# Just Askin' -God and Stuff.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2003, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584 "2003-07-19T15:23:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/21 "2003-07-20T06:20:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Laurie \* > \*\*All I was trying to point out was that if there was no overriding authority, then **everyone’s** ideas necessarily have the same merit. > > This is not to say that the majority, or those with the most power or the most influence or the most money, or any combination thereof, don’t usually have the ‘say.’ > > What about **that** is superior to what anyone claims for the ‘rules’ of their god? > > I am a simple person, and have been called ‘dimwitted’, but I’d rather ‘rules’ applied to everyone equally at all times than have them selectively nuanced according to one’s class. > > The Ten Comandments might even be a good place to start. > > However, if we are all only pieces of matter, though exquisetly and uniquely combined, why make any pretense about rules at all? \*\* I think you’re setting up a strawman argument. Certainly there are Theists out there who make those claims. If you’d do some research on the many threads in GD about morality and its relationship to religion, you’d find some great arguments on how the morality is not always based in religion and many Theists agreeing with the conclusions. Hence, your claim, as I see it, that Theists are trying to force their religious rules upon the rest of are false. Certainly there are some Theists who believe this, but they represent a small segment of the total population of Theists. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/22 "2003-08-19T15:43:36Z")
I believe Laurie is being disingenious. She is a theist and is trying to say that non-belief in God leads to chaos and anarchy. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/23 "2003-08-19T16:09:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Laurie \* > \*\*Haven’t we come far enough to discount all of these ‘religions’? > > Far enough to convince people that all molecules are the same? \*\*Nope. Molecules are available in very wide variety nowadays, it’s what makes the universe such an interesting place. > [@](#): > > \*\*Far enough to agree that every molecule of ‘energy’ is the same as every other single molecule of energy? \*\*Nope. I’m not agreeing anything about ‘molecules’ of energy, photons maybe, but not molecules. > [@](#): > > **Far enough to admit that the snail, the slug, the lady bug, the flea, the ameoba, the fly, the rhesus monkey, the parasites who occupy every niche available to them in or on our bodies are only fellow ‘riders’ in this life?** Johnny Amoeba for president! Yay! (How well would that work?) > [@](#): > > \*\*Far enough to KNOW that the biodynamics making available to us the skills necessary to write words on this screen are only an advanced form of knowledge given by billions of years of selection? \*\*I thought biodynamics was a gardening technique… I didn’t understand the rest of the ramble at all… ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/24 "2003-08-19T16:13:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Homebrew \* > \*\*I believe Laurie is being disingenious. She is a theist and is trying to say that non-belief in God leads to chaos and anarchy. \*\* Well, she is trying to say that, but I don’t think she’s being disingenious about it. She said that in her first post. It’s a little bit like Plato’s “useful lie” argument in The Republic, I think. And of course, the premise is false. Firstly, you can believe in objective moral standards without believing in God, so, if no one believed in God that wouldn’t neccesarily get rid of an idea of objective morality. Secondly, even people who believe all morality is subjective don’t tend to act “immorally”. You can have a community of moral relativists without it leading to chaos. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/25 "2003-08-19T18:32:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Laurie \* > **All I was trying to point out was that if there was no overriding authority, then everyone’s ideas necessarily have the same merit.** And that is bad . . . because? Personally, I _like_ for my ideas to have some weight. Of course, society manages to prevent anarchy by imposing a set of common laws. > [@](#): > > \*\*This is not to say that the majority, or those with the most power or the most influence or the most money, or any combination thereof, don’t usually have the ‘say.’ > > What about _that_ is superior to what anyone claims for the ‘rules’ of their god?\*\* I would say it’s the fact that the “rules of god” are all derived from literary works authored by a small number of people. The veracity of their claims of divine origins for their rules cannot be verified. So, in essence, by following the “rules of God”, we are following the will a small number of people instead of the will of the majority (even if the majority agrees with the rules, the _reason_ you’re following them is still rooted in the ideals of just a few people). Thus, following your “Rules of God” is no better than following the “Rules of Bob”, or the rules of any other, arbitrary person. > [@](#): > > **I am a simple person, and have been called ‘dimwitted’, but I’d rather ‘rules’ applied to everyone equally at all times than have them selectively nuanced according to one’s class.** As far as I was aware, our rules (e.g. laws), _do_ apply equally to everyone in the country, regardless of class. Different countries have their own laws, of course, as is to be expected when they tend to have both different individual ideas of what should be allowed, as well as different deities. > [@](#): > > **The Ten Comandments might even be a good place to start.** Why not the Code of Hammurabi, or some other arbitrary codification of laws? If all you’re interested in is having the same laws cover everybody, then why use the laws presented by one particular God? After all, 2/3 of the world’s population _aren’t_ Christian. And, as a side note, weren’t all the laws of the Israelites rescinded by Jesus? Wouldn’t that include the Ten Commandments? > [@](#): > > \*\*However, if we are all only pieces of matter, though exquisetly and uniquely combined, why make any pretense about rules at all? \*\* Well, _this_ piece of matter, for one, would prefer to exist in a configuration that allows for the continuation of biological processes; I’ve become quite fond of most of the chemical reactions taking place in my innards. To that end, laws that result in a higher probability that those chemical reactions can continue, while at the same time not hampering my freedom to locomote about this ball of rock overly much, are welcome and desirable. ---
