3 things that Atheists give up when they reject God

[Vonsalza]

Don’t see how.

Because the metaphysical requires source in the same manner that every effect requires cause.

If love isn’t just the sequence of chain reactions in the brain then it is sourced somewhere else.

Does this require strict theism? No. But it does require a metaphysical equivalent to the big-bang. If you need, I can hunt down the link in the Stanford philo pages that discuss the metaphysical being contingent on a “god” of some fashion.

 

[tonyrey]

Because the metaphysical requires source in the same manner that every effect requires cause.

If love isn’t just the sequence of chain reactions in the brain then it is sourced somewhere else.

Does this require strict theism? No. But it does require a metaphysical equivalent to the big-bang. If you need, I can hunt down the link in the Stanford philo pages that discuss the metaphysical being contingent on a “god” of some fashion.

Irrefutable! To be even more precise, scientific explanations are based on a metascientific interpretation of reality. There is no rational foundation for morality in an unplanned universe in which persons are merely members of the Hominidae family.

 

[inocente]

Because the metaphysical requires source in the same manner that every effect requires cause.

If love isn’t just the sequence of chain reactions in the brain then it is sourced somewhere else.

Does this require strict theism? No. But it does require a metaphysical equivalent to the big-bang. If you need, I can hunt down the link in the Stanford philo pages that discuss the metaphysical being contingent on a “god” of some fashion.

Stanford philo? What’s a philo? Un kilo del philo por favor.

Do you mean the SEP?

I’m aware of the claim of no-morality-without-god. William Lane Craig, aka Mr Bling, debates for it, arguing that even if you don’t believe in God, you still need the idea of God to give morality a foundation. I’m not sure if he’s a closet atheist or just never realized he’s telling people a proxy deity is as good as the real deal.

But whatever, if you read the SEP article on religion and morality, you’ll see that much of modern ethics, as I said, is not founded on religious ideas.

Irrefutable! To be even more precise, scientific explanations are based on a metascientific interpretation of reality. There is no rational foundation for morality in an unplanned universe in which persons are merely members of the Hominidae family.

It wasn’t very hard to refute. Twas very easy to refute. And as far as I know, few if any modern systems of ethics make any reference to science. Offhand I can only think of Sam Harris, but it stretches imagination beyond breaking point to call him an ethicist. Please cite some.

 

[Vonsalza]

Stanford philo? What’s a philo?

Oh come now. You’ve cited them several times.

But whatever, if you read the SEP article on religion and morality, you’ll see that much of modern ethics, as I said, is not founded on religious ideas.

I agree somewhat. As in: at least they try to divorce moral ideal founded in religion from religion itself as much as they can because they recognize it as optimal.
But forced-prioritization of relativism has its own problems. It’s difficult to know when and how you’ve violated the “rules” and the exceptions are innumerable - as the ends ultimately justify the means. As to who judges the ends in any authoritative way beyond the generic concept of species-wide fitness, well…

One could argue government does this job. But if law is to be perfectly synonymous with morality, then you must empower the state to maximally enforce the law in the name of real justice, as it is the only source of it.

hears soviet anthem - Start digging the graves, boys.

Moreover, If they employ the metaphysical in their attempts to craft an absolute ethic, they inherently create a troubling bridge to the theistic (at least, troubling for them). If the ethic is not absolute, they lose the theistic bridge, but then it hemorrhages some of its status as a transcendent, common norm. The faulty system inherently breeds disfunction; necessitating and (existentially) requiring the policing by the state.

Oh dear, I’ve gone off on a tangent…

 

[PRmerger]

Free will is a very complex subject and many people would say that the ‘free will’ that Christians believe in isn’t free at all - after all, under the Christian understanding we’re all being coerced into behaviors. (Don’t kiss another man or you’ll go to hell) Coerced behavior isn’t maximally free.

How is this that much different from an atheistic view which also states, for many things, “Don’t kiss another man or you’ll go to (earthly) jail”?

If there’s an atheist husband who sees his atheist wife kiss another man, and he condemns her for that and sends her away forever, do you believe this atheist wife is being “coereced” into remaining faithful to her atheist husband?

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree. An infinite regress is logically impossible and so is the idea that the universe popped out of nothing.

Egg-zactly.

And as someone (big) on Team Skeptic said, regarding infinite regress, “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgement is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it.”–David Hume
genius.com/David-hume-an-enqu…-122-annotated

 

[Bradski]

And as far as I know, few if any modern systems of ethics make any reference to science. Offhand I can only think of Sam Harris, but it stretches imagination beyond breaking point to call him an ethicist.

I think that some people get the wrong idea about Harris. here’s a quote which briefly explains his views:

What I’m arguing is that morality, questions of good and evil, right and wrong, because they relate to questions of human and animal well-being, also entail truth claims about our world, human nature or the prospects of human happiness that fall within the purview of science. Otherwise, we’re just left to argue over preferences: things are wrong because we don’t like it or a majority of people don’t like it. independent.co.uk/news/science/the-moral-formula-how-facts-inform-our-ethics-2265991.html

I don’t always see eye to eye with Sam, but the comment above seems relatively straight forward and uncontroversial.

