I’d be interested in hearing what you think those justifications are. “My parents taught me right from wrong” is, admittedly, pretty weak. But empathy, as in the cliched “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is very powerful, without necessarily requiring a god-concept at all.
Getting back to the OP, Lolo, perhaps you should have a third choice in there for us agnostics who’d rather not be associated with those pesky atheists by answering the “don’t believe” question…
Anyway, I can talk about one thing… One of my wife’s aunts is highly devout, and spent a week or so at my house shortly after my son was born. She told me, in no uncertain terms, that when bad stuff happens to my kid (getting sick or injured, for example), I’ll turn to God for strength and reassurance. “It’s all a part of God’s plan” is what she was getting at, but I would find such words, in time of trouble, very unhelpful.
I don’t often find a need for an answer to the “why did this bad thing happen” question, I’d much rather spend my time trying to figure out how to fix whatever the bad thing was, if possible. Perhaps things would be different if I’d had had as hard a life as my wife’s aunt’s, but that’s far too hypothetical for me to even begin to think about.
(Oh, bagkitty: don’t forget “Crutches are a reality for people who can’t handle street gangs.”)
As I said, if “Do unto others…”, without reference to God, represents a satisfying justification for the notion of objective morality in your mind, then I’m not here in this thread to try and beat your brains in.
However, “Do unto others…”, without reference to God still seems subjective to me – and therefore, unconvincing as a justification for the notion of objective morality – because: What makes “Do unto others…” an objectively moral statement in the first place?
If there’s a God, then I can reason that “Do unto others…” represents an objectively moral ethic for human conduct because it comports with God’s moral will, which – by definition – is a fixed, non-contingent sort of thing.
But if there is no God, then it seems to me that I can only posit “Do unto others…” as a moral ethic for human conduct because I myself have determined that it is moral. Unfortunately, as a changeable, contingent being, my own autonomous pronouncements are – by definition – subjective.
So, that’s why it seems to me that a God concept is necessary. I can’t make sense of my most fundamental intuitions about the objective Rightness or Wrongness of certain things without reference to some fixed point upon which morality itself is founded. Atheism just leaves me with a view of history as one value-free thing after another, about which I am not able to make any kind of binding assessments, no matter how much I may happen to like or dislike them.
From the chemical level on up, life has two major objectives: to survive, and to reproduce.
So, what happens when a critter becomes “intelligent,” as we style ourselves, and self aware? It comes to the realization that no matter what it does, it is not going to survive forever, that it is built to eventually fail, in spite of four billion years of the most stringent programming. Unless…
Unless there is reincarnation, or an afterlife, or some other mechanism which–and this is important–promises some sort of solution to the program conflict.
And while we’re at it, why not be fruitful and multiply? That directive adds plausibility to the immortality gambit. “God” says it’s important to go out and reproduce, and that tingle down south tells us we know He ain’t lyin’ about that.
Me? I guess I have poor survival instincts. I’m just gonna skip on the wine and crackers and die like the silly little animal that I am. For my lack of belief I gain 78 hours a year of worshipping life, instead of attempting to forestall death by going to church.
Doc, it is very nice to have you here, being such a nice guy and all, I appreciate the way you approach others.
But I will take you to task on several points anyway.
Measuring your actions based on how YOU think people will react is not always good, or possible. Too many easy examples for this one: You may think that of someone needs a cup of sugar they should come in to your kitchen and take one, therefore you may feel welcome to go to theirs, and do the same. If you enter the wrong house, yo may end up dead.
Not enough to have you think its OK - we must all agree on what is OK in society, and we have laws for that reason, many stemming from religious principles, like it or not.
2)What you “feel” is irrelevant in interactions with others, what is mutually acceptable is more important. Many of the rules for interaction between people are again based on religious principles (for better or worse).
