Posts by John

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

John_Mann

First not all research about stem cells requires human embryos.

Second what's the point about how this embryo was created? Naturally or In Vitro? It will be intentionally destroyed in this research.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

John_Mann

Let's imagine the lowest possible valley in the "moral landscape". This represents the maximum, pointless suffering for the maximum number of conscious beings. Please don't be tempted to obfuscate here, I am not describing suffering for a better purpose, just pointless, hopeless, abject misery for all.

This is called Hell. And I agree that such "place" is possible. Evil for the sake of evil with no purpose to a greater good. I believe God created the possibility of evil just like an architect creates the possibility of a suicide jump from a balcony (in law this is called normal risk). It's not the original purpose but it can be used to achieve an evil act. The possibility of evil is necessary to free will.

Oversimplification means that some moral decisions will only show its greater good in a far future (at the moment of our deaths). That's part of my worldview, involves mystery and a future disclosure.

Are you talking about stem cells from embryos? How is that possible without abortion (intentional destruction of the embryo)?

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

John_Mann

Please note, I don't accept that our differences are simply alternative opinions. There is a true and false answer. Let's see if we can get there.

Yes, I agree. We can't be both right and we can't be both wrong either.

You agreed that morality is about how our actions effect the well being of conscious beings.

Right. And usually there's apparent evil in the meantime just like parents submitting (unaware) children under painful medical treatment to achieve a greater good.

If you are correct then you should be able to demonstrate that your system is superior. It should demonstrably lead to more reliable moral decisions.

I think this is an oversimplification. Anyway we are already talking about abortion as an example of application/demonstration of our views on morality. We can continue to use this moral dilemma. You know my position I'm totally against abortion.

You advocate a top-down model based on an absolute standard. I propose a bottom- up method based on objective evidence.

This is where I see a total nonsense. Your attempt to differentiate absoluteness and objectiveness is complete pointless to me.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

John_Mann

How is your "top down" system of morality based on the character of a perfectly good god better than my "bottom up" morality?

I can also throw this question to you.

This is the very point we disagree. I'm not saying your view is pure nonsense and I can see our "species of thought" bifurcate because a very little mutation. I don't know why you can't see this.

But in the end of the day only a long-term application of our views can (and will) show who's right.

I also know we can't be both right.

I find very interesting the fact I reached the "top down" starting from the "bottom up" and you'd found the other way. This is what is very interesting to me. I was in your shoes once and talking with you in a way is talking with a "me from the past". I have to say I had a very supernatural experience that made me question my positions. Now in retrospective I notice I always felt very uncomfortable with the position you defend now.

Each to his fate...

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

John_Mann

@cofty

Theistic morality is a very broad term.

I see you constantly put any theistic morality under the superstition umbrella.

I disagree with this view.

If I have a belief that something evil or good will happen if I clap my hands in front of a mirror at midnight then I agree I'm totally in nonsense and plain superstition. But I'm totally against such superstitions.

Then we have a middle terrain like the JW view on blood transfusions. JW's simply say this belief is based on their unique interpretation of a few Bible texts. They don't provide any philosophical base about this belief. And the history of how this belief was formed shows that was just an opinion of a single man and nothing more. Even though this belief is considered "theistic morality" ultimately I can't see how it's different from superstition.

Finally we have beliefs that are not based purely on Bible or science but on revelation and/or philosophy. Like when exactly the human soul is created.

Not every theistic morality has practical problem about this. There's a theological view that says every human soul were created before Big-Bang and they stay in a Limbo until conception. I don't see much problems regarding abortion taking this view in consideration.

Some religions use only Bible texts to base the problem of when a soul is created. I think this is superstition too.

IMHO I can only defend a belief if it's not anti-scientific, have a genuine philosophical ground to it and have at least some kind of metaphysical sign (or revelation, which can be private or public) attached to it.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

John_Mann

Until you see the evidence that "jungle rule" and "moral rule" can be the same thing you will continue to struggle with this.

I know what you mean.

Jungle rule using game theory produced the golden rule which for some reason is the best evolutionary advantage.

Right?

