experience empathy, he probably wouldn’t find so much wrong with Hitler’s activities. Our hypothetical person who thinks their species should die out will still be basing that assessment on subjective aesthetics partly derived from his biology. Perhaps he is over-empathising/identifying with other species, like some animal rights activists. Perhaps his evolved capacity for xenophobia has overextended to encompass all others in his species. However, it is certain that his subjective morality isn’t totally arbitrary (i.e. random).
matt - I agree. Subjective, yes, random, no - our viewpoints and moral standards are due to many things, biological processes “left over” from evolution (and ones that still matter today), the way we were raised, and the cultures we live in (among other things) contribute to them. I’m just arguing that our viewpoints and moral standards are not derived from a deity.
I agree with this, but how does Mumbo Jumbo render this positive morality evident or discernable?
A morality tale. Lets say Mumbo Jumbo creates a world very much like our own, and makes a lush archipelago where foraging, hunting and fishing is easy, and populates it with people just like us. (Say he copied the designs for humans from Yahweh!) And he decrees that headhunting is moral by writing it in the stars in easily-understood pictograms, and re-inforces it with mass dream communication once per week.
Fairly quickly, the humans get angry with Mumbo Jumbo’s ridiculous edict and scorn him. He wipes the lot out with a flood and starts again. This time he equips them with an extra biological drive - deecap. Deecap inflicts a punishment emotion similar to guilt and shame when people don’t take heads, and a pleasure emotion similar to joy when they do. That should fix it, he thinks.
Mumbo Jumbo is then innundated with prayers for forgiveness, because the humans just can’t bring themselves to take the heads of their best friends, lovers, babies etc. He can’t get any peace!
Mumbo Jumbo looks at Yahweh’s designs more closely, and believes he’s spotted the problem. Silly Yahweh left empathy and guilt in there, which conflicts with the deecap he built into them. These stupid emotions get in the way of everything! He erases both empathy and guilt from the human psyche. A few weeks later, there’s only one human left, who took the head of the second-last human. This sole survivor never prays to Mumbo Jumbo, because not having any guilt he doesn’t give a shit what Mumbo Jumbo says and he’s busy having sex with all the headless women corpses before they rot too much…
Mumbo Jumbo starts again. He gives humans their empathy and guilt back, but makes alterations to deecap so that people will at least have children and raise them. The humans just about prosper, although they spend about 80% of their time constructing elaborate means of not getting their heads taken.
But on the south island, a heresy arises! Four humans have decided to dispense with the traditional network of tripwires and booby traps around their huts and instead take it turns to stand guard while the others sleep. They have made a pact not to take each other’s heads even if the opportunity arises! They appear to be carriers of a mutant gene that stunts their deecap…
The time saved by these heretics allows them to forage and hunt more, which means that they can support larger families. Their heretical notions and hereditary weak deecap are passed onto their children. The descendants of the heretics outbreed and out-compete the true headhunters, and when population pressure stretches the resources of the island the heretics wipe out the others.
Mumbo Jumbo is annoyed and starts again, but this time he locks the genetics up so no multations can arise. However, to his surprise, much the same thing happens again! This time, the heretics are using their big old flexible brains to twist his teaching around in their heads. They figure that if by forming non-headhunting pacts with others and co-operating, they can take more heads from outsiders, then they are being moral. Mumbo Jumbo sends them dreams to correct them of this notion. They decide that Mumo Jumbo isn’t the true god but a false one trying to corrupt them, since no true god would be so stupid. (Look up the Manichaeans and their ideas some time.)
Mumbo Jumbo cripples the minds of the humans so that they lack flexibility of thought. They then do what he wants, but in a similar manner to clockwork toys. He soon gets tired of it.
Finally, he realises what he has to do. The problem wasn’t just in the design of the humans, but in the design of his universe! He has to make head-hunting actually practically advantageous, as well as building in biological drives favouring it. He therefore changes the universe so that taking a head grants the taker an instant curing of all diseases, infections and parasites, and settles back to watch. And now the headhunters thrive. The occasional mutant heretics pop up, but the benefits of their co-operation are outweighed by the diseases that afflict them and their mutation soon breeds out.
In short, our environment shapes our morality. A deity can’t create an objective morality that is incompatible with survival in the universe it has created. Not unless said deity is happy to populate his universe with clockwork toys, and keep re-creating them as they die out.
Thank-you for your response. I myself don’t enjoy arguing against large groups of people -unless they are impeccably polite- so I appreciate your effort.
