Genesis Message, for Atheists

[Kamalayka]

Maybe you will see that the story of Adam and Eve is a great warning against human arrogance that is contained in it, the serpent’s silky promise that if we reject the supposedly foolish, trivial restrictions imposed on us by an interfering, jealous nuisance of a God, then we shall be liberated.

As the serpent promises: “You shall be as gods.”

Take the enticing satanic advice, and you arrive, quite quickly, at revolutionary terror, at the invention of the atom bomb, at the torture chamber and the building of concentration camps for those “unteachable morons” who do not share your vision of a just world.

 

[AnAtheist]

As the serpent promises: “You shall be as gods.”

Take the enticing satanic advice, and you arrive, quite quickly, at revolutionary terror, at the invention of the atom bomb, at the torture chamber and the building of concentration camps for those “unteachable morons” who do not share your vision of a just world.

And don’t take that advice, and you arrive at the very same point. History has proven that.

 

[gearhead]

Maybe you will see that the story of Adam and Eve is a great warning against human arrogance that is contained in it, the serpent’s silky promise that if we reject the supposedly foolish, trivial restrictions imposed on us by an interfering, jealous nuisance of a God, then we shall be liberated.

Of course. If I don’t believe as you do, it’s because I’m too arrogant to see the truth.

 

[AntiTheist]

So I take it that your argument is “not believing in my particular god = bad stuff”?

The argument falls apart when you consider that “bad stuff” has been perpetrated by people who believe in your particular god as well as by people who don’t believe in your particular god.

Further, not all people who do not believe in your particular god cause “bad stuff” to happen. Far from it – you can see, for example, that countries with high populations of non-religious folks have less violent crime than countries with high populations of religious, like the United States.

 

[Matthias123]

So I take it that your argument is “not believing in my particular god = bad stuff”?

The argument falls apart when you consider that “bad stuff” has been perpetrated by people who believe in your particular god as well as by people who don’t believe in your particular god.

Further, not all people who do not believe in your particular god cause “bad stuff” to happen. Far from it – you can see, for example, that countries with high populations of non-religious folks have less violent crime than countries with high populations of religious, like the United States.

Two questions:

Do you think, regardless of God existing, it would be right to make yourself a God?

In theory, if the Gospel is followed perfectly, and a person commits himself to a death to self, and attempts to become a great servent of others, do you think this will lead to a life of goodness and virtue?

 

[Kamalayka]

Further, not all people who do not believe in your particular god cause “bad stuff” to happen. Far from it – you can see, for example, that countries with high populations of non-religious folks have less violent crime…

You mean like Nazi Germany, or North Korea?

 

[Kamalayka]

I forgot to mention that my post was a quote from Peter Hitchens (theist), the brother of Christopher Hitchens (atheist)…

 

[AntiTheist]

Do you think, regardless of God existing, it would be right to make yourself a God?

Well, as I’ve said in another thread, I don’t think that “right” and “wrong” have objective meanings. There are only things that people value and things that people don’t value.

As to whether I think “making yourself a God” is something I’d want to do, I’d say that it depends largely on what you mean by that pretty weird phrase.

If you mean being selfish in the sense of hurting others, that’s something I’d generally be against. If you mean just enjoying the glories of being alive since there’s no conscious being (that we’re aware of, anyway) capable of abstract thought quite like us, then sure, that’s something I’d approve of.

In theory, if the Gospel is followed perfectly, and a person commits himself to a death to self, and attempts to become a great servent of others, do you think this will lead to a life of goodness and virtue?

Again, “goodness” doesn’t really have any meaning. There are some people inclined to serve others, and some people who are not. I’m sure there are many people fulfilled by a life of servitude, and others who would find it absolutely intolerable.

As you note, you don’t have to be a theist to commit yourself to the idea of “death to self.” The notion of moving beyond mere self-interest is something that many moral philosophies have at their core, and atheists are free to follow any moral philosophy they like.

 

[liquidpele]

I forgot to mention that my post was a quote from Peter Hitchens (theist), the brother of Christopher Hitchens (atheist)…

Hahaha, I bet those family dinners are just awesome

 

[Kamalayka]

Hahaha, I bet those family dinners are just awesome

He doesn’t like his brother Peter.

