Can someone create an objective moral code apart from God?

[warpspeedpetey]

In other words, you simply refuse to take the theological or philosophical concepts and proofs of God seriously; and the principle of empiricism is your excuse. Am i correct?

thats the common problem, Aquinan logic is unacceptable because it proves the existence of G-d.

yet mathematics, wholly dependent on the same substance of logic is taken for granted.

point being that rationalism and atheism, are friends only to the psuedo-intellectual. in reality, rationalism is fundamentally opposed to atheism, they are mutually exclusive if one understands, the relatively simple principles of clear reasoning.

atheism is completely dependent on emotion, and nothing more.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I really don’t see what there is to get so worked up over.

what we get worked up over is the insult to rationalism. you want empirical evidence of what must logically be non-physical.

its not a matter of opinion at all. it is an irresistible mathematical proof of G-d.

its not thinking we are right as opinion, Aquinas is right with undeniable , mathematical precision. in the exact same way that 1+1=2, a non-physical (supernatural) cause is the only possible reason for the existence of the universe.

we can only quibble about the comparative theology of the world, a G-d is undeniable.

repeatedly on this forum we see atheists go from one untenable position to another, each an attempt to avoid the refutation of their previous position.

when all logical basis’ are refuted, atheism typically falls back to emotion, usually of the “i dont understand why there is evil in the world” variety. when even that is explained, within the context of the Cristain experience, the response becomes, “i dont accept it, because i dont want to”

atheisms’ ground state is an emotional denial of logic.

so, maybe you can see how it is frustrating that someone would both claim to be rationalists, and yet not follow that rationalism to its inescapable Aquinan conclusions.

its like someone claiming to have good vision, but then insisting that the sky is orange.

 

[Ender]

To not believe in a single absolute standard for right and wrong that exists “out there” for human beings to conform to is not the same thing as saying that there aren’t better and worse ways for human beings to behave.

This would seem to answer the OP with … no.

Pragmatists like me just say that true and false and good and bad are understood in relation to some human purpose and can only be understood in practice.

If I understand this correctly you are equating what is good with what is beneficial, which is not a moral distinction but a practical one.

For pragmatists, the truth of a moral proposition is either born out in human experience or not. That is the “objective foundation” of morality. Either certain behaviors, attitudes, prohibitions, and virtues really are good for people or they are not. And if such truths exist then we can and should seek to know them.

I wonder how you measure “good.” If twenty people are homeless and hungry are they justified in breaking into a rich man’s house to feed and warm themselves? It is certainly “good” for them and the rich man can afford it so the harm to him is minimal.

I’m not sure I really want an answer; it might derail the debate. What I would like to know, however, is whether you make any distinction between “moral” and “beneficial”.

Ender

 

[Leela]

Hi Ender,

This would seem to answer the OP with … no.

If I understand this correctly you are equating what is good with what is beneficial, which is not a moral distinction but a practical one.

To me everything is about what is good. The true is what is good to believe, and what is moral is what is good to do. “Beneficial” is pretty much a word that means good. Webster’s says, “conducive to personal or social well-being.” To one who does not believe in gods, morality is about human well-being instead of making God mad.

I wonder how you measure “good.” If twenty people are homeless and hungry are they justified in breaking into a rich man’s house to feed and warm themselves? It is certainly “good” for them and the rich man can afford it so the harm to him is minimal.

That’s a good question. I think it is problematic to think of human flourishing as a static term with a fixed definition since humans need to flourish in varied contexts in a world that is in constant flux. However, we can probbaly agree about lots of particular measures of whether a society’s morals are conduscive to human flourishing, like access to education, life expectancy, access to health care, infant mortality rate, crime rates, poverty, etc.

It would be nice if we had simple rules for correct conduct in all situations–I understand the appeal–but we just don’t have such a list of rules. Someone will be itching to respond, yes we do,The Bible! but it is easy to find rules in the Bible that none of us think are good ones and to find good rules that aren’t in the Bible.

The world may not simply not be as simple as we’d like it to be.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

dameedna

What kind of human, is so very arrogant, to presume that they have it figured out?