If you take soem very basic ideas, like the idea that we should not kill each other, I think this is rooted in religious beliefs. After all, we are in constant competition for one thing or another, and killing each other off would reduce competition, so why do we stop ourselves from killing? Certainly it is not because ALL of us feel it is wrong, but because we have established as a society that it is.
It’s nice that you act the way you do, but I’m sure you understand that not all people will do so of their own free will. Many are kept in line by ideas stemming from religion that we have made into law. (I know, not all laws, but many of the ost important).
BTW, I am not a religious person, but I don’t discount the possibility that God exists. I just can’t believe he would not let us eat Shellfish!
Because when frightened children are confronted with questions and quandries with no known answers, they need a comforting father figure to smooth their brows and make the worries go away.
rjung, why do you post in these things? You obviously confuse the Judeo-Christian concept of “God the Father” with someone’s dad. Your straw man is tiresome, and irrelevant in this thread. The idea that anyone who believes in a God is a frightened child is ludicrous. Your post is not clever and a little insulting. I remind you:
Show some class.
lolo, as to your O.P.: I was raised a Methodist. Somewhere in adolescence I lost my faith, and became agnostic. I viewed it as a rational decision. I say agnostic rather than atheist because God became such a non-issue to me that it wasn’t worth active denial. If someone wanted to believe, fine, but I didn’t. Unlike some others on this board, I was not insulted by people believing in a God that I did not - I just didn’t care. “Go ahead, believe in Santa Claus if you want to, who am I to take away your precious illusions. You seem like a nice enough guy.”, was pretty much the extent of my thinking. That lasted for about 10 years.
One night I had an experience that I can not explain. Words can’t properly describe it, but God revealed his existance to me. No flashes of insight, no sermons from the mount, no special mission, no nothing besides “Hey B, I exist”. It was an experience I cannot forget, for it was totaly outside of my normal senses. This is why I believe in God. I didn’t “choose to”, as so many atheists tend to think happens. I simply had an experience I can not deny.
Since then, I have “known” that God exists, but he didn’t leave me much in the advice department. I’ve tried church, but repetetive ritual does absolutely nothing for me. I’ve researched other faiths, but not been too attracted to anything. Right now, I suppose you would call me a non-denominational Christian. I don’t go to church, but I hold to the basic teachings of the New Testament and I pray.
I don’t feel the slightest need to preach or try to convince others in God’s existence. People can believe whatever they want, for there is one Christian tenent that I try to hold on tightly to: Judge not, lest ye be judged.
-Beeblebrox
“The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.”
Nor was I asking in order to beat yours in. Unless I’m missing a point in what you’ve written so far here, I could not (and cannot, now that I’ve reread) find a place where you actually speak about what “their justifications” are, to you. I’m genuinely curious about what justifications you’ve heard of, besides “do unto others…,” if any.
As far as the subjective/objective question, I can’t see any kind of objective morality at all, I’m sorry to say, even with a god in the picture. Sure, a god could write down his/her/its morals, but I don’t think that people would interpret them the same way at all times. And to create a race of beings who did follow some set of universal morals would, I think, deny them some amount of free will (the will to decide what the written morals mean).
Now that I think about it a little more, I don’t really have any sort of conceptual problem with a set of objective morals being “out there” somewhere, whether or not created by a god. It’s simply clear that very, very few people on Earth have found them and/or follow them. And so it’s also clear that when looking to history, one needs to interpret the actions of people within the context of the values of the time and place. They’re not “value-free,” they’re just “differently valued.”
My wife’s grandmother has told her, “a woman’s job is to raise the kids, clean house, and cook.” She’s a fine, upstanding woman, one of the saintliest people I know, but holds this one opinion which I think is morally indefensible. She’s certainly no atheist, but I also cannot imagine that she’s following this hypothetical set of objective morals, either.
I was asked for an opinion, and I gave it. I wasn’t aware there was a “thou shalt not offend Beeblebrox” clause in there somewhere.