Maybe some day they will be friendly in the future.

 

[Matthias123]

Well, as I’ve said in another thread, I don’t think that “right” and “wrong” have objective meanings. There are only things that people value and things that people don’t value.

Well, consider this: We know that all acts are acted in order to obtain some good. For the act of existing is for the good of being, and the act of moving an object forward two inches is to move it forward and not backwards. We also understand that any action contrary to this good, will itself be evil – a deficiency of good. So in the same way all human acts are to obtain some good. This is the first precept of natural law, that good is done and evil avoided.

All other precepts fall under this, and whatever man sees as his natural good is a precept of natural law and he should do, and what he sees as a natural evil he should avoid, because this would break a precept of the natural law. Since all things act naturally towards good, it follows that all things that man has a natural inclination for are good, and anything that is contrary to mans inclination is to be avoided. Since man has free will he can choose to commit an action that is deficient of good.

Foe example: Man has the desire to exist, he also has the potential due to his free will to take his own life. Now the action of taking one’s own life will still be good in one sense, because without good there can be no action, but in another sense it will be a deficiency of good and thus evil because it is contrary to the natural inclination to exist.

Does this not seem reasonable?

 

[Matthias123]

classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

Do you think a society can function correctly without objective morality?

 

[gearhead]

Do you think a society can function correctly without objective morality?

A society needs some shared moral precepts to function, but these don’t necessarily have to have any “objective” meaning outside the society itself.

And it’s certainly not required that all the members of a society all believe and feel exactly the same when it comes to morality.

 

[Matthias123]

A society needs some shared moral precepts to function, but these don’t necessarily have to have any “objective” meaning outside the society itself.

And it’s certainly not required that all the members of a society all believe and feel exactly the same when it comes to morality.

What determines the moral norm for a functional society? Obviously there is a point where they will function well because of a moral foundation, and there is a point where a society will not function and rip each other of part. How is it that since morality is needed for a functioning society in the natural world, that there is not some objective natural framework specifying the proper and most harmonious way for a society to live in the natural world?

 

[gearhead]

What determines the moral norm for a functional society?

Consensus.

Obviously there is a point where they will function well because of a moral foundation, and there is a point where a society will not function and rip each other of part.

There is not a single point where society will “function well”. There are many points; many equilibria. Some work better than others in certain ways, some work better in other ways.

How is it that since morality is needed for a functioning society in the natural world, that there is not some objective natural framework specifying the proper and most harmonious way for a society to live in the natural world?

I’m not sure you got my point. I say it’s not required.

However, if you think objective morality is required, maybe you could tell us how we would be able to distinguish between these cases:

• a society that bases its shared morality on objective morality.
• a society that bases its shared morality on consensus and social norms; objective morality does not exist.
• a society that bases its shared morality on consensus and social norms; objective morality exists, but society does not follow it.

 

[Matthias123]

Consensus.

Consider a society where the consensus of the people in the society believes that it is not immoral for a woman to have more then one husband. Therefore in this society there are families where there are children with numerous different fathers. Do you believe that a society built on such a family, will function correctly? Should it be tolerated?

Consider a society where the consensus of the people in the society believe that there is nothing wrong with, a male marrying his sister, or his mother and have children with her. Do you believe that a society can function like this given the foundation? Should it be tolerated?

In addition, do you believe that the guards Auschwitz Dachau, considering it was the consensus in Germany that the killing of Jews was not immoral, were not committing immoral actions when they killed millions of Jews?

There is not a single point where society will “function well”. There are many points; many equilibria. Some work better than others in certain ways, some work better in other ways.

Do you believe that we exist in some sort of bubble that makes us except from the consequences of not acting in sync with the natural order? Or do you believe there is not order in nature?

• a society that bases its shared morality on objective morality.

A society that bases itself off objective morality would base itself on the natural law found in the natural order of the cosmos.

• a society that bases its shared morality on consensus and social norms; objective morality does not exist.

I do not believe this occur as it would result in an unordered, thus unliveable universe.

• a society that bases its shared morality on consensus and social norms; objective morality exists, but society does not follow it.