In my experience that is usually the atheist … the atheist who often as not claims science for his bible, the **same **science that nowhere proves there is no God, the **same **science that proves the universe was created, the same science that suggests intelligent design, the same science that is baffled by miraculous cures, the same science that offers no moral foundation for life, the same science that, supposedly the only and great savior of mankind, has created weapons sufficient to annihilate the human race, the **same **science, etc. etc.

What kind of human, is so very arrogant, to presume that they have it figured out?

Most atheists I have know think they had it all figured out by the age of 16 and never wavered from their conviction thereafter. How’s that for arrogance?

 

[Ender]

Saying that there may not be one single Truth to correspond to with human behavior is not to deny objectively true morality. It’s just that there may be multiple truths–multiple sets of morals that are equally good.

I didn’t expect there to be a debate over the meaning of “objective moral truth” but we are clearly talking about different things. I will accept that there can be partial understandings of the truth - like the blind men and the elephant - but there cannot be conflicting truths and there cannot be conflicting sets of morals that can all be called true.

Morality may turn out to be something like food where there is no single best diet for all people, but at the same time, some foods are objectively healthy and others are objectively poisonous.

Again, you take both positions: objectively good diets/truth exist … but maybe diets/truth vary from person to person. And what do you mean by “morality may turn out to be …”? Does that mean you don’t now know what it is?

The true is what is good to believe, and what is moral is what is good to do.

I’m not sure that provides any direction at all on specific questions. Does this definition allow for torture?

Ender

 

[Leela]

Most atheists I have know think they had it all figured out by the age of 16 and never wavered from their conviction thereafter. How’s that for arrogance?

Hi Charlemagne,

I’m always baffled and struck by the irony of the frequent claim of believers that atheists are arrogant while simultaneously proudly implying that they possess the “Christian virtue” of humility.

They claim humility while claiming to know things that no academic could ever be taken seriously claiming to know even in her own area of expertise be it history, cosmology, biology, or physics. They claim humility while simultaneously holding the belief that the supreme power of the uiniverse takes a personal interest in his life. Some would call that narcissism.

Atheists are not arrogant. They simply don’t want to claim to know things that they don’t know. We nonbelievers think we should say that we simply don’t know when the universe began or whether there was a creator let alone what a creator would be like or whether anything cool happens after you die. How is that arrogant? That’s not arrogance, that’s honesty.

Best,
Leela

 

[Nepenthe]

Petey, I deeply respect the work of the Angelic Doctor as being one of the greatest logicians and theologists of all time, yet his proof of the existence of the God he worshiped is, I’m afraid, not as airtight and inescapably satisfactory as some think. Now, I shan’t go into the whys and wherefores of that, partly because my spouse particularly, with some participation on my part and some very interesting (and civil!) discussion from various members has been done exhaustively on this forum before, but even more because that’s getting too far off the topic. Perhaps another time, and yet another thread concerning the classical assays at proving the existence of God (or the supernatural) would be more appropriate, although I am not sure I have the patience to keep retreading the same old ground yet again.

I see many theists here making circular arguments, rather ridiculous assumptions about atheists and nontheists, and falling back on the old ‘because so-and-so SAYS so’ stuff. Please don’t think I assume all theists are deluded spouters of nonsense, nor that all areligious people are fountains of wisdom though!

Different kinds of humans run the gamut of insight and foolishness, both as groups and as individuals, no matter where they come from or how they approach the big questions we’re discussing. However, so far in this particular thread (although not in some others on similar subjects), I am noticing a more thorough, charitable, and personal inquiry and examination of the nature of knowledge, understanding and belief on the part of the less-theistically inclined. Certainly I have heard some atheists and nontheists speaking utter drivel though - however that in no way reflects on all the others.

As for lack of religious belief leading to despair, again, that’s individual. I surely have never been inclined to despair, even in the face of things most people would be, religious or no! And I sure have seen a LOT of despair from the devout on this forum.