The Judeo-Christian god is given the same attributes and responsibilites as a parent – he watches over the kids, lays down the rules, punishes them if they do something wrong, and gives explainations for stuff they don’t understand. If he’s not supposed to be a father figure, then the churches and synagogues should replace the word with something more accurate in the sermons and services. I’ll toss in some money for a thesaurus.
“Do not be angry at me if I tell you the truth.” --Socrates
Again, it’s an opinion. If that offends you … well, sorry, but my opinions aren’t changing just to avoid bruising your ego.
Whoah! You just broke that rule, mon ami.
(I also find your handle rather amusing, given that author Douglas Adams was also an outspoken atheist. )
To those of you who experienced one or more episodes that you interpreted as indicating God’s existence, why are you certain that your experience and your interpretation and recollection of that experience were reliable?
I am not saying that every believer experienced a delusion or hallucination. But certain people do experience such things. Many supernatural effects can be simulated through drugs. And coincidences happen all the time. How do you distinguish your experience from an imitation?
I tend to think I’m a pretty bright guy with my feet firmly on the ground, but my mind plays tricks on me all the time. Especially when I am under emotional stress, exhausted, scared, sad, etc. The skeptical portion of me suggests that a good portion of reported religious experiences seem to occur when people are under some stress, or have other reasons to doubt themselves.
How can you be certain what you remember happening actually happened the way you think it did? Further, would your belief be as strong if you did not have a social support group to reinforce various implications of your perceived experience?
Finally, I respect a religious person whose philosophy reflects a thoughtful process. Those individuals are unfairly cast in a bad light by the many who appear to believe primarily out of ignorance or convenience. I also acknowledge that an inquiring belief is not necessarily “the easy way out.” And I respect the heck out of someone who truly lives a life reflecting what I understand to be the teachings of most if not all of the major world religions. My personal preference would be that more people walk the walk more, and talk the talk less. But I am also aware of the perceived obligation many religions have to proselytize. My gripes generally begin when believers attempt to externalize their belief system, such as through sponsoring legislation. Or when they are not up front with the reasons behind their word/actions. My desired system would have everyone being happy, believing in whatever they want, but keeping it to themselves.
What I’m suggesting is this: If there is no God, then – as far as I can see – any notion of morality has to be founded upon something subjective; either “It’s right because I say it’s right.” or, “It’s right because we say it’s right.” Whichever you choose, I am not pursuaded that you are talking about a conception of morality that is actually normative.
I think that I have muddied the waters by using the phrase “their justifications”. All I meant by that phrase was, “All of the justifications for normative moral judgments that I can think of if there’s no God”. I should have taken the time to make my ideas clearer.
If you’ve got justifications for normative moral judgments that you don’t think require reference to God, then that’s great. I’m really glad to have you on the team of people who believe that normative moral judgments can be made. We may part company later on down the road, but that’s ok in my book.
My perception of things is different than yours, I guess.
It has always seemed to me that certain things simply are – independent of our perspectives on them, inherently – Good. For example: the love of a mother for her child.
Other things, it has always seemed to me, simply are – again, independent of our perspectives on them, inherently – Evil. For example: the Holocaust.
What I am trying to do by holding a Theistic conception of the universe, is to adopt a worldview that can – to my satisfaction – account for the way I perceive Things to be.
If you don’t agree that some things just are Good or Evil, then – by all means – feel free not to be a Theist.
.
The mere fact that something is not immediately apparent to us does not mean that that thing does not exist, objectively. We accept the objective reality of all kinds of things to which we do not have unmitigated access. In my case, Madagascar springs immediately to mind.
