Do the Atheists have it right: Just Be Good for Goodness' Sake?

[Logos385]

Leela’s most recent post is something I would deeply support. Extremely well said Leela. That’s all : ).

 

[PRmerger]

So, if morality, at its very base is to preserve life, what’s to say it simply isn’t a product of evolutionary processes?

The pragmatist/realist/rationalist/atheist cannot explain the ultimate act of morality, which is to lay down one’s life for another. How does that preserve one’s life? How is LOVE pragmatic?

 

[Logos385]

The pragmatist/realist/rationalist/atheist cannot explain the ultimate act of morality, which is to lay down one’s life for another. How does that preserve one’s life? How is LOVE pragmatic?

I think you meant the “ultimate act of love,” rather than the ultimate act of morality? Correct me if I’m mistaken. Giving up your life for someone else isn’t always a moral action. But anyway, yes, that would be an extremely loving action, but giving me such a general situation doesn’t give any atheist/pragmatist/realist, etc, any chance of explaining themselves.

But I’ll try anyway, if you first give me your definition of love? I’m curious : ).

 

[iamme]

not having read all 181 posts, id like to throw my hat in the ring and say that i think it is much better to be good for no other reason than its the right thing to do, as opposed to being good for fear of being punished later down the line. thats not me saying that atheists are right mind you, because religion can of course do a lot of good, but in my experience, ive found there are no more “good” atheists than there are “bad” religious people. its a wash for me.

 

[KLIBERA]

In A Sense They Do Have It Right. If They’re Acting Like Jesus Said They Should Act, I Suppose They Can Attain Salvation. But If They Make It An Agenda–an Agenda To Affect Everyone Else (e.g. Madeline Murray O’hare Or Joseph Stalin) Then They Are Adversely Affecting The Faith. They Are Rejecting The Fact That There Is Something More Omnipotent Than Them. This Is Where They Get Into Trouble. When Anyone Puts Themselves On The Level Of God–i.e. Equating Their Power & Knowledge Or Desire To Rule Like God–that Is Their Fatal Flaw. It Makes Sense Too When You Examine The Stalins, Pol Pots, Mao Tse Tungs–all Thought Them To Be On The Same Level & All Executed Their Justice Without Conscience. Those Two Things Is What I Believe Ensures Their Eternal Damnation. In Addition, They Fail To See That It Was God Himself Who Created The Universe As Being A Battle Between Good & Evil. Without Evil, There Would Be No Need Of A Gospel Or Guidance For Good Behavior.

 

[iamme]

This Is Where They Get Into Trouble. When Anyone Puts Themselves On The Level Of God–i.e. Equating Their Power & Knowledge

but if you think about it, power is knowledge, and puts you on a level playing field with god. it even says so in genesis. god didnt cast adam and eve out fo the garden because they disobeyed, but because he was AFRAID that having disobeyed once, by eating the fruit of knowledge, that they would disobey him again, and eat from the tree of life, and live forever, like gods, endless.

 

[grannymh]

Great point, and very interesting indeed that this has not been brought up yet. I would say that this point, human life being sacred/important, could translate from the ultimate truth to the foundational objective of humanity: to preserve human life. This, as many may know, is an evolutionary imperative… pretty much the evolutionary imperative. So, if morality, at its very base is to preserve life, what’s to say it simply isn’t a product of evolutionary processes?
Thanks for that great insight : ).

Dear Logos385,

Good to see you!

I’m glad you brought up the idea of evolutionary processes because that did cross my mind. I’ve asked a lot of questions about evolution on another thread. It is my understanding that the origin of life has not been determined. Further, current biologists are more interested in moving forward. Thus, as a Catholic, I am very comfortable exploring evolution as long as I don’t have to take any tests.

What about the idea that the history of evolution is evidence of the value or sacredness of human life? According to the experts, my grandkids, dinosaurs either disappeared or evolved into modern animals, reptiles or birds. Older family members are concerned about endangered species like bats. I’m concerned about the magnificent animals/birds in Alaska.

My observation is that members of the animal, insect, etc. kingdoms are subject to extinction. On the other hand, humans, with some of the worse genes ever, survive with a flourish. What makes them different? Somehow, in the grand scheme of the universe, human life is above all else. In other words, it is set apart as sacred.

I understand that preserving life is an evolutionary imperative which depends on natural selection. (Did I get the right term?) It is across the board right down to plants and where their seeds land. I have seen documentaries about animals who instinctively protect the wounded as a way of carrying on life. The one thing not to do in Alaska is to surprise a mother bear with cubs.

On the other hand, the way humans care for others is on a far more advanced level. So I’m thinking that even with the basic drive to preserve and propagate life, the absolute truth of human life as worthy of profound respect is on a level above genes and hormones. It is a product of both the physical and something other than physical.

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

I think you meant the “ultimate act of love,” rather than the ultimate act of morality? Correct me if I’m mistaken. Giving up your life for someone else isn’t always a moral action. But anyway, yes, that would be an extremely loving action, but giving me such a general situation doesn’t give any atheist/pragmatist/realist, etc, any chance of explaining themselves.

