# Fellow atheists: help me explain to believers that our morality is NOT faith based. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 7, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684 "2014-10-07T20:35:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/121 "2014-10-09T09:58:53Z")
I think that the premise of the question is somewhat flawed. It assumes that it can be explained to believers that a certain morality is NOT faith based - In my experience, this is not possible. Many believers will even twist truths to fit into their beliefs. As an atheist, my advise will be to let go of this compulsion to explain to others and look inside to discover yourself. Full disclosure : I was born in an Hindu family, went to Catholic school and have a good understanding of most faiths. I do not identify myself with any one religion and am partly atheist. I believe in the Vedic statement - “Tut Twam Asi” - which in my interpretation means, you are who you think you are. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/122 "2014-10-09T23:21:09Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Wildfires - google it. > That’s why I said evidence, not proof. I was just pointing out that it’s circumstantial evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/123 "2014-10-10T14:24:00Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Sorry to harp on John Symonds, but I wanted to clarify just how his observations/opinions are directly relevant to the OP’s question: > > It’s likely that, someday pretty soon, _even computers_ are going to have to pick some “moral code” and stick with it. So, on some level, there is no real difference between the “purpose” of a piece of software and the “purpose” of a human life. Once computers can design themselves without our help, this equivalency will be clearer. > > Few people would define “religion” in a way that could ever include computers. Therefore, religion is not necessary for having a moral code. It’s just a set of rules, a template to guide behavior, which _must_ exist, for man, beast, or machine. > > What are the _specific_ rules, and should we expect them to be different among atheists versus among theists? You folks are well along in this discussion, but the general answer to the latter question is “no.” There is no reason to expect a statistically significant difference in the rules among atheists vs. theists. Overall, both will tend to rely on the same sorts of “axioms” to generate rules: do unto others as you would have others do into you; protect the life and health of my immediate family…like you folks have said, _obvious_ stuff that Charles Darwin, Immanuel Kant, Gautama Buddha, and Jesus Christ would have agreed upon, sitting around a table chewing the fat. “Religion” doesn’t really come into the picture at all, any more than “musical preferences” or “haircuts.” I agree with the latter part, but why can’t sufficiently advanced computers be “religious”? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/124 "2014-10-10T16:30:59Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I agree with the latter part, but why can’t sufficiently advanced computers be “religious”? Because they know who their creator is - and are not impressed? BTW guys, as a computer designer, don’t hold your breath waiting for computers to design themselves. On the hardware side probably 90% of what was manually done 30 years ago is now automatically done, but the high level architecture is still humanly created. I don’t know if this counts as computers designing computers or not. We could probably write some tools that starting from some very basic options will design a full computer. There are companies already which accept instruction set definitions and spit out processor designs. They won’t be very interesting, though. But in terms of software we are nowhere close to computers writing their own. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/125 "2014-10-10T18:09:03Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Because they know who their creator is - and are not impressed? > > BTW guys, as a computer designer, don’t hold your breath waiting for computers to design themselves. On the hardware side probably 90% of what was manually done 30 years ago is now automatically done, but the high level architecture is still humanly created. I don’t know if this counts as computers designing computers or not. We could probably write some tools that starting from some very basic options will design a full computer. There are companies already which accept instruction set definitions and spit out processor designs. They won’t be very interesting, though. > But in terms of software we are nowhere close to computers writing their own. Given that the human brain is just a weird computer… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/126 "2014-10-10T18:18:15Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I agree with the latter part, but why can’t sufficiently advanced computers be “religious”? “Has your data been saved?” ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/127 "2014-10-10T18:23:41Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “Has your data been saved?” Jesus died, but then rose and was up-loaded to the cloud. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/128 "2014-10-10T18:35:51Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > Jesus died, but then rose and was up-loaded to the cloud. And if you are willing to pay The Price you can download Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/129 "2014-10-10T19:34:01Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Given that the human brain is just a weird computer… Wait a few billion years … It might happen. Just not in the next 30 - 40 years. And my first AI class was over 40 years ago, so I know how long that is in computer years. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/130 "2014-10-10T19:41:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Wait a few billion years … > > It might happen. Just not in the next 30 - 40 years. And my first AI class was over 40 years ago, so I know how long that is in computer years. The difference is that nature wasn’t trying to deliberate create what we ended up with. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/131 "2014-10-10T20:59:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The difference is that nature wasn’t trying to deliberate create what we ended up with. As far as you know… ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/132 "2014-10-10T21:53:13Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Wait a few billion years … > > It might happen. Just not in the next 30 - 40 years. And my first AI class was over 40 years ago, so I know how long that is in computer years. We know how to create AI. The only two things holding back progress is the lack of hardware good enough to simulate that many neural nodes in a reasonable amount of time, and the fact that no one’s particularly interested in raising an AI from a baby to adulthood over the course of a few decades. Everyone keeps hoping that we can come up with a way to create AI rather than develop it organically. That’s probably impossible until we have at least one non-organic intelligence that we can copy-paste-modify. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/133 "2014-10-10T21:56:49Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > … my first axiom is that the survival of the human species is the highest good … And of course you realize that this is not a universally accepted axiom. Not a few of us are of the opinion that humans have been proven to be pretty vile creatures in general, the only really good reason to advocate for the survival of _h. s. s._ would be in the hope that we can breed out our arrogance and rapacity or (likely) failing that, produce GM’dO successors that are less jerkish. > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > … while my second is that that the minimization of human suffering is the second highest good… It occurs to me that we handle the suffering of “lesser” animals in a specific way that might countervail what you mean here. And that kind of has some relevance to how I, personally, view morality. Codifying a morality is actually kind of immoral. There is so much variance in application that one has to approach nearly everything situationally, which is in fact how morality is applied anyway. Strict adherence to even utilitarian ethics does not work all the time. So, really, undivine morality should typically be _ad hoc_, because that is what isnormal as it is. > [@Voyager](#): > > BTW guys, as a computer designer, don’t hold your breath waiting for computers to design themselves. On the hardware side probably 90% of what was manually done 30 years ago is now automatically done, but the high level architecture is still humanly created. I don’t know if this counts as computers designing computers or not. We could probably write some tools that starting from some very basic options will design a full computer. There are companies already which accept instruction set definitions and spit out processor designs. They won’t be very interesting, though. > But in terms of software we are nowhere close to computers writing their own. Because you are ensnared in the contemporary paradigm. By the end of the next decade, instruction sets, pipelines and architecture in general will be quaint relics of the past, after we move to pure dynamic logic array processing. At that point, hardware design will become mostly irrelevant, improvement in performance will be had by making larger arrays and by streamlining the “hyperware” programming. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/134 "2014-10-10T22:08:44Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Because you are ensnared in the contemporary paradigm. By the end of the next decade, instruction sets, pipelines and architecture in general will be quaint relics of the past, after we move to pure dynamic logic array processing. At that point, hardware design will become mostly irrelevant, improvement in performance will be had by making larger arrays and by streamlining the “hyperware” programming. And you know better than the guy who works in computer design because…? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/135 "2014-10-10T22:16:02Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Because you are ensnared in the contemporary paradigm. By the end of the next decade, instruction sets, pipelines and architecture in general will be quaint relics of the past, after we move to pure dynamic logic array processing. At that point, hardware design will become mostly irrelevant, improvement in performance will be had by making larger arrays and by streamlining the “hyperware” programming. Could you rephrase this in standard techspeak, please? When I googled dynamic logic array the only thing I got was an FPGA patent from 2002. FPGAs and I go way back, including their momma PLDs. Cool stuff, but not likely to do away with normal hardware. You can’t make FPGAs as dense as standard logic. They also can’t be as fast. They are great for relatively low volume products since they do away with the ridiculous cost of a tapeout these days. But high volume stuff, no way. I have no idea what hyperware programming is. The biggest complaint I have about how computers are handled in science fiction is that there is still a tendency to have a big and complex enough computer become aware. Not going to happen. We run simulations on thousands of interconnect computer servers - and the thing is dumb as a brick. It is going to take some fancy programming to get a computer to become aware, and before that a theory of intelligence. I’m betting on brain simulators becoming aware before programmed from scratch systems myself. And if I see a working brain simulator in my lifetime I’ll be surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/136 "2014-10-10T22:21:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The difference is that nature wasn’t trying to deliberate create what we ended up with. Yeah, the 40 years of no progress counts a lot more than the billion years. The stuff Pat Winston talked about in the AI class included chess, the automated solving of complex differential equations, generating directions to go from one place to another, and the recognition of relationships of objects in block worlds. We have all that stuff today. We have a lot more.Watson was beyond imagination then, What we don’t have is a real understanding of intelligence and how to produce it in software. I’m not sure we’ve made any progress at all, if we have it’s been minimal. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/137 "2014-10-10T22:24:44Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > We know how to create AI. The only two things holding back progress is the lack of hardware good enough to simulate that many neural nodes in a reasonable amount of time, and the fact that no one’s particularly interested in raising an AI from a baby to adulthood over the course of a few decades. Everyone keeps hoping that we can come up with a way to create AI rather than develop it organically. That’s probably impossible until we have at least one non-organic intelligence that we can copy-paste-modify. Neural networks were the great hope a few years ago. They are still widely used for machine learning and data mining. The problem isn’t the size. Now simulating neurons will work, but mapping the brain is the tricky part. But I do expect they’ll do a nematode in not too long if worm-level intelligence counts as AI. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/138 "2014-10-10T23:30:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Neural networks were the great hope a few years ago. They are still widely used for machine learning and data mining. The problem isn’t the size. > Now simulating neurons will work, but mapping the brain is the tricky part. But I do expect they’ll do a nematode in not too long if worm-level intelligence counts as AI. Simulate any living creature in a virtual environment and you’ve proved that AI is possible. We don’t need to map the brain, we just need to be able to grow a human from sperm and an egg in a physics simulator. Though I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of the thread? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/139 "2014-10-10T23:53:18Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Simulate any living creature in a virtual environment and you’ve proved that AI is possible. We don’t need to map the brain, we just need to be able to grow a human from sperm and an egg in a physics simulator. > > Though I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of the thread? The morality of sentient computers. Not a pressing issue, methinks. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/140 "2014-10-11T06:22:20Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > [In a thread I started yesterday about an atheist at a Christian funeral](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17795598#post17795598), it has been asserted that atheists’ morality (or ethics, if you prefer) is as faith-based as that of Christians. This is a … vexing … assertion which I feel the need to refute. The topic feels more like a Great Debate than anything else, so I am going to violate Rhymer Rule 17b and start a thread here. Despite the thread title, anyone is welcome to join in. > > I will begin by explaining my thesis, briefly because I have actual work I should be doing and also I’m lazy. > > Atheist ehticsis not faith-based for several reasons. First of all, an atheist who attempts to construct a system for making ethical decisions is not claiming to be the recipient of divine revelation or any other sort of knowledge not achievable through natural means. Rather, the atheist ethicist is doing something akin to creating a geometrical system. He–no, scratch that, I won’t speak for others. **I** , in constructing an ethical system, begin by choosing axioms which cannot be justified within the system itself. Now while selecting these axioms is certainly a matter of _aesthetics_–I choose the axioms I do because they appeal to me–I make no claim to be uniquely qualified in choosing them, nor do I claim that my axioms are unfalsifiable. > > For instance, my first axiom is that the survival of the human species is the highest good, while my second is that that the minimization of human suffering is the second highest good. While I firmly believe both of these are true, it’s possible that someone could disprove them to me. Because I know myself to be of finite knowledge and wisdom, I allow for the possibility that further information or a more cogent argument could show that I am wrong about assigning priority as I have. Thus I am not taking either one on faith. A Christian, Muslim, or other theist, by contrast, is taking a unprovable assertion on faith: specifically that a creator deity exists and has moral opinions, and that this deity’s morality is unimpeachable and its directives comprehensible to humans. > > That’s just the beginning; I’ll go into more detail after my meeting, if anyone comes into the thread. > > Thoughts, anyone? Do you have faith in your axioms when logic and situations are applied to them? In that sense of the word faith, which is different that faith=belief in deities, then you have that kind of faith. My morals come from that axiomatic faith that you have. My religious belief comes from the belief in a deity kind of faith. There is some overlap and ambiguity in the word faith in that way. What you have described is the normal human view of cooperation. What the religious are afraid of about atheists is that they might be what we call colloquially either sociopaths or psychopaths: people like Bernie Madoff who pretend but “defect” when it suits them hoping nobody will notice. Well, that isn’t limited to either the religious or the atheist, but can be found small numbers in all human being populations. The problem isn’t with your understanding of faith, but rather that of my fellow religionists. We don’t behave only because God is watching, but because it is the socially cooperative thing to do. Those who behave only because God is watching are not to be trusted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684.md?page=8)