That’s the same thing as saying that things are – objectively speaking – value-free. You’re suggesting that things are not Good or Evil in and of themselves, but rather, in context. To my mind, that makes them subjective judgments. Perhaps you don’t perceive there to be a need for any sort of objective moral reality in the universe. I understand that lots of decent people see things that way, and I don’t begrudge any of you your views. I’m only telling you that I see Things differently.
jrung**, first off, thanks for posting more than a sarcastic driveby. Secondly, I never judged you, I merely wrote that what you originally inferred was insulting. My pointing out that someone is being rude does not equal my believing that they are unworthy as a person, have a meritless world view, are going to burn in Hell, whatever. Hell, this is a message board, I don’t know jack about you. Just because I asked you to show some class doesn’t mean I don’t accept you as a person.
About the “father” thing, maybe I should have just said Christian rather than Judeo-Christian. Father means that he is the Creator and the FATHER of the SON. The Father doesn’t offer a whole lot of guidance - that’s the Son. Most of the divine actions in the world are carried out by the Holy Spirit. Remember the Trinity?
Additionally, I am aware of Douglass Adams’ Atheism. I can still enjoy his work without buying into his philosphy. The man was f*cking hilarious. Besides, the Hitchiker books aren’t exactly religous canon.
Finally, you never bruised my ego, I just agree with what Oscar Wilde said: “Sarcasm is the asshole’s wit” Dinsdale, caught your post on preview. You ask some fine questions. It is these kind of questions that cause me to constantly question my faith. The specific one I usually grapple with is trying to sort out the feedback I get from prayer from my own subconscious thoughts. i.e. “Was that God or just me?”
I have also thought about the evolutionary necesity of religon in the development of the human psyche. We want to explain everything. Is faith just a biological holdover? Am I hard-wired to believe in God? I don’t know, but have concluded that it doesn’t matter, so I may as well not fight it. (yeah, I know that is awful close to Pascal’s Wager, and I am not a big fan of that type of argument, but I think it works here.)
I have also concluded that there is a God simply from my own experiences. There have been too many times when I was positive that a thought did not come from my subconscious. I constanly evaluate this, however. Oddly enough, the internal questioning just seems to make the Faith grow stronger.
Of course, there is a finite possibility that I am just a hullicinatory nutcase.
This is a really good question, and I have been waiting for someone to ask it.
Since half of my rationale for being a Theist in the first place is tied directly to the idea that I am prone to wrong-ness from time to time, it’s an especially apt question for someone like me to have to wrestle with.
I guess this line of reasoning can be applied either to my intuitions about normative moral reality, or my specific conclusions about who God is.
Anyway, here’s what I got:
The fact is, I can’t be certain that my experiences, or my interpretations of those experiences are reliable.
That’s why I say that my experiences are in no sense epistemically binding for anyone else.
However, I do have a couple of things going for me:
I’m not – to my knowledge – a person prone to delusions or hallucinations.
I can find vast communities of people who describe experiences that are at least roughly analagous to mine.
Therefore, it seems to me that I am acting in a rationally defensible manner when I decide to move forward based upon my experiences.
It’s true that even all of our roughly analagous experiences still might not necessarily reflect reality. But if I’m going to engage in that sort of radical self-doubt, then it seems to me that I’m never going to get anywhere in my attempts to make sense of The Way Things Are.
Hold on a munute, pardner. Isn’t exactly that inquiry necessary for an informed - shall I say evolved - thought process on this issue?
I think it makes a big difference if belief is considered biological as opposed to cultural.
I freely admit that this is an area that I find very interesting, but about which I am very ignorant. But couldn’t someone say we are “hardwired” to find drug or alcohol use pleasurable, but that many people find it desirable to consciously overcome that? Or may we not be hardwired with other urges, such as fight or flight, or the urge to procreate, but we sublimate these to varying degrees while existing in society. If a child were raised in a settinng where God or other supernatural concepts were never discussed, not pro nor con, would they spontaneously develop a belief in God or other supernatural beings or events?
BTW, ever hear of the atheist’s wager? It presumes that there is either 1. no God(s), 2. a benevolent God, or 3. a non benevolent God. Goes something like this:
It is best to live your life as if there are no Gods, and simply try to make the world a better place for your being in it.
