Theists - Why does Morality require the existence of God?

by cantleave 122 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cofty

  Cofty how can an atheist have an objective morality, on what basis?

  Some things promote the well being of conscious creatures - other things have the opposite effect. This is true regardless of the opinion of the individuals involved in the situation.

  For example the Taliban think it is a moral good to prevent women from getting an education and to make an example of those who disobey by throwing battery acid in their eyes. For a less extreme example they also think it is a moral good to make 50% of the population live in a black sack. Jews think it is an absolute moral good to mutilate the genetalia of little boys. Some christians think it is an absolute moral good to turn a gay couple away from their boarding house because of their sexuality.

  A relativist may say that we can never confidently judge such behaviour as bad. It is relative to their culture and beliefs.

  I disagree. All of these things are objectively wrong. Not wrong as a matter of opinion but wrong because it is an objective fact that these are actions that negatively impact on well being.

  Many christian apologists argue that the choice is between absolute morality or mere personal opinion. This is the error William Lane Craig makes when he argues this topic.

  Just as some things objectively do contribute to health whether or not an individual agrees so too some things are objectively good. There is no "absolute" standard of health but that does negate the field of medicine.

  You can get an "ought from an is".
• 

  Seraphim23

  That’s not really the case coftie because evolution demands death, and doesn’t care about the human view of fairness, justice, equality or morality. The selfish gene and all that! In fact without such things humans could never have evolved to have morals. So slimboyfat has a more consistent view as an atheist in my view.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Some things promote the well being of conscious creatures

  Who gets to define well being?

  Few things, if anything, "promote well being" without also resulting in detriment. Who gets to decide the balance and on what basis?

  Simply asserting that your own moral judgements about the Taliban or whatever are universally correct does not make it so. It's a surprisingly emotive and almost anti-rational approach for someone who thinks science has displaced the spiritual or God.
• 

  cofty

  That is a non sequitur Seraphim23. Your conclusion that we can't have objective morals doesn't follow from the fact that we evolved from non-human ancestors who were amoral.

  The fact evolution is amoral doesn't mean we are. We have the capacity to defy our selfish genes.

  Some things objectively contribute to well being and some things do the contrary regardless of anybody's personal opinions or preferences.

  In a similar way some things contribute to physical health and other things damage health regardless of personal opinions.

  Seraphim - why do mis-spell my name or call me "my lady" or tell me to "calm down" every time I disagree with you? Lets debate like adults or not at all.
• 

  cofty

  SBF - Science is the correct tool to investigate objective good.

  If you think it's controversial to condemn the Taliban for blinding little girls for wanting an education then we have no basis for discussion. If somebody doesn't value evidence what evidence can I bring to persuade them to listen to evidence?

  That's not emotive its just a rational fact that oppressing 50% of your population is not a good way to promote the wellbeing of society.

  Afghanistan has one of the highest birth rate along with the highest infant mortality and highest rates of deaths in labour in the world. Its the place to go to see women die.

  If somebody thinks that vomiting until they die of dehydration is their epitome of good health then they are objectively wrong. Nobody doubts this. Why do you hold morality to a different standard?
• 

  Seraphim23

  There is no logical fallacy on my part as far as I can tell but it seems that the strength of your argument cofty is that objective moral standards exist because you say they do. Even science tells us that objective things are often not so objective as with relativity.
• 

  slimboyfat

  The point is not whether I agree with you about the Taliban or how they treat women, the point is whether there is any objective basis for the agreement. You have not demonstrated any such basis other than simply by assertion and emotive rhetoric.
• 

  cofty

  it seems that the strength of your argument cofty is that objective moral standards exist because you say they do

  You haven't been listening. That is the exact opposite of what I have just said and offered evidence for.

  Is it simply a matter of personal opinion that blinding little girls with battery acid for wanting an education is not conducive to the well being of Afghan society? Is it only bad because Cofty thinks its' bad or is it objectively bad?

  If you are having trouble with this ask yourself a related question. Is it objectively true that drinking poison that makes you vomit until you die is bad for physical well being? If somebody thought it was good for health would you have any qualms as dismissing them as misinformed?

  Sam Harris uses the device of imagining a landscape that represents the well being of conscious creatures. The deepest valley in the landscape represents the worse possible suffering for everybody. Morality is about navigating that landscape to avoid that deepest valley and moving to greater heights.

  Not all moral questions can be answered easily but that doesn't mean that an answer doesn't exist or that there may be more than one peak of equal height. Nobody could ever say how many birds are in flight right this moment but the answer exists.

  Science not religion is the tool to investigate moral questions.
• 

  cofty

  You have not demonstrated any such basis other than simply by assertion and emotive rhetoric. - SBF

  Yes I have. I said...

  "Afghanistan has one of the highest birth rate along with the highest infant mortality and highest rates of deaths in labour in the world. Its the place to go to see women die. "

  Shall we talk about economics, poverty, health care, happiness, mental health?

  Whether or not oppressing women and denying them an education results in increased well being is a matter that can be investigated and measured objectively.

  I'm surprised it's controversial.

  Morality is nothing more than our struggles to determine the link between our actions and well being.
• 

  Seraphim23

  I give up.