Defending Against Atheism

[Hubriss]

So observations of nature tell us that people will to live as long as they can and reproduce, and these observations are a basis for morality. Then birth control is wrong, suicide is wrong and abortion is wrong. Do you agree?

Yes I agree that suicide and abortion are wrong. Birth control doesn’t necessarily go against nature, NFP is of course a birth control method, just because we have technological birth control does not mean it is wrong.

you’ve left out the litmus test for naturalism - survival of the fittest.

Yeah I just left out Natural Selection in case you had any negative disposition toward it. Nice

Okay, then the laws they came up with in an attempt to address these issues are just fine. Right?

Wait, I thought it was whatever preserved life and the perpetuation of the species. Whether belief in something is delusional isn’t the standard. This so-called delusional belief in God has led to moral precepts that preserve life. It looks like you are changing the standard.

Any empirical studies to back up your claim that religious belief is causing America to fall behind? No? I guess we’d have to compare how well the former Soviet Union fared in that regard. Yes, good reasoning skills are more necessary than ever.

Yes, what I have been mentioning about moral law in the past has been based on the utilitarianism. Old religious morality has been based almost totally on utilitarianism. This is the reason why we see so many bizzare laws in the Old Testament that we no longer follw, and even the golden rule in the new is utilitarian. Other religious laws which didn’t fit the utilitarian perspective were some means of control or superstitious rituals (not only talking about judaism and christianity).
But no, it’s not just fine. Our societies have greatly developed and not all our moral philosophy is based on utilitarian ideas, in fact it mostly isn’t (of course we didn’t just abruptly discard total utilitarianism in our societal law, and religion diverged from total utilitarianism even more).

Yes religion has done a fine job at preserving life and promoting the perpetuation of the species, but that was when most people weren’t educated. Now that people can think more clearly by themselves and learn about great moral philosophers and their thought processes, we don’t need religion anymore to simply give out laws without any proper explanation or reason, and just say “because God says so.” My favorite example of a moral philospher is Kant and his categorical and hypothetical imperatives.

And when I say that religious belief is causing America to fall behind, I may just be talking out of my ***. But we do see a trend in history with societies who’s majority people are strongly fundamental about whatever bad religion they have. We in the west know that the Muslim socities’ decline in the middle east is largely due to them turning their back on science and causing their religion to run their society. We saw this in India as well and maybe somewhat in China. America currently has so many fundamental christians it’s not even funny. When 30% (I don’t know the real number, just a ball park guess) of the population in your country would rather discard Knowledge and reason for superstitious nonsense you better think there is a problem (this also doesn’t only apply to established religions, things like astrology are a problem too).

Then there isn’t any basis in nature for morality? It’s just all our own personal preference. Like I said, what you are talking about isn’t natural law.

Regardless of whether or not someone is religious or non, they are still going to act according to their personal preference. So you are exactly right, of course all our actions are based on our own personal preferences. BUT it’s what and how we are taught which developes our preferences. Teaching people about secular moral philosophy, concepts like law, retribution, categorical/hypothetical imperatives, and duty will work even better than religion because it is explained in a way that people can follow with their own reason. They will develope their personal preference based on actual knowledge and it will entail a stronger resolve because it will not be just based on faith.

 

[Hubriss]

Yes His laws are timeless. And laws that don’t comport with them are immoral and unjust. There have been many of them throughout history. There have also been people who have incorrectly identified certain moral standards as being based on God’s revelation. This doesn’t help you at all to answer the question of what moral standards exist in nature that tell us what we should and should not do. That’s why a long time ago I stated that atheists should just admit that it is their own personal preference that dictates what is right and wrong. In your case, it sure isn’t natural law.

If his laws are timeless, why have we discarded so many of them from the Old Testament?

Oh and about all the utilitarian stuff and why we don’t base all our laws on it anymore. Clearly now the species is in no danger of going extinct by means of Natural Selection. We’re at a point in fact where we severely need to tone down our reproduction if we want our resources to last us in the future… what we really need to be focusing on is science that will enable us to do that. So the preservation of the species through reproduction and other means is not on the top of everyone’s “things I want to do” list. So many people have higher priorities like the persuit of happiness (which may include reproduction. Heh, it’s very complicated).

But I wonder… why do you so much insist on a natural law? There are laws we can derive from nature, but there is of course no supreme standard that holds us to them. I’ve always wondered why christians don’t consider that.

 

[cpayne]

But I wonder… why do you so much insist on a natural law? There are laws we can derive from nature, but there is of course no supreme standard that holds us to them. I’ve always wondered why christians don’t consider that.

Which is why Aquinas argues that, in order to possess the character of law, a law requires a Lawgiver. I think what we’ve argued is that one can know the character of the laws (as an effect) without necessarily knowing of the Cause of the laws in our constitution. The primary point is that the natural moral laws are publicly accessible to public natural reason. They are not specifically bound to a religion, or to religion in general, even though implanted in our natures by God’s creation of us.

 

[Hubriss]

Which is why Aquinas argues that, in order to possess the character of law, a law requires a Lawgiver. I think what we’ve argued is that one can know the character of the laws (as an effect) without necessarily knowing of the Cause of the laws in our constitution. The primary point is that the natural moral laws are publicly accessible to public natural reason. They are not specifically bound to a religion, or to religion in general, even though implanted in our natures by God’s creation of us.

If “natural moral laws” are publicly accessable to natural reason, and are not bound by religion, I don’t quite see how that is any different than an atheist perspective in terms of practicality. When you say that our morals require a lawgiver and say that natural laws are accessable by public reason, people are going to reason differently and not come to the conclusion of one single set of moral beliefs.

We can clearly see the cause of the laws in our constitution. The reasoning of the for fathers is available to us in their letters writings.

 

[cpayne]

If “natural moral laws” are publicly accessable to natural reason, and are not bound by religion, I don’t quite see how that is any different than an atheist perspective in terms of practicality. When you say that our morals require a lawgiver and say that natural laws are accessable by public reason, people are going to reason differently and not come to the conclusion of one single set of moral beliefs.

Okay, here’s where we disagree, I think. Most people WILL come to one single set of moral beliefs. I’d be willing to bet that at least 90% of basic moral beliefs are common to all societies, regardless of religion or lack thereof—what the ancient Greeks and Romans called the jus gentium.

 

[Hubriss]

Okay, here’s where we disagree, I think. Most people WILL come to one single set of moral beliefs. I’d be willing to bet that at least 90% of basic moral beliefs are common to all societies, regardless of religion or lack thereof—what the ancient Greeks and Romans called the jus gentium.

Well sure the basics but there are still the issues that are being debated now like gay rights and abortion and all that which you believe are given wrongs, while half of everyone else doesn’t. There are other issues like reparations for those wrongfully found guilty and imprisoned for a crime they didn’t commit that not everyone can come to an agreement on, even though that’s a much larger moral problem than something like gay rights. There are many states who give no or inadequate reparations to help get those exhonerated people back on their feet.

 

[cpayne]

Well sure the basics

See, we agree after all. This is called natural law. Secondary applications of natural law may start some arguments, sure. But the foundational natural law precepts are still there.

 

[Mirdath]

See, we agree after all. This is called natural law. Secondary applications of natural law may start some arguments, sure. But the foundational natural law precepts are still there.

Or rather, ‘natural law’ is one explanation that shoehorns God in where it isn’t really needed.

The basics might be expressed as a set of points applicable to one person and then universalized:

• Don’t mess with me.
• Don’t mess with my stuff.
• Don’t talk smack about me.

You’re cool, I’m cool, we’re all cool. Uncoolth is to be avoided, and if we’re gonna work together on this thing, all of us gotta be cool.

Obviously, one can draw parallels between the list and actual moral codes. The Decalogue, for instance: L1 covers commandments 5 and 6; L2 covers commandment 7; L3 covers commandment 8. What, then, are those commandments beyond a universalized expression of enlightened self-interest? Divine command has nothing to do with the content of the message; it’s merely a vehicle for it. To be sure, it’s a much more effective way of getting everyone to fall in line – ‘hey you! God, you know, that God, the one you believe in – he says don’t be a jerk!’ – than depending on human rationality, but that doesn’t make it ‘graven on the human heart’ or anything of the sort.

 

[tdgesq]

Yes I agree that suicide and abortion are wrong. Birth control doesn’t necessarily go against nature, NFP is of course a birth control method, just because we have technological birth control does not mean it is wrong.

It would not be wrong because of new technology, but because it does not promote reproduction; the second law that you suggest is found in nature. Birth control cannot be justified under that law.

Yeah I just left out Natural Selection in case you had any negative disposition toward it.

I had assumed you left it out because by itself it leads to some pretty grim conclusions of how to deal with the weak and infirm, the genetically inferior. Conclusions that I think most atheists would disagree with.

Yes, what I have been mentioning about moral law in the past has been based on the utilitarianism. Old religious morality has been based almost totally on utilitarianism.

I’m not going to engage in a discussion on utilitarianism, as I’ve done so already on numerous occasions. This was supposed to be a discussion about natural law from the atheist’s perspective. I will say that utilitarianism as a moral philosophy was not developed until the time of John Stuart Mill. And even a cursory examination of Jewish and Christian morality demonstrates that it frequently does not conform to the greatest happiness for the greatest number as it would be understood be Utilitarians. I would agree that Christian morality does result in the greatest happiness.

Now that people can think more clearly by themselves and learn about great moral philosophers and their thought processes, we don’t need religion anymore to simply give out laws without any proper explanation or reason, and just say “because God says so.” My favorite example of a moral philospher is Kant and his categorical and hypothetical imperatives.

If religion isn’t needed anymore then atheists should be able to give a consistent moral philosophy. I have yet to see one. Kant is a perfect example. On the one hand you buy into scientific naturalism/materialism, while on the other you want to adopt Kant’s system of morality. The two are not consistent, as I pointed out here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2782241&postcount=142

Regardless of whether or not someone is religious or non, they are still going to act according to their personal preference. ] They will develope their personal preference based on actual knowledge and it will entail a stronger resolve because it will not be just based on faith.

If you mean that people are going to act the way they choose to act, absent any external constraint, then that is a truism. But that isn’t what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that there is no belief in a moral standard derived from nature that provides the foundation for laws, at least not a consistent one. In fact, it appears to me that there is no belief in a basis for morality other than what the atheist prefers. That is the basis.

If his laws are timeless, why have we discarded so many of them from the Old Testament?

For many reasons. Some of them were created by the Jews without any basis in the divine. Some of them were imperfect reflections of God’s laws. Some of them were simply punishments imposed as a result of unfaithfulness. It depends which specific Old Testament laws to which you refer.

Oh and about all the utilitarian stuff and why we don’t base all our laws on it anymore. Clearly now the species is in no danger of going extinct by means of Natural Selection. We’re at a point in fact where we severely need to tone down our reproduction if we want our resources to last us in the future… what we really need to be focusing on is science that will enable us to do that

.

We already have science that will do that for us. It’s called forced sterilization. And it has been used by some governments in the past. Abortion is also a solution. So is euthanasia of the weak and genetically inferior. All are available and have been used. What possible reason could the naturalist have to condemn the use of these methods?

So the preservation of the species through reproduction and other means is not on the top of everyone’s “things I want to do” list. So many people have higher priorities like the persuit of happiness (which may include reproduction. Heh, it’s very complicated).

Apparently so complicated that the atheist can’t give a coherent account of his system of morality.

But I wonder… why do you so much insist on a natural law? There are laws we can derive from nature, but there is of course no supreme standard that holds us to them. I’ve always wondered why christians don’t consider that.

I don’t insist upon it. I’m not a big natural law guy, but I do hold to a theistic system of morality because it has some rational basis. I don’t hold to a moral philosophies that contain multiple inconsistencies like atheists do. My religion requires that I use my reasoning abilities to give a rational account for it.

 

[Hubriss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubriss
Well sure the basics

See, we agree after all. This is called natural law. Secondary applications of natural law may start some arguments, sure. But the foundational natural law precepts are still there.

Yes but I’d like to point out as well that not everyone agrees on things such as murder either. There are obviously people who have commited murder who don’t think what they did was wrong. Same with stealing and pretty much any law you can consider basic to human reasoning.

But even with capital punishment, there’s likely a huge percent of people in the world who believe it is just, when in fact it is actually murder in all definitions.

 

[cpayne]

Well, on capital punishment and murder: That’s a different thread. But regarding murderers thinking what they did was right: Since when do we look to psychotics for our moral boundaries and definitions?

Actually, come to think of it, all this discussion of natural law is probably a different thread, too.