If there is no God, you have lost nothing, and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind.
If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believe in Him.
If God exists but is not benevolent, your professed belief in him won’t give you any assurances.
Of course, not all delusional people are aware that they are delusional. Same for hallucinations.
Also, don’t underestimate the value of a support group in reinforcing and even reforming your “experiences.”
Couple quick examples, one cop gets shot at and talks about it in the locker room, and every cop feels threatened. Even believers in alien abduction are able to find support groups.
Definitely one of the more civillized theological discussions of recent memory…
However, I disagree with labelling proper parental upbringing as “weak”. Why is “How would you feel if somebody did that to you?” any different than “Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”?
Is it just that the latter has the implied threat of a Godly Smackdown behind it?
Further, why can’t there be an “other” reason or source for morality? I’ve been asked that before- ‘If I don’t believe in God, how can I tell right from wrong?’
Heck, it’s easy. So easy I have difficulty understanding why other people have so much trouble with the idea…
Most societies have a system of laws, that have, in most cases (Yeah, US-centric thought, I know) been added to, modified and updated as needed, into what is currently the accepted norm of behavior.
I tend to agree with those laws from a logical standpoint- I understand the reasoning for a speed limit, I understand the need for punishment of drug dealers and users, I understand why murder is wrong.
Add to that the way I was taught to get along with other people, starting from early interaction with siblings and working my way up through school. That taught me that walking up and slugging somebody in the nose is wrong, as is taking their lunch and eating their cupcake.
All that means I understand the polite interaction with other people. Which means I’ll be more likely to get something done if I say “Hey, if you have a minute, can you help me lift this?” than if I say “Hey Jackass! Get over here and throw your back into this!”
I have no Sword Of God hanging over me, “Do It Right Or Go To Hell!”
Tradesilicon- You’re pushing the assumptions to the extreme. The Sugar example assumes I’m only worried about how an individual will act or react, and that I’ll ignore- among other things- the actual legality or illegality of such an act.
And getting back to my original post, I’d rather not have other people wander in and help themselves to my stuff, hence I tend to not wander into other people’s places and help MYself.
In your second example, what if what I “feel” is, as a product of experience and teaching, itself mutually acceptable? To me, the “rules for interaction” with other people is a product of how people actually like being interacted with, not because God or The Bible told people how to interact.
I don’t pick up the phone and say “Whadda you want?” God didn’t tell the Israelites how to answer the phone politely, so where did that knowledge come from?
And the idea that Murder Is Bad isn’t necessarily a theological argument, though the Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” tends to get more airtime than anything else.
In my opinion, the idea that Murder Is Bad stems right back to the “how would you feel if…?” concept. Some guy just walks up and kills some other guy. Everybody who may have watched that happen thinks “Gee, I don’t want that to happen to me” and the first laws against Murder are written.
I confess I was required to go to dictionary.com to look up ‘normative’, but found it to mean what I thought it meant - there’s nothing special at all about normative morality, it happens all the time. It’s simply a moral standard. Like not killing people is “good” by many people’s books, whether or not a god (or gods) exist.
I guess I’m saying that I think you’re using the word ‘normative’ in a special way. I see normative moralities everywhere (except in the sociopaths of the world, whose only moral compass is themselves). Your example was good for this: the Holocaust was perfectly acceptable - even necessary - to many of those who implemented it. Jews were ‘evil’ to them.
Now wait just a danged minute! I don’t understand how you made the leap from “I don’t see how an objective morality is possible” to “if you don’t agree that some things just are Good or Evil…” It’s a mighty big leap.
When I said I don’t think there’s an objective morality, it shouldn’t have implied that everyone’s morality is necessarily unique in all aspects. Perhaps I’m making a leap of my own here, but I think I can assume that we can both agree that murder is bad, helping strangers in need is good, theft is bad, teaching is good, etc… Perhaps we disagree on some of the nitty-gritty, such as the morality of premarital sex, or of recreational drug use, I don’t know.