 

[IWantGod]

I think that some people get the wrong idea about Harris. here’s a quote which briefly explains his views:

wrong because we don’t like it or a majority of people don’t like it. independent.co.uk/news/science/the-moral-formula-how-facts-inform-our-ethics-2265991.html

I don’t always see eye to eye with Sam, but the comment above seems relatively straight forward and uncontroversial.

You seem to agree with him because its what you want to hear but i see no argument.

People are not idiots. Most people already know that if you want such and such to occur its probably best to behave in such and such way. Practical values… Survival values the search for happiness as far as you can reason to your ideals. A Preference for a particular kind of existing. Science in some respects can help us like taking the right medication. So yeah if you don’t take your medication you will die is a truth claim. But it doesn’t follow from these facts that it is immoral to throw acid in someones face unless the “existence” of the victim in question has a true moral value; and not just a utilitarian value or pragmatic value or whatever the human imagination can conjure up.

So called Ethics without the moral ought is ontologically relativistic at best.

Now if Sam Harris is saying he doesn’t need a Moral ought to achieve his personal goals and the goals of those who agree with his personal ideals, that’s a different story. But don’t tell people they are truly good or evil because science said so! That’s ridiculous.

 

[IWantGod]

Don’t see how.

I mean there are various secular systems of ethics which don’t depend on theism. Utilitarianism says the right thing to do is maximize well-being, and I’ve bumped into various Catholics on CAF who are fans of it, yet it has nothing at all to do with theism, it’s purely about material consequences.

Then there’s virtue ethics, which says virtue is the end in itself. Deontological systems not based on rules provided by God. And so on.

Like it or not, most modern ethics seem driven purely by secular concerns.

You clearly don’t know what i’m talking about.

 

[Bradski]

You seem to agree with him because its what you want to hear but i see no argument.

The crux of his viewpoint is this:

‘… morality…entails truth claims about our world, human nature or the prospects of human happiness that fall within the purview of science’.

If you actually read that, then I can only say you are arguing for the sake of it.

I agree with him in this instance because there is nothing in that statement with which any reasonable person could disagree. He is not saying ALL of morality can be decided by science, but that it does encompass aspects that we can scientifically determine.

His book is called the Moral Landscape, meaning that there are many peaks within that landscape representing the answers to moral questions and there are many ways to reach each peak.

I eagerly await your non-sequitur reply when you ask what science can tell us about, for example, love.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Don’t see how.

I mean there are various secular systems of ethics which don’t depend on theism. Utilitarianism says the right thing to do is maximize well-being, and I’ve bumped into various Catholics on CAF who are fans of it, yet it has nothing at all to do with theism, it’s purely about material consequences.

Then there’s virtue ethics, which says virtue is the end in itself. Deontological systems not based on rules provided by God. And so on.

Like it or not, most modern ethics seem driven purely by secular concerns.

It’s really not so much about consequence though because rationalizations and excuse-making often are used to deny such things.

 

[IWantGod]

scientifically determine. .

What exactly is being determined here?> That if i put a bullet in somebodies brain they will die?

Thanks science. What i want to know however, is it truly wrong?

His book is called the Moral Landscape, meaning that there are many peaks within that landscape representing the answers to moral questions and there are many ways to reach each peak…

Well there are many practical paths to go down depending on your ideals or should i say **relative ** to your ideals. What i want to know is, is he telling us anything new?

I eagerly await your non-sequitur reply when you ask what science can tell us about, for example, love.

You tell me. Can science tell us the value of existence?

 

[Bradski]

What exactly is being determined here?> That if i put a bullet in somebodies brain they will die? Thanks science. What i want to know however, is it truly wrong?

If you can’t answer that yourself, maybe you should ask someone. Perhaps the guy you were going to shoot. Or his wife. Or his kids. They’d know.

Well there are many practical paths to go down depending on your ideals or should i say **relative ** to your ideals. What i want to know is, is he telling us anything new?

No. Nothing new at all. Except that most people can’t see the wood for the trees. It really has to be explained as simply as possible for quite a lot of people.

You tell me. Can science tell us the value of existence?

Gee, so many questions. You’re lucky I’m here to answer them all. The answer to that is no. It’s a personal value. I think my existence is quite valuable. Your mileage may vary.

 

[IWantGod]

I Or his wife. Or his kids. They’d know.

What difference does it make? Clearly, (at least to people who really have a grasp of these concepts) Science doesn’t tell us anything regarding whether or not it is truly immoral to kill people… It just tells us that organisms can cease to function or die when damaged in some way. and if any rational family members are alive they are just going to tell me like rational people that they don’t like my behavior. There not going to say something irrational like “your truly evil”, or, “your truly immoral” (assuming i’m talking to metaphysical naturalist who understand what they are talking about)

.