Hmm…okay, I will admit it, I don’t just hang around here because I am curious about how religious people think and feel and behave, but what really moved me was the amount of terrible sadness and fear I kept seeing time and again here. Fear not - I’m not interested in ‘promoting atheism’ or ‘undermining faith’ among the religious - but I do try to be a source of friendship, comfort, concern for the well-being of others, and occasionally just silly jokes since I well know that sometimes life is very hard. Some of us areligious folks are pretty compassionate, nice people, believe it or don’t. And we are so without needing the fear of that Big Cop in the Sky to be that way. I worry that many people here (I’m looking at quite a few people in this thread here…) think nontheists are somehow less human, or perhaps a lesser form of human than theists, but it just ain’t so.

The analogy of the person claiming to have good eyesight yet perceives color differently (like saying the sky is orange) is not an especially good one, since we have defined the EM spectra as having ‘blue’ between certain wavelengths and ‘red’ as being between certain other wavelengths. This analogy has been trotted out, although more skilfully before in the philosophy forum.

My response is the same as it was - did you know that approximately 40% of the world (meaning those without colorblindness) perceives the color red just a bit differently than the other 60%? It’s true! Does that make the 60% ‘right’ and the 40% ‘wrong’ or that one group has ‘better’ vision that the other? Nope, it doesn’t. And of course there is a normal degree of variation in the perception of the entire visible spectrum as well, plus some interesting goodies like the fact that after taking a hot shower, most everyone can see much further into the infrared (try it yourself - it’s rather startling when you realize it ).

This is not to say that the visual spectrum is ‘relative’ in the sense of optics (the field of study, not human perception) but that is because we have defined values for the wavelengths that we can see. If instead of our human eyes, we had organs of perception in, say, the Xray range, there’d almost certainly be a degree of variation too, but that is what we would then call the ‘visual spectrum’ or something tantamount to it. You bet the universe, and questions of morality, are NOT to be taken lightly or accepted at face value.

Whoops, end sidetrack for that last part of this big ol’ Textwall, but it really does have something to do with the discussion.

 

[Leela]

Hi Ender,

I didn’t expect there to be a debate over the meaning of “objective moral truth” but we are clearly talking about different things. I will accept that there can be partial understandings of the truth - like the blind men and the elephant - but there cannot be conflicting truths and there cannot be conflicting sets of morals that can all be called true.

This is issue is why I raised the issue of question begging earlier. If Sidekick or you want to define “objective moral truth” in terms of a Gods-eye-view then without God, then there is no “objective moral truth” but only because the way you’ve defined the terms completely begs the question. You are simply equating the existence of God with objectivity. Doing so leaves nothing much else to say.

You view Truth as an essence that can be groped at like an elephant, while I view truth as something we say about sentences that are true.

Except, why do you think there can never be more than one true thing to say? Which is the true method for locating points in space, rectangular or polar coordinates? Does the earth revolve around the sun? Not from where I’m standing. To find a good place for my garden I need to track the path of the sun across the sky. Is 8 really 4+4 or 6+2 or 9-1 or 72/9? Which of these is the essence of 8?

Again, you take both positions: objectively good diets/truth exist … but maybe diets/truth vary from person to person. And what do you mean by “morality may turn out to be …”? Does that mean you don’t now know what it is?

Concerns that are moral are concerns about human flourishing. This is what I mean by morality. What do you mean by morality?

What I mean by “may turn out to be…” is that though we have learned much about morality just as we have learned much about biology, medicine, nutrition, economics, and astronomy, we still have much to learn. (Why would our knowledge of every other area of study progress and not our knowledge of ethics?) For example, there could be one best way to organize society, but there may not be. There may be many equally good ways.

I’m not sure that provides any direction at all on specific questions. Does this definition allow for torture?

I think torture is wrong, in general. What do you think? What does God tell you about torture? Others apparently think that God told them something different. Your question is really about how we can hope to justify our moral positions, and my point is that I don’t see any pragmatic benefit in arguing for one moral position over another on the basis of “God says so” as you seem to be suggesting. If one doesn’t agree with you about what God wants, what then? If God doesn’t step in and settle the dispute, as neither of us expect he will, you are in the same position as I am and everyone else is in trying to justify your position on the basis of human experience.

Justifications on the basis of human flourishing will be more convincing than arguing that you possess secret knowledge of the mind of God and what will avoid making him angry. Such arguments are only meaningful for those who already agree with you.

Is torture good or bad? The pragmatist who is always interested in considering how ideas work in practice asks, what is it supposed to be good for? Is it conduscive to human flourishing? Certainly not for the subject of the torture. Does it help preserve society by helping obtain important information to our security? If we engage in torture, won’t we be setting a standard for our people to be tortured by others? These are all useful avenues of discussion where you can make your case. I can’t see where “God says so” can possibly take you or how you could hope to justify your view to someone else on that basis.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

I’m always baffled and struck by the irony of the frequent claim of believers that atheists are arrogant while simultaneously proudly implying that they possess the “Christian virtue” of humility.

At the heart of all Christian teaching is the virtue of humility. Christ humbled himself on the Cross and showed by his example that humility bears us up, while pride dashes us down (Satan “I will not serve!” descending like a comet into hell). Jesus taught us humility in loving God and one another (as opposed to ourselves only). Jesus taught us humble obedience to his law, the same obedience no atheist will admit because he reserves the right to decide for himself what laws he must or need not obey. Jesus taught us to swallow our pride and forgive one another the sins we have committed against one another.

Show me where all these teachings of humility are contained in the atheist’s creed which is so empty that all it can say with a defiant shout is, “There is no god!”

So I too am a little baffled and struck by the frequent claim of atheists that they are humble in accepting their truth while Christians are arrogant in accepting theirs.

 

[Leela]

Show me where all these teachings of humility are contained in the atheist’s creed which is so empty that all it can say with a defiant shout is, “There is no god!”

So I too am a little baffled and struck by the frequent claim of atheists that they are humble in accepting their truth while Christians are arrogant in accepting theirs.

What atheists claim that they are humble? You are absolutely correct that humility is not part of any atheist creed, but neither is atheism inherently arrogant in any way that you’ve shown me.

I never said that I want to be humble, I just said that I want to be honest and that atheistic honesty is somehow construed as arrogance be the self-proclaimed humble Christians. I’m just wondering where you get off calling someone else arrogant. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye but not the log in your own eye?

You still don’t seem to get the irony of all this, meanwhile in the above you once again seem to want to get into a humility contest. Can’t you see the inherent pridefullness of that challenge? Don’t you know that “pride dashes down”?

I can’t see how you can really carry out your humility project. Don’t you pretty much have to humble yourself by convincing yourself that you are not as great as you actually think you are? Just how does that work?

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey, I deeply respect the work of the Angelic Doctor as being one of the greatest logicians and theologists of all time, yet his proof of the existence of the God he worshiped is, I’m afraid, not as airtight and inescapably satisfactory as some think. Now, I shan’t go into the whys and wherefores of that, partly because my spouse particularly, with some participation on my part and some very interesting (and civil!) discussion from various members has been done exhaustively on this forum before, but even more because that’s getting too far off the topic. .

if its not airtight please tell me why. i have yet to see, in many years, any refutation of first cause that is not easily disspelled.

there are none that i have ever seen that do not represent either a misunderstanding of the proofs, or a misunderstanding of science.

please give me any refutation that you know of and i will be happy to review it, if it is a common one, or one i have seen before i will be happy to show you the problem with it.

but in the end, nothing comes from nothing. in the 800 years of thomistic history, there has never been a variation to that.

it is insufficient reason to hold an opinion based on desire, one needs have a rational argument, or one has nothing at all.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

I can’t see how you can really carry out your humility project. Don’t you pretty much have to humble yourself by convincing yourself that you are not as great as you actually think you are? Just how does that work?

How that works is that we go to confession for our sins … and yes we confess those sins of pride that sneak in no matter how hard we try to elude them. To whom does the atheist confess his sins? I guess to no one, because he doesn’t believe he has sinned.