**Author:** ![stick\_monkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@stick\_monkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stick_monkey)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/26 "2003-08-19T19:03:06Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > Without any concept of God or an overriding Authority on moral issues…I would say that self-interest is the only salient point which matters.\*\* I hate pulling philosophy from movies but…[www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/nash.html](http://william-king.%5Burl)]Nash’s equilibrium Yes, I am fully aware this discussion is not about economics, just merely trying to point out that there can be a discussion of what is and isn’t ‘best’ for all of us without mudding up the waters with religion. ---
**Author:** ![Laurie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@Laurie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laurie)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/27 "2003-08-19T19:07:35Z")
CAPTAIN AMAZING: What “objective moral standards” would you be referring to? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/28 "2003-08-19T19:27:28Z")
Yeah, Cap . . . explain to us how atheists can possibly have objective moral standards. Since everyone knows THEY CAN’T!!! ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/29 "2003-08-19T19:57:18Z")
How would one go about identifying which morals are objective?I know how to test for the objectivity of gravity but how do I verify whether a moral or morals is/are objective.?Trying to define morality as objective is like trying to define “virtue” objectively. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/30 "2003-08-19T20:18:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > \*\*Yeah, Cap . . . explain to us how atheists can possibly have objective moral standards. Since everyone knows THEY CAN’T!!! \*\* Sure they can, or at least believe objective morality exists. The Epicureans, for example (as well as a lot of other Greek philosophical schools) were atheistic, but said that there are some needs and desires that are inherant to man, and universal. If needs are universal…if there’s something that we all want, then it follows that there are certain actions that are good for everyone to do…those actions that allow us to fufill our needs and desires. This isn’t unique to Greece. Buddhism is more or less an agnostic philosophy, but it has a very strict moral code, coming from its core belief that attachment to the material world is the cause of suffering. According to most accounts, Confucius was an atheist, but, starting with the belief that people are naturally social and hierarchical, he developed a complicated code of appropriate behavior within social relationships. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/31 "2003-08-19T20:26:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Laurie \* > \*\* > Without any concept of God or an overriding Authority on moral issues…I would say that self-interest is the only salient point which matters. \*\* And, btw, when you made that statement, you’ve just set an objective moral standard without God…self interest. You could rewrite the belief as “An action is moral if it’s within someone’s self-interest to perform the action.” Of course, then you need to define “self-interest”, and that’s the tricky part. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/32 "2003-08-19T20:57:26Z")
Capt. Amazing: Those examples you cited were not examples of objective morality but rather subjective moral ysytems.An objective morality would be undeniable by all but the deranged, just as gravity is.If, for example, murder was objectively wrong then no one would be able to murder anymore than people can walk on air(without technological aid). ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/33 "2003-08-19T22:33:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic \* > \*\*An objective morality would be undeniable by all but the deranged, just as gravity is.If, for example, murder was objectively wrong then no one would be able to murder anymore than people can walk on air(without technological aid). \*\* No, an objective moral system is one that’s applicable to everyone everywhere. If I say that murder is objectively wrong, then I’m saying that it is always wrong for anyone to murder. A subjective moral system isn’t universally applicable. If I say murder is subjectively wrong, then I’m saying it’s wrong in my culture, time, or situation, but there might be cultures, times, or situations where that murder is not wrong. And you can have an objective moral system that not everyone agrees with. If I say that murder is objectively wrong, then your failure to agree with that just means that you’re wrong or that you believe a false thing. You can’t make a comparison between morality and gravity. Gravity is an inherant function of physical bodies. The stone doesn’t roll downhill because it should. It rolls downhill because it has to. Morality, on the other hand, is a function of will and choice. Only thinking beings, with the ability to choose between outcomes and rank those outcomes, can be moral. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/34 "2003-08-20T15:21:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Captain Amazing \* > \*\*No, an objective moral system is one that’s applicable to everyone everywhere. If I say that murder is objectively wrong, then I’m saying that it is always wrong for anyone to murder. A subjective moral system isn’t universally applicable. If I say murder is subjectively wrong, then I’m saying it’s wrong in my culture, time, or situation, but there might be cultures, times, or situations where that murder is not wrong. > > And you can have an objective moral system that not everyone agrees with. If I say that murder is objectively wrong, then your failure to agree with that just means that you’re wrong or that you believe a false thing. \*\* How can it be objectively wrong if I can disagree and my position be equally substantiated as your own?It seems to me you are saying that subjective morality becomes objective simply by someone claiming it is so.If you claim that murder is objectively wrong adn I disagree, I am not by default “wrong”.We have a disagreement about a subjective matter(morality).It is the same as you claiming "Michael Vick is a _perfect_ quarterback."The very word itself cannot be defined objectively.Same with _moral/morality_.If I could go back in time and murder Adolph Hitler to prevent the murders of 40 million other people(including 6 million jews) then how do you even begiun to substantiate the case for murder being objectively wrong?The very word “wrong” can only be objective in the context of questions which can be answered via logic. > [@](#): > > \*\*You can’t make a comparison between morality and gravity. Gravity is an inherant function of physical bodies. The stone doesn’t roll downhill because it should. It rolls downhill because it has to. \*\* But gravity IS objective in that it exists regardless of what our particular perspective, tastes, upbringing etc. may be.If morality were objective then these things which are “wrong” and “right” would be so to any sane person, regardless of culture, era/time, and particular circumstances. > [@](#): > > \*\*Morality, on the other hand, is a function of will and choice. Only thinking beings, with the ability to choose between outcomes and rank those outcomes, can be moral. \*\* Well, I agree with this to an extant as long as you are not limiting “thinking” to _abstract thinking_ animals such as humans.Dinosaurs had moral codes similar to our own.Even insects develope morals as natural selection dictates for their survival. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/35 "2003-08-20T15:43:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic \* > **How can it be objectively wrong if I can disagree and my position be equally substantiated as your own?It seems to me you are saying that subjective morality becomes objective simply by someone claiming it is so.If you claim that murder is objectively wrong adn I disagree, I am not by default “wrong”.We have a disagreement about a subjective matter(morality).** What I’m saying is that it’s possible for someone to believe that there exists a universal moral standard without believing in God. I’m not asserting there IS such a moral standard (or that there isn’t), merely that belief in God isn’t a neccesary precondition to believing that a set of moral standards are absolute and universal. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/36 "2003-08-20T16:08:13Z")
Okay then.I will bugger off and apologise for stepping all over your \*\*\*\*\*.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/37 "2003-08-20T16:39:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic \* > \*\*Okay then.I will bugger off and apologise for stepping all over your \*\*\*\*\*.🙂 \*\* Not a problem. 🙂 So, what does the OP think about all this? ---
**Author:** ![jongri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3e96dc/32.png) [@jongri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jongri)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/38 "2003-08-20T17:07:19Z")
[/quote] **It is only the folks who feel a calling higher than what they owe to YOU that keeps you safe.** [/quote] Is that to imply that without god we would be reduced to anarchy? I am undecided about the existence of god, yet I am often compelled to be kind, understanding, giving, etc. It’s no “higher calling” that keeps my neighbor safe. It’s empathy, compassion and an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. That’s right, “intrinsic”. The finer points of right and wrong had to be taught to me but the general concept was there from the beginning. To suggest that an absence of god would reduce us all to a “survival of the fittest” type of chaos is strange to me. A phrase comes to mind: I can’t see the forest for all the trees. ---
**Author:** ![jongri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3e96dc/32.png) [@jongri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jongri)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/39 "2003-08-20T17:11:40Z")
> [@](#): > > **It is only the folks who feel a calling higher than what they owe to YOU that keeps you safe.** Is that to imply that without god we would be reduced to anarchy? I am undecided about the existence of god, yet I am often compelled to be kind, understanding, giving, etc. It’s no “higher calling” that keeps my neighbor safe. It’s empathy, compassion and an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. That’s right, “intrinsic”. The finer points of right and wrong had to be taught to me but the general concept was there from the beginning. To suggest that an absence of god would reduce us all to a “survival of the fittest” type of chaos is strange to me. A phrase comes to mind: I can’t see the forest for all the trees. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584/40 "2003-08-20T17:18:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jongri \* > \*\* **It is only the folks who feel a calling higher than what they owe to YOU that keeps you safe.** [/quote] Is that to imply that without god we would be reduced to anarchy? I am undecided about the existence of god, yet I am often compelled to be kind, understanding, giving, etc. It’s no “higher calling” that keeps my neighbor safe. It’s empathy, compassion and an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. That’s right, “intrinsic”. The finer points of right and wrong had to be taught to me but the general concept was there from the beginning. To suggest that an absence of god would reduce us all to a “survival of the fittest” type of chaos is strange to me. A phrase comes to mind: I can’t see the forest for all the trees. \*\* [/QUOTE] I have often seen it asked of theistic moral objectivists( but never answered):“If you suddenly realised that the God you believe in did not exist, would YOU begin a campign of reckless adn wanton murder, rape, sodomy and thievery?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-askin-god-and-stuff/189584.md?page=3)