No. Nothing new at all. Except that most people can’t see the wood for the trees. It really has to be explained as simply as possible for quite a lot of people.

Gee, so many questions. You’re lucky I’m here to answer them all. The answer to that is no. It’s a personal value. I think my existence is quite valuable. Your mileage may vary.

Valuable to some, valuable to yourself (with all those neurons firing in your brain it obviously causes you to see some pleasure or utility in existing, as well as the illusion of freewill), but perhaps not so valuable to others aye.

 

[IWantGod]

If you can’t answer that yourself, maybe you should ask someone. Perhaps the guy you were going to shoot. Or his wife. Or his kids. They’d know.

Another thing. Loaded words like good and evil, right or wrong implies objective truth. Most people think that when they accuse someone of being immoral that what they are saying represents the actual objective reality of a persons behavior, not their subjective likes or dislikes. The real existence of an objective standard is what gives them real dignity as living beings. Its not just some made up naturalistic version of dignity that they superimpose on themselves for fear of a threat.

 

[Bradski]

… and if any rational family members are alive they are just going to tell me like rational people that they don’t like my behavior. There not going to say something irrational like “your truly evil”, or, “your truly immoral” (*assuming i’m talking to metaphysical naturalist who understand what they are talking about). *

Looks like you want to claim terms like ‘evil’ and ‘immoral’ for those who believe in God.

‘He acted immorally’
‘But wha…! But you’re an…atheist!. You can’t…I mean it’s just not possible to use those sort of terms. You don’t even know what they mean! It’s…it’s just…irrational…’

Let’s just say we both know what each other means when we use the terms.
IWantGod;14806687:

Valuable to some, valuable to yourself (with all those neurons firing in your brain it obviously causes you to see some pleasure or utility in existing, as well as the illusion of freewill

), but perhaps not so valuable to others aye.

True. Value is relative.

 

[IWantGod]

Let’s just say we both know what each other means when we use the terms.

Like you say you’re going to have to explain it to people very slowly and as simply as possible. Unless of course you would prefer people not to see the metaphysical implications of your position. Perhaps you prefer them blind.

Or you could just say that such and such behavior is not “desirable”; but that wouldn’t have much of the same kick as immoral or right and wrong. it just doesn’t seem to have the same…implications.

Interesting that isn’t it.

True. Value is relative.[/Q

For metaphysical naturalists there is no Moral truth. There is no dignity. There is no Objective rational foundations for a lot of the concepts that drive people in life.

Metaphysical Naturalist can hardly think themselves as anything more than organisms, driven by instincts and the physical processes in their brains that produces what they think, say and do…They have likes and dislikes and a delusional sense of freewill.
[/quote]

 

[Bradski]

Like you say your going to have to explain it to people very slowly and as simply as possible. Unless of course you would prefer people not to see the metaphysical implications of your position. Perhaps you prefer them blind.

Or you could just say that such and such behavior is not “desirable”; but that wouldn’t have much of the same kick as immoral or right and wrong. it just doesn’t seem to have the same…****implications. ****.

Let me put it this way. Despite what you believe, I’ll pass on asking you permission to decide what is morally wrong or right. And I can’t see me bothering to add riders and codas to every comment I make about morality so that you’ll feel morally superior.

But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[IWantGod]

Let me put it this way. Despite what you believe, I’ll pass on asking you permission to decide what is morally wrong or right. And I can’t see me bothering to add riders and codas to every comment I make.

But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Its not what i believe its what i know for fact. You’ve got no choice but to continue as you are. You can’t refute what i’m saying and i dare say you haven’t really faced the reality of what i’m saying either. Perhaps you don’t want to.

Thanks for your contribution. Lets just say i found it …“desirable”.

 

[inocente]

Oh come now. You’ve cited them several times.

No, I’ve never cited a philo. On this forum you’re the only person I ever seen say philo.

*I agree somewhat. As in: at least they try to divorce moral ideal founded in religion from religion itself as much as they can because they recognize it as optimal.
But forced-prioritization of relativism has its own problems. It’s difficult to know when and how you’ve violated the “rules” and the exceptions are innumerable - as the ends ultimately justify the means. As to who judges the ends in any authoritative way beyond the generic concept of species-wide fitness, well…

One could argue government does this job. But if law is to be perfectly synonymous with morality, then you must empower the state to maximally enforce the law in the name of real justice, as it is the only source of it.

hears soviet anthem - Start digging the graves, boys.

Moreover, If they employ the metaphysical in their attempts to craft an absolute ethic, they inherently create a troubling bridge to the theistic (at least, troubling for them). If the ethic is not absolute, they lose the theistic bridge, but then it hemorrhages some* of its status as a transcendent, common norm. The faulty system inherently breeds disfunction; necessitating and (existentially) requiring the policing by the state.

Oh dear, I’ve gone off on a tangent…
Not so much tangent as cliff. There are a number of systems of ethics based in consequentialism, deontology, or virtue ethics which have nothing to do with religion or anything you said there.