Out of curiosity: while you picked up the obvious reference to Abraham and Isaac, and judged Abe’s actions as not inherently evil, you judged the slightly veiled case of Joshua and Jericho as an inherent evil. Does your opinion change if you are asked specifically about Joshua and Jericho?
I don’t wish to get into an issue by issue, “is this moral” discussion right now. That happens every day in dozens of threads on this forum and every time someone in the world mentions something with approval or disapproval, so…
What are we talking about?
>>>Is it a good idea to actively cultivate a belief in a supernatural being that stands so completely outside human reality that it can suggest rules that are not open to intellectual analysis? (I think that’s what you proposed earlier in this thread).
>>>Or should human cultures just try to instill some variation of “the golden rule” in its members simply because to most people it “seems likes” the right thing to do. (A widely held non-theist viewpoint)
Well, I wouldn’t mind having a supernatural being as my friend, as long as his other followers didn’t feel compelled to force that supernatural being down my throat. So, I can’t go along with Yahweh as the ideal deity to actively cultivate belief in.
Many of his followers believe that we shouldn’t worry about exhausting Earth’s oil and mineral resources and possibly sentencing future generations to life on a worn-out planet. They feel this way because they think Yahweh will be coming back to put an effective end to mankind’s time on Earth. I believe former Secretary of the Interior James Watt felt this way, and that possibly his boss, Ronald Reagan, felt this way.
Many of his followers also actively campaign against birth control and against teaching teenagers the “facts of life.” I feel it’s obvious that an ever increasing population eventually poisons itself, just like yeast in a wine vat eventually ‘poop’ so much alcohol that they poison themselves.
In this thread, several of his followers have advocated changing the definition of “religion” away from what tradition and dictionaries define it as being, so that a simple theological declaration such as “I don’t believe there is a god that meaningful interacts with mankind” qualifies as a full blown Religion. To the best of my comprehension, their reason for wanting to do this is to move the government of the USA further toward having a state-sponsored religion.
I feel those things are all very wrong. That is only my “subjective morality” speaking, but it is speaking --screaming actually-- at the very top of its lungs.
So. Even if I could force feed myself a belief in a deity that I don’t actually believe in, it would not be Yahweh. You deists gotta get busy and come up with a better One. :^)
(Why do I want the next million years of humans to have a planet to live on as good as the one I have, when I believe that the whole universe ends in heat death eventually? Don’t know, but I want it very strongly, and I’ve found that questioning my beliefs to that extreme of degree doesn’t bring me happiness or any truths I find useful.)
Thank you Scylla - I think you have been very articulate and reasonable in your explanation (even if I thought that you were a bit insensitive in your earlier posts). Please see also Pochacco’s post #386 for another perspective on how an atheist may arrive at a moral code.
Just a comment on our 20th century view that all people are endowed with rights - this is a fairly new concept in the histoy of the human species. It’s only been recently that enough like-minded people have gotten together to form societies with this as an ideal, and of course we’ve still not achieved this condition in practice. Irrespective for the moment of where the teaching and philosophy of inalienable equality originated, one would have received at best a blank stare if one were to try to explain that concept to someone (virtually anyone) several hundred years ago; at worst I imagine one might be looked on as a lunatic or a subversive.
I think it’s telling that theistic and atheistic morality systems alike, up until fairly recently in history, have concluded that in fact there is inherant inequality among people - certainly this is the case when examining widespread societal practices, however much an ethical doctrine may have taught against it. From the luxury of our current vantage point, we can see how a moral and ethical system that recognizes equality may be judged superior to one that does not - where I consider superiority here in the sense of delivering to each the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Before one tries to say that a sociopath isn’t allowed to pursue their happiness, note of course how this would conflict with the recognized rights of many others. And it’s not just the morality of the majority, since one of our principles is to seek the protection of the rights of the minority.)
I guess what I was trying to communicate with this was that even an appeal to an absolute objective authority for the establishment of a moral code can result in a system with inherent inequality, and in fact has repeatability. It is an unprecedented triumph that enough like-minded people have come together to form societies with the stated goals of ensuring equality for all, and I certainly am delighted to be a member of such a one. BTW, this is the beauty of what I understand of the teachings of Christ - I don’t think one needs to believe that he was divine to appreciate his message or be grateful for that philosophical legacy.
BTW, slight hijack, but for those opposed to torturing political enemies, one factor in that opposition must certainly be how this conflicts with the moral precepts under which we choose to organize our society and live our lives.
Oy vey, let’s not head down this path again. Anybody who reads the news is a traitor who hates America, didn’t you know? Just smile and back away slowly.