This is not a contest of which is more humble, Christian or atheist. This is an attempt to find out how the Christian is humbled, and how the atheist is humbled. You just asked, and I just answered, how the Catholic is humbled by his sins. He confesses them. So how does it work that the atheist is humbled by his sins? Does he never commit sins? Does he never confess? Does he have no one to confess to? Then how is he humbled?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

***Atheists are not arrogant. *They simply don’t want to claim to know things that they don’t know. We nonbelievers think we should say that we simply don’t know when the universe began or whether there was a creator let alone what a creator would be like or whether anything cool happens after you die. How is that arrogant? That’s not arrogance, that’s honesty.

Excuse me, it is arrogance. You claim to know that there is no God. You claim to know that there is no afterlife. Excuse me, but where do you get this direct knowledge, and where is your proof that there definitely is no God or afterlife? Your knowledge can’t just come out of thin air, can it? Then it’s arrogant to say you have solved the problem of God and the afterlife when you haven’t a clue about either.

 

[marilyn_Casella]

God does exist. He is the unmoved mover and the uncaused cause. Just as we know there is a watchmaker (didnt make itself) there is also a creator of the universe. We dont really have to go far - just look at the human body - such beauty in the way the body interacts and all works together - God is unity. God is beauty - God is love - salvation - all the things we cannot touch - nonmaterial but most of all he gives us himself in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ - himself our Savior. He gave us ourselves but we take all for granted - all is gift from a loving God. But it is all a matter of trust because we dont have all the answers for we our his children and his ways are higher than ours although he does give us the ability to reason - reason and faith work beautifully together but it still comes down to Trust - Read John 14.

 

[severntofall]

Pointless debate to confuse the unwary. God is Truth. What is not Truth is a lie. Lies are from The Liar. Do not give The Liar a moment of your time. Do not engage The Liar in debate for he is very old and very clever and he wants your soul very much. All The Liar has to do is have you cast your eyes momentarily from The Truth. The Liar temps us to imagine a Truth without God. There is no Truth outside of Truth Himself. God is that Truth.

Initially I was taken back by the inanity of your comments, but then I realized that it allowed me the opportunity to segue to what I feel is the basis for most religious belief: I believe that it is to varying degree’s a product of a personality disorder. Like your typical theist, a person with a personality disorder cannot recognize the condition in themselves (though they can see it in others) and are almost always incapable of admitting their condition; in fact, ironically the best indication that a person does not have a personality disorder would be for them to admit that they do. In the same manner, theists can determine if their beliefs are intellectual in nature or the result of a disorder if they can honestly admit that they might be wrong. As a non-believer I personally have no problem honestly admitting that there may actually be a god. Now, as a theist can you honestly admit that there might not be a god; not that there isn’t a god but just that conceivably there might not be one or is this something you are incapable of doing? I suggest that if you honestly lack the ability to concede the possibility that there might not be a god, then you faith is the result of a disorder.

 

[Namesake]

Initially I was taken back by the inanity of your comments, but then I realized that it allowed me the opportunity to segue to what I feel is the basis for most religious belief: I believe that it is to varying degree’s a product of a personality disorder. Like your typical theist, a person with a personality disorder cannot recognize the condition in themselves (though they can see it in others) and are almost always incapable of admitting their condition; in fact, ironically the best indication that a person does not have a personality disorder would be for them to admit that they do. In the same manner, theists can determine if their beliefs are intellectual in nature or the result of a disorder if they can honestly admit that they might be wrong. As a non-believer I personally have no problem honestly admitting that there may actually be a god. Now, as a theist can you honestly admit that there might not be a god; not that there isn’t a god but just that conceivably there might not be one or is this something you are incapable of doing? I suggest that if you honestly lack the ability to concede the possibility that there might not be a god, then you faith is the result of a disorder.

Very astute comment.

Even as a pretty serious atheist (weak atheist) Richard Dawkins admits that he is not absolutely certain there is no God. He at least leaves some room for doubt, which is quite healthy I think.

 

[severntofall]

Why would you want to believe such a negative thing, especailly when we do not know that such a thing is true? To me; this is very disturbing. Pehaps there is something in it for you that you feel is worth the sacrifice.