But that’s partially the point: prior to the concept of marriage, premarital sex was all there was, and I’m pretty sure the morals of the day said “don’t kill other people,” because otherwise the sex would be for nothing (after all, even mice don’t kill each other willy-nilly - would you attribute to them a diety-derived morality?). Some cultures today rely on drugs in the worship of their gods - it is moral and right and necessary for them. It isn’t for many of us.
I think it was it the Code of Hamurabi that said, in part, “if a house falls down and kills its owner, the builder of the house shall be put to death. If a house falls down and kills the son of its owner, the son of the builder shall be put to death.” That passed for moral and just, ages ago - serious “eye for an eye”-type stuff which would be considered barbaric in many societies today.
I just think it is impossible to take actions out of their context and judge them. Ignoring the context, assassinating Hilter would have been murder, pure and simple, and murder is evil. Put this act back into the context of the Holocaust, though, and eliminating him was a damn good idea, because the Holocaust was several orders of magnitude more evil. Had Hilter been assassinated, it would have been considered a ‘good’ thing by many.
Say I open the floodgates to a dam. Is that a good or evil act? If I do it to keep the dam from bursting, it’s good. If I do it to create havoc downstream, when the dam isn’t in danger of bursting and doing even greater damage, it’s bad.
Moral judgements cannot properly be made out of context. Ever.
No, wait. It’s not at all that I don’t see a need for an objective morality, I think that’d be great (we could eliminate the “when in Rome” cliche). I just don’t think one is possible. Much like I see a need for a tractor-trailer engine capable of 1,000,000 miles per gallon of diesel.
What I don’t see the need for is any sort of deity in the formulation of morality, objective or otherwise. I don’t discount the possibility of a deity, I just see deities and moralities as largely independent of one another, even though this hasn’t been true for most of human history (in which morals are based on the supposed wishes of the deity - or deities).
Out of order quote:
And I have a worldview which accounts perfectly for my perception of the Way Things Are, and it doesn’t necessarily include a god. (But by necessity it does include other people’s beliefs in various gods…)
I have little use for any of the “popular” god-concepts in use today (or even the popular non-god-concepts of atheism - ‘strong’ or ‘weak’), but I still feel that Hilter and the Holocaust were ‘evil’, and a mother’s love for her child is ‘good’. I’ve reached the same conclusions as you, yet I deny, vehemently, that there is any sort of ‘objective’ morality possible in a universe of fallible mortals.
Dinsdale wrote:
I know this doesn’t answer your question, but it seems appropriate to share…
I was sitting and musing in a National Park one beautiful summer day. I happened to look up, and see, in miles-long jet contrails, “I AM” written across the sky. So I asked (I think out loud, to the confusion of those around me), “who are you?” 15 years later, and I still haven’t received an answer.
Doc Nickel wrote:
Well, as the person who posted the “weak” statement, I feel a need to repost what I wrote:
And allow me to explain further: “How would you feel…” is not any different from “do unto others…” to me at all.
What I consider to be “weak” is a justification of right or wrong based solely on the “mommy/daddy said so” principle. Without an understanding of why mom or dad said so, a ‘moral’ won’t make much difference. As with the law examples you bring up in that post: a lack of understanding of why there’s a law against driving cattle through Washington, D.C. makes the law itself almost meaningless, and quite easy to break without feeling guilty.
As for the “implied threat of Godly Smackdown” for “do unto others…,” I just don’t see that at all. I’ve never heard the cliche as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you or else you’ll go to hell.” The implication in the original has always seemed to me to be that others will do unto you as you do unto them, so if you smack people around, you’ll get ‘secular’ smacking in return.
Unless you have objective proof that god exists, then belief in god still provides only a subjective moral reference. This is precisely the point that I find oddest about religious belief. Why do some people find it satisfying to replace one subjective belief with another?