But I’ll try anyway, if you first give me your definition of love? I’m curious : ).

Quick comment: As I see it – to lay down one’s life for another is the ultimate act of love. This is purely a secular observation of biblical times. Even back then, the death of Jesus was seen as the ultimate act of love just like the final act of love in the Tale of Two Cities.

 

[grannymh]

Great point, and very interesting indeed that this has not been brought up yet. I would say that this point, human life being sacred/important, could translate from the ultimate truth to the foundational objective of humanity: to preserve human life. This, as many may know, is an evolutionary imperative… pretty much the evolutionary imperative. So, if morality, at its very base is to preserve life, what’s to say it simply isn’t a product of evolutionary processes?

Thanks for that great insight : ).

Dear Logos385,

Upon reading your post for the third time, may I modify one of your statements? Or rather change it into my own statement?
It would be as follows: While the foundational objective of humanity is to preserve life, it is not the only objective since there are both physical and spiritual aspects in human beings.
The reason that I add a “spiritual” objective is that I accept both experiential learning and subjective thinking.

Blessings,
granny

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is incorrect, for the motivation is the betterment of society as a whole, not for only the self. Generally, machiavellian ideals don’t better society in any way, shape, or form.

i dont know about you, but i hear a lot of that kind of talk but not much of that kind of walk. who runs around talking about being motivated by the ‘betterment of society’?

if that were true than our economic system would collapse completely. Adam Smith is rolling in his grave as we speak.

people are motivated by their greed.

my proof?

basic economic theory.

 

[grannymh]

If you claim that your god would not command an evil action, then you must have a concept of good and evil that is separate from your god.

If good and evil are concepts that are separate from your god, a person could rationally figure out what is good on his own and effectively ignore your god.

[please note that I don’t actually believe in any gods – including yours – I’m granting the assumption that your god exists for the sake of argument]

Dear MegaTherion,

My apology for taking so long to respond to this post. Your last paragraph amazed me because of your generous assumption that God exists for the sake of argument. Please correct me, but I see that as meaning that you are open to possibilities…
May I offer another possibility as a source for morality?

For the sake of argument, let us assume that a person could rationally figure out what is good on his own. This person, for whatever reason, is going to ignore God. And, for the sake of argument, I decide not to claim anything for God even though I deeply love God with my whole being.

What is left to serve as a source for morality appears to be the “situation” as described on lots of posts. Most posts seem to describe the situation in terms of relativism. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why Hitler is the favorite example when there are plenty of drive-by shootings and school-age killers in this country. What about the situation of an economic recession caused in part by some very greedy people? What about identity theft? With such a variety of real-life circumstances, situation ethics or relativism does not appear to be stable.

Here is another possibility as a source for moral behavior, one which I believe could be seen as universal. It is the absolute truth that human life is worthy of profound respect. One could also say that human life is sacred.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Logos385]

Dear Logos385,
On the other hand, humans, with some of the worse genes ever, survive with a flourish. What makes them different? Somehow, in the grand scheme of the universe, human life is above all else. In other words, it is set apart as sacred.

Hmmm, somehow I fail to see what you mean? I don’t think humans have some of the worst genes ever… the reason why we flourish (despite our small stature/size compared to many other creatures) is because of our extremely advanced intellectual capacity when compared to the others on this grand scheme you speak of.

I understand that preserving life is an evolutionary imperative which depends on natural selection. (Did I get the right term?)

Mhmm.

On the other hand, the way humans care for others is on a far more advanced level. So I’m thinking that even with the basic drive to preserve and propagate life, the absolute truth of human life as worthy of profound respect is on a level above genes and hormones. It is a product of both the physical and something other than physical.

The advanced level comes from millions of evolutionary years and our advanced intellect. Also, some pragmatists would argue that sure, love isn’t physical by necessity, but that doesn’t mean it is supernatural.

 

[Logos385]

i dont know about you, but i hear a lot of that kind of talk but not much of that kind of walk. who runs around talking about being motivated by the ‘betterment of society’?

A lot of people actually. I do… the government does… almost every school teacher, professor, social worker, doctor, fireman, policeman, etc seem to…? I am “walking this walk”, so there ya go.

if that were true than our economic system would collapse completely. Adam Smith is rolling in his grave as we speak.

people are motivated by their greed.

my proof?

basic economic theory.

I fail to see how the fact that bettering the poor financially doesn’t necessarily help the richer in the economic system relates to morality. I realize you are equating economic principles directly with morale ones, and I believe this to be a simple logical fallacy… morality and economics are two extremely different things.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Surely you don’t mean materialists don’t recognize the existence of a society…?

sure they recognize society, there is just no real motivation to behave in a moral manner.