My name is not Shirley, and a supreme being need not have opinions and beliefs. Omniscience would suggest otherwise. There is no need for an opinion when you know everything. There is no need for beleif when you know everything. As for the deity being wrong conundrum, Christianity has this solved with the Trinity. God made man could have failings as when Jesus threw the money lenders tables (losing his temper,) and had his moment (as Jagger puts it) of “doubt and pain.”
I’m not one of those guys who takes everything the Bible has to say literally, but I’m not really sure that the Christian God has opinions so much as he’s giving direction to humanity.
Well, it’s good to know that neither of us are likely to end up in the news as having kidnapped Jodi Foster because God told us to.
Well. I was trying to answer your question. I don’t really beleive that such a thing is in the nature of a supreme being to do. I wouldn’t think God would go around issuing edicts. Why should he? If God doesn’t want you to go faster than 100mph all he has to do is change the speed of light. I think a God that went around issuing one day moral reversals wouldn’t be much of a God.
I understand that you don’t beleive in a supreme being, but let us agree that the God you don’t beleive in is a kind and wise and competant God instead of the arbitrary and incompetant yahoo you suggest.
Pochacco
No problemo.
Ok, it looks like you’re in a modified morality by consensus school of thought. Thanks.
Sentientmeat
You realize of course that this argument is simply exclusion by definition. By definition the universe started with the Big Bang and expanded at the speed of light. By definition there is nothing before nor beyond that.
I understand the argument completely, but it’s somewhat disingenuous as well (not that you’re being disingenuous, the people that thought it up were)
For example, let us say that somewhere far beyond our universe was another Big Bang. That is an alternate universe as there can be no communication or knowledge of it. Except there can be. Given enough time the two universe’s expanding at the speed of light will intersect and they can intersect.
Similarly, try this thought experiment. I create my own universe bubble and travel backwards in time (like HG Wells’) time machine. I watch the world run in reverse faster and faster. I move in space as well and eventually get to the Big Bang event. If I keep going suddenly there is no universe outside of my own. Right?
But, let’s say in my time machine I go to one hour my time before the Big Bang. I throw my pocket watch outside of my time machine, and wait.
It runs for one hour and then the Big Bang happens.
Saying there is no time or space or universe before the Big Bang is true, but it’s also misleading. There are none of these things because nothing exists. So, it’s true by definition.
But, positing my time machine, there’s nothing stopping me from going an hour before the Big Bang since I would exist to do it. See?
Matt:
That is a good story, but the Mumbo Jumbo of your story is not a Supreme Being. He’s incompetant, a yahoo. You’ve anthropomorphized (sp?) his Godhood away. A supreme being wouldn’t need multiple attempts. He’d get it right and seemless the first time being omniscient and omnipotent. Bal
Nope. The God of that story is something of a Dick, isn’t he?
Well, I agree. Any Bible literalist is going to be either extremely stupid, extremely confused, or schzophrenic.
I simply assume that the Bible is inspired by God, and man, as usual puts his failings into it.
Schuyler
Not really. While we humans have indeed been a shitty bunch, there’s been enlightened thought for quite some time. Slavery had strong objectors in the 1600’s and even in ancient times there were those who’se writings show that they feel that it is clearly wrong.
People have known or felt it was wrong for as long as we’ve had it. The problem is that other didn’t, and, I guess, still don’t.
I think the idea that we are becoming a gradually enlightened morally evolving species is unfortunately false.
We’ve been fucking up the same way since recorded history began and we’ve been aware of it just as long.
Sure. Believing that an absolute moral code exists and figuring it and following it are three different things.
Is it possible that the idea of equal rights is tied into a prosperous market economy? One certainly sees that places like Sweden have egalitarian societies, while the Middle east and Africa are still very hierarchical. Maybe there is something about a less developed economy based on farming or herding that requires there be inequality. You can see it in the US. The south had a more agrarian, less developed economy and maintained sleavery longer than other parts of the country. Even today you see more individual rights (gay marriage, woman’s rights) in the more prosperous part of the US.
So, this thread has wandered far into an interesting topic, but… is there anyone actively claiming that the type of atheism that is claimed by most “atheists” on the board, which is (with some variation) “I don’t believe in God, and in fact believe that if someone claims that God exists the burder of proof falls on THEM, but do not claim that I know with certainty that there is no God, as that is logically very difficult to prove”, is “a religion”?
As long as the figuring it out part is impossible (and it is) then it’s also impossile to follow it.
By the way, even the existence of God would not bring about the existence of an objective morality. God’s morality would still be just as subjective as anyone else’s.
Please see also Pochacco’s post