To be honest, I am having trouble responding to this, as I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

This is basically true; but i would add, that while some people don’t want to be harmed personally and might practice acts of charity, i doubt that most people generally care about those outside their immediate family and chosen freinds, though they might like to make others think so for the sake of appearences.

While I don’t agree that all instances of charity or kindness are for premeditated Darwinian purposes, there is some true to the claim that people will act for the sake of appearances. There are benefits to appearing to being a good, kind, moral person, which exist both within a Darwinian point of view and a theistic point of view.

There are violent people who use religion as a banner of truimph.
There has also been many people in history that have used atheism and naturalism as a banner of truimph and as an excuse for evil. In fact, in a world where people do not believe in the truth of moral values, there is more then enough fertile grounds for the growth of inhuman ignorance. I suggest you read history, and then you will not make such biased misrepresentations.

While I agree that there have been atheists who have committed acts of “evil”, I can think of few (none actually) who have done so in the name of atheism; however, I suspect that one could find instances where people have committed individual acts of evil because of their nihilistic views.

No you cannot. You can merely say that you personally dislike that kind of behavior. The holocaust, in a world without objective moral truth, is taboo; nothing more.

Yes I can. Again, the permission of such behavior has consequences for us all. A world in which such disregard for humans was considered the norm or acceptable would not be a world in which I would choose to live.

You reject it because you fear it. This has no bearing on the truth of moral statements or behavior.

Humorously, it is you who rejects the truth out of fear. You’re world view has always known a god, and you will cling to that belief (no matter how unsupported by the facts) until your dying days.

Good; but if there are no such thing as moral values, then your rejection of abortion is based on a subjective dislike for what you percieve as a threat to humanity and a fantasy that your life and the lives of others have intrinsic value.

Correct, I reject nothing because of a concept of inheritancy, as nothing is inheritantly good or evil. Ultimately, my morality is a selfish one; as I for my own selfish reasons do not wish to live in a world where cruelty and hatred are considered acceptable.

The world in which you wish to believe in, human beings have no more objective value then an slug has; so you cannot expect people to treat your existence with any more respect then they choose to.

I selfishly attach value to the species to which I am a member, so in a sense you are correct…so what? You are correct that I “cannot expect people to treat your (my) existence with any more respect then they choose to”. I’m not sure what that statement proves, as it’s true whether there is a god or not. Ultimately I can say this: history provides us with little evidence that religion improves our existence on this tiny rock, orbiting a tiny star, drifting along with the whole of the Milky Way, inside our ever expanding universe. At best, religion has the opiate effect as described to us by Marx; perhaps it allows us to endure with the hope that we are somehow special while existing inside a universe that cares for nothing…perhaps. Ironically, if humanity is to find salvation from the likely inevitable death that awaits our species it will not be a god providing it, but rather the very science that most theist now accuse of villainies. I will say this: if I could be convinced that religion is in fact of value to our species; that we are beter off with it than without it, then I would stand aside and allow our species to enjoy the bliss of its ignorance. However, I have not been convince of this and in fact have been convinced of very much the opposite and I believe that as is typically the case that bliss does not come with ignorance. Ultimately, human life has the value we give it, and I value my life and the lives of those that I love and care for and thus it can be said that I am a humanist.

 

[severntofall]

Very astute comment.

Even as a pretty serious atheist (weak atheist) Richard Dawkins admits that he is not absolutely certain there is no God. He at least leaves some room for doubt, which is quite healthy I think.

Why thank you.

 

[severntofall]

No. This is precisely what annoys me; people misrepresenting arguments. I suggest you re-read the context in which i made the statement.
Let me rephrase. I basically said that the mere assertion that the Thomistic proofs are invalid is not itself an exercise in logic. A reasonable person would make a statement, and then back it up with an argument. That is not what was done. Instead, somebody arrogantly claimed that the arguments were disproved with out giving a valid reason. A Thomistic philosopher will never take kindly to a baseless assertion. Like-wise, if i made a poor assertion, an atheist would want me to back it up with a valid argument.

Otherwise it all just becomes a mud-slinging competition.

Actually as it turns out my response was to a comment made by warpspeed. He did make such an assertion.