‘betterment of society’ sounds great, but its just a pretty idea.

i can name all sorts of mass murders that occurred in the name of the ‘betterment of society’

1. hitler was making a better germany by killing Jews, and gypsies.
2. mengele was making a better society by cruel experimentation on the mentally ill and the developementally disabled
3. mugabe is making a better society in zimbabwe by repatriating land from caucasion zimbabweans
4. lenin made a better society by murdering those oppsed to communism
5. stalin made a better society by stealing the land of, and killing 20 million russian peasants in collectivisation, and reeducation
6. Mao was making a better society in china by doing the same as stalin,

i could go on. but atheists want to make a better society, given power, how long before we would be reeducated?

save me from those who say they are motivated by the ‘betterment of society’

 

[Logos385]

Dear Logos385,

Upon reading your post for the third time, may I modify one of your statements? Or rather change it into my own statement?
It would be as follows: While the foundational objective of humanity is to preserve life, it is not the only objective since there are both physical and spiritual aspects in human beings.
The reason that I add a “spiritual” objective is that I accept both experiential learning and subjective thinking.

Blessings,
granny

I would say that of course it isn’t the only objective, but it is the most base, primal one. And I might even say, “spiritual” too, but if I did so it would be in an animist sense, rather than a supernatural one.

And I forgot to give you this link… while evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life, biologists are working on it anyway. Here is a superb abiogenesis video: youtube.com/watch?v=vjOqWkV1_tk

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That’s an interesting concept. If God commanded me to hate someone would I do it because I believe in the utter omniscience and authority of God? Well, certainly it’s a non-sensical question as God cannot command evil, as you suggest.

However, I guess if God commands me to do something that I don’t understand, I think I would still do it. Just as Christ commanded his apostles to “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”, which was abhorrent to the Jews. But, if God said to do it, they did it!

But - that is a poor foundation for an entire moral outlook. ​

One of the problems before the Reformation was this very tendency to divorce goodbness from God’s Will: it helped to make the notion of a God who could command evil, morally palatable. That is what comes of jettisoning metaphysical realism for
ethical voluntarism

This is why Evangelium Vitae 35 is mistaken: God does not make good - if He does, it could in principle depend solely on Him whether murder was a holy action or a great sin. The question is not easy, but to imply that God could have commanded us to hate our neighbour is monstrous: so some answers are certainly wrong.

 

[Logos385]

sure they recognize society, there is just no real motivation to behave in a moral manner.

‘betterment of society’ sounds great, but its just a pretty idea.

i can name all sorts of mass murders that occurred in the name of the ‘betterment of society’

1. hitler was making a better germany by killing Jews, and gypsies.

i could go on. but atheists want to make a better society, given power, how long before we would be reeducated?

save me from those who say they are motivated by the ‘betterment of society’

Please stop using Hitler as an Atheistic example, he said he was doing God’s will. Who are you to say that he was wrong?

But beside the Hitler point, which I truly hope stops being brought up, the examples you are giving me have nothing to do at ALL with the betterment of society. All of the people killed and oppressed in these times are part of society, thus hurting them is automatically detrimental to said society. There are also many mass murders and wars, including our current Iraq war, which we have religion to thank for. I am not bringing these into the discussion because it is irrelevant to a discussion about normal morality. Once we reach psychotic or mass-murderer morality, we reach an entirely new subject area. Please stop mentioning this, no matter how much you think it is the ultimate point. It has nothing to do with our discussion on standard morals. Of course psychotic people will do psychotic things, but that has nothing to do with Atheism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A lot of people actually. I do… the government does… almost every school teacher, professor, social worker, doctor, fireman, policeman, etc seem to…? I am “walking this walk”, so there ya go.

i am pretty sure that all those people recieve a paycheck for their proffesion. as my profession is one of those listed, i know they do.

give any of those people the choice between a lifetimes supply money and their jobs, and see how many show up for the next shift.

I fail to see how the fact that bettering the poor financially doesn’t necessarily help the richer in the economic system relates to morality. I realize you are equating economic principles directly with morale ones, and I believe this to be a simple logical fallacy… morality and economics are two extremely different things.

i hold that they are the exact same thing, gain, whether outwardly by possessions or inwardly by fulfillment of emotional, social, or intellectual desires is gain.

therefore the same system applies. economic theory is about the behavior of people in light of the universal quality of greed, it applies no matter if we talk about money, sex, self esteem, or social standing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

but if you think about it, power is knowledge, and puts you on a level playing field with god. it even says so in genesis. god didnt cast adam and eve out fo the garden because they disobeyed, but because he was AFRAID that having disobeyed once, by eating the fruit of knowledge, that they would disobey him again, and eat from the tree of life, and live forever, like gods, endless.

what?!

where did you get that idea, i suggest you check that out with one of the sirtes apologists

 

[Logos385]

give any of those people the choice between a lifetimes supply money and their jobs, and see how many show up for the next shift.

Sure, they receive a paycheck. But I know many people in these professions who can’t live life without work that helps others. So actually, they would choose the job.

i hold that they are the exact same thing, gain, whether outwardly by possessions or inwardly by fulfillment of emotional, social, or intellectual desires is gain.
therefore the same system applies. economic theory is about the behavior of people in light of the universal quality of greed, it applies no matter if we talk about money, sex, self esteem, or social standing.

That’s simply not true. economic gain is economic gain, while societal gain is societal gain. They are different types of gain, with completely different “theories” behind them. I fail to see the evidence that economic principles apply to morality. All I see is you repeatedly saying that they do. Which is not evidence.