I'd already thought about this and I see problems in this view.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

John_Mann

Evolution explains very well why we should display empathy and cooperation. It is the winning strategy if we wish to benefit from living in successful social groups.
We are all descended from many generations of ancestors who had the capacity for what we now call morality or ethics. Rudimentary versions of these capcities can be found in other social species.
Survival of the fittest in our case includes moral intelligence. We all understand what contributes to our own well being and how that can be best achieved in cooperation with others.

How this applies to animals outside the pack? Or to others species (we apply our altruism to some other species)?

Ruling dinosaurs did not followed altruism and they only became extinct due to external causes.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

John_Mann

My contention is that moral decisions can best be determined by wrestling with their likely effects of conscious creatures.

I agree with that, it's the Golden Rule BTW. It's found outside and before Christianity.

My position is WHY?

In a purely materialistic way why does we follow the Golden Rule and not the Jungle Rule?

We evolved through the Jungle Rule so why we invented one totally opposite?

Why?

The only logical conclusion (Godel's incompleteness?) to me is something beyond evolution is responsible. Something beyond the physical word, something metaphysical.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

John_Mann

Then even if we think we have a winning royal flush, it's not about winning the hand, it's about teaching our opponent in a respectful and friendly way.

Exactly.

A good debate is not about converting your opponent but one must think in the lurker who will eventually read the "poker game".

If you want to be a good debater you must assume your opponent is very clever and, of course, disagree with you in a lot of things but at the same time agree with you in something.

The best goal is to find common ground and develop it.

Only an idiot wants to find another idiot to talk with. So never insult your opponent because he's a mirror.

In the end, reality itself is the "judge".

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

John_Mann

I had no consciousness prior to my physical life, amazingly the world proceeded without me. It will do so again.

This view is a Christian one too. Matter is independent from us. Our minds does not creates matter like some New Age views. And we doesn't have previous lives before our conception.

I have had a general anaesthetic a few times. I suppose death will be exactly like that.

This peculiar situation (among others) when a soul is still attached to a neutralized body and is not free to leave it is called Limbo.

However I think this comment of yours is the real core of the debate. Unless life is eternal you find it hard to see that it is meaningful.

No. This life is unique. We'll never live like this again. This mortal life is exactly what will give meaning to eternal life. The eternal destiny will be defined based upon what we do in this mortal life.

Unless moral decisions are based in the character of an almighty god you see them as no more binding than a personal preference.

Oversimplification.

You then make an unnecessary leap into abyss of nihilism.

This is my opinion, by my own experience, I don't see how atheism doesn't leads to nihilism.

I do sympathise with your fears. Coming to terms with the provisional nature of our existence is not easy.

I see mortality as necessary.

The odds of our being here as individuals was astonishingly small. We won the biggest lottery imaginable the moment we were conceived. The speciality of our species was our large and complex brains, evolved for their ability to live in complex social groups using advanced language skills. We possess functions for empathy, compassion, justice and reciprocal altruism as well as guilt, disgust, fear, anger and revenge.

True.

You make a distinction between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom that is unwarranted. Ethologists have observed many of the functions that underpin our moral capacity in other species of social animals. Pre-human species left behind evidence that they were in any ways like us. They cared for their aged and sick and buried their dead with ritual. I could recommend some sources for you on that.

Still the gap is practically infinite, no other specie can produce knowledge that drastically changes the very environment or even goes outside the very environment responsible for evolution (like our space exploration).

Christians build their beliefs about humanity on unproven and unscientific dogmas that have some very negative moral consequences.

This is true to some interpretations of Christianity.

Prohibitions on stem cell research rests on an anti-scientific assertion about the zygote.

Non-scientific and not anti-scientific.

Laws about contraception have done immeasurable harm to the poorest societies on earth.

Are you referring to the spread of Aids? The Catholic view on contraception is only directly to married people faithful to each other. If you are going to have sex outside marriage you already failed to follow the fully Catholic faith, so why you'll only follow the contraception law? How can this view be responsible to spread of Aids?

The desire for eternal rewards and justice leads to the indoctrination of children with disgusting threats about hellfire. Saving the souls of infidels from eternal torture has been the justification for appalling atrocities.

Oversimplification.

I found your assertion that "the logical conclusion of materialism is consciousness doesn't exists at all" to be especially strange.

It's not mine but from the very materialist philosophers.

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann