Atheism

He could've brought the Generalissimo back to life - but it would have ruined the joke.

 

i'm getting the sense your argument is that morals aren't subjective because if they were, they'd be subjective. how similar would it be do you think? similarity, is of course, subjective. dogs are different from humans, but dogs are closer to humans when compared to fish, for example.

humans are relatively frail compared to animals of our size. but we're tons smarter and we're social. our strength comes from numbers (like ants and bees). alone, we don't do so well. it would stand to reason that as we evolved into our brainy fraility, our internal desire to get along with other people would evolve as well as a means to ensure we weren't alone in the woods.

it does change, in that the laws it's based upon change. so saying that murder is wrong requires a definition of murder. saying murder is illegally killing somebody requires knowledge of the laws you're subject to.

what societies are you talking about that thrive without a sense of a common cause? i don't think morals are that much different than a biological imperetive you'd find in bees or meerkats or whatever. you're placing morals on this pedestal out of reach of animals and then saying since animals don't have them and humans do, we'd be like animals if we didn't have them.

 

I've read this thread off & on from its beginning, & it's been a fascinating discussion throughout. A lot of the discussion is centering around what the origins of morality might be if it doesn't come directly from God.

I consider myself both a spiritual & a moral person (with some basic character flaws/weaknesses). I don't think it's necessary for any god(s) to exist for us to develop moral codes that generally agree on some central issues. Most cultures agree that murdering other humans is wrong, that love of family is a virtue, that lying & stealing are wrong, & so forth. I actually think that the disagreements on details (such as what constitutes murder vs. justifiable homicide) come FROM religion. Different religious codes & interpretations tend to justify certain behaviors for their adherents.

So to some degree, religion is just as capable of being a corrupting influence on morality as it is of being a reinforcer of morality.

 

I don't know why, but this particular quote struck me, & made me think for awhile.

I see the obvious connection: baldness = lack of hair, not actually a color; atheism = lack of religious belief, not a particular religion. But then if a bald person answers a questionnaire that asks for hair color, he answers "bald." And an atheist uses that term to answer the question "what is your religion?" A subtle point, but still meaningful, I think.

IMO the true "religionless" person is the agnostic; the one who says, "I just don't know." S/he has made no commitment to either a specific god or to the idea that there simply is no god. An atheist has decided.

Neither the religious nor the atheists have any solid proof that their conclusions are valid. Each side has SOME evidence to support its contention, but neither can prove anything. So in that respect, atheism requires a certain degree of faith as well.

As far as all the scientific evidence on either side goes, it's all very interesting; but science is limited, as are human beings, who tend to inject their own beliefs & assumptions into their research, whether they intend to or not. I don't read a scientific book or article that draws conclusions without a strong dose of skepticism. A lot of things that used to be pretty certain have subsequently been shown to be in error. Scientists are just as subject to narrow-mindedness as the rest of us.

 

I'm not sure what your meaning or question is regarding similarity between human and animals in relation to morality. I don't think we need morals to tell us the group is stronger than the individual. I agree that it is instinctual to find safety. I think we're just changing the example here and not for the better. We could have an internal desire to get along that evolved. I not contending that evolution plays no part in the construction of human behavior. I think it does. Society and culture play their roles too. I still think through my previous arguments that the conclusion that morality comes from God makes much more sense and reason than morality is just the product of biological social evolution. There are too many holes that make the latter theory suspect such as true human altruism, why humans are so different than animals, why humans go against what biology and society tells them they should do, why all humans have the same basic intrinsic morality.

I'm afraid we're going around in circles on this one. The definition of murder does not change. What actions constitute murder is debatable. In any case the knowledge of the law that you should not murder is easy to know because it's morally wrong and as we've been talking about here, morals come from within. Like the song says, everybody knows. Everybody knows. Sorry, love that song. Got stuck in my head.

I didn't say any societies thrive without a sense of common cause. I'm saying our society would be more similar to societies in the animal kingdom if we didn't have morals. By our own words you say morals are not that much different than the biological imperative you'd find in animals. If that is the case why is human behavior with regard to morals so different then that of animals with comparable biological imperative? We could make a list with moralistic humans and biological imperative animals, put them in moral situation and the differences would be astounding and large. A biological imperative only give you direction TO do something. It makes no statement about the rightness or wrongness of that action.

do they? i'll be honest here, i don't know that i would kill myself to save a child i didn't know. i might figure i could save us both or that the danger looming was less likely to do me damage than a child, but i don't think i'd willfully die to save another person unless that person meant a lot to me.

[/quote] Don't confuse what you would do with what would be the right thing to do. We're not talking about people's actions based upon morality as much as we talking about the objective knowledge of right and wrong. If you think that there is nothing "wrong" with saving yourself and letting the girl die then your side of the argument would be strengthened. If on the other hand you think that saving the girl is the "right" thing to do, then my argument is supported. Just by the simple fact that you're weighing the argument for or against supports objective morals because as we've seen if morals are subjective there is no such thing as right and wrong. If there is no such thing then how and why are you even debating the scenario of the little girl.

Guilt would imply right and wrong. See above. I agree that you can't have empathy without a conscience. Let's look at what a conscience is. It's the "awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong". We all have that urge but does "biology" always have us prefer what is "right" over what is best for the continuation of the species or ourselves? It doesn't, thus, it's not the answer. God given morality fits.

I think I left my idea of "more" as too ambiguous. I don't mean more as in advanced processes. I meant more in that morals and that sense of right and wrong give us something that even an intelligent animal would not have. I don't think we really disagree about this assertion unless you think that animals have morals. We can imagine a human without any morals or conscience. The difference between you and him is the "more" I project to you.

[/quote]

Not if you look at it philosophically but I only brought it up because it was interesting in relation to our topic.

 

Ak, sure science is limited. The beauty of science is that it grows. When something is proven false, it is discarded. When more evidence shows errors, science corrects. It's a continual process.

On the other hand, the beauty of religion is the consistency and lack of change. It isn't open to logic and reason because it is all an abstract construct that isn't bound by any physical rules or logical restraints. That is the constant. That isn't just Christianity. It's pretty much all religions or spiritual systems that have a supernatural basis.

Sometimes "believing" in science is tough. It takes a lot of the magic out of the world. It would be nice to think that some supernatural being was looking out for me or that how the stars aligned at my birth had an impact on my future. For some people, belief gives them strength, gives them guidence that they can't otherwise find in themselves.

 

Let's face it -- no one is ever going to be as good as Dennis Miller anyway.

 

Now, there's a universal truth.

 

I totally agree. Of course, I also think religion is almost entirely a man-made thing, so it follows that the capacities of man to corrupt could be put into action through any religion (and has).

 

Agreed.