A society that bases itself off subjective consensus type society would be relativistic and would struggle to exist and function in the natural world – like our world now.

 

[gearhead]

Consider a society where the consensus of the people in the society believes that it is not immoral for a woman to have more then one husband. Therefore in this society there are families where there are children with numerous different fathers. Do you believe that a society built on such a family, will function correctly? Should it be tolerated?

I wouldn’t want to tolerate it. I sure wouldn’t consider that sort of society ideal. However, I wouldn’t try to imbue my objections to that sort of society with any sort of cosmic importance.

Consider a society where the consensus of the people in the society believe that there is nothing wrong with, a male marrying his sister, or his mother and have children with her. Do you believe that a society can function like this given the foundation? Should it be tolerated?

It probably wouldn’t function very long.

In addition, do you believe that the guards Auschwitz Dachau, considering it was the consensus in Germany that the killing of Jews was not immoral, were not committing immoral actions when they killed millions of Jews?

I personally consider these actions to be immoral.

Here’s the thing: I get the impression that you’re assuming that there’s some sort of “moral oughtness” to a society’s shared morality. I don’t think there is. If another Nazi Germany were to consider it acceptable to slaughter Jews, I would certainly be opposed to this.

What I mean by a shared morality is that every society will have rules of behaviour that develop, defining what’s required, what’s acceptable, and what’s unacceptable for the members of that society, as well as what happens when these rules are breached. I don’t think that this means this shared morality is good in an objective sense; it’s just an element of reality that needs to be taken into account.

I said that societal morals are a product of consensus; each person is part of that consensus, so it’s in our power to affect them. If we don’t like our society’s moral code, we can work to change it.

Do you believe that we exist in some sort of bubble that makes us except from the consequences of not acting in sync with the natural order? Or do you believe there is not order in nature?

No, I believe that what you call “natural order” informs our knowledge of what the consequences of our actions will be. It doesn’t dictate our values.

Natural order can tell you that if you shoot someone, they’ll probably die. However, this doesn’t tell you whether it’s right or wrong to do it.

A society that bases itself off objective morality would base itself on the natural law found in the natural order of the cosmos.

Meaning what, exactly? Are you talking about the laws of physics, or is your “natural law” something else?

I do not believe this occur as it would result in an unordered, thus unliveable universe.

There’s a difference between order and morality.

A society that bases itself off subjective consensus type society would be relativistic and would struggle to exist and function in the natural world – like our world now.

Okay… maybe a more direct question will get to the heart of the matter: how can we tell the difference between shared morality and objective morality? How do I know whether the morals I personally feel match “objective” morality or not?

 

[Matthias123]

I wouldn’t want to tolerate it. I sure wouldn’t consider that sort of society ideal. However, I wouldn’t try to imbue my objections to that sort of society with any sort of cosmic importance.

It probably wouldn’t function very long.

I personally consider these actions to be immoral.

Here’s the thing: I get the impression that you’re assuming that there’s some sort of “moral oughtness” to a society’s shared morality. I don’t think there is. If another Nazi Germany were to consider it acceptable to slaughter Jews, I would certainly be opposed to this.

Ok. I want to state that I am not attempting to attack you personally here, just your particular moral theory.

What I mean by a shared morality is that every society will have rules of behaviour that develop, defining what’s required, what’s acceptable, and what’s unacceptable for the members of that society, as well as what happens when these rules are breached. I don’t think that this means this shared morality is good in an objective sense; it’s just an element of reality that needs to be taken into account.

I said that societal morals are a product of consensus; each person is part of that consensus, so it’s in our power to affect them. If we don’t like our society’s moral code, we can work to change it.

How do I know whether the morals I personally feel match “objective” morality or not?

No, I believe that what you call “natural order” informs our knowledge of what the consequences of our actions will be. It doesn’t dictate our values.

Meaning what, exactly? Are you talking about the laws of physics, or is your “natural law” something else?

Natural Order is any order, in the cosmos, that we participate in. Whether is be physics, mathematical, or biological, we know that there is order in the universe and that common order governs all of these disciplines. This is the God of Einstein (metaphor), the natural order. Now this order affects us too, and we have our place, as does everything that exists, in this common order that orders everything in the cosmos to a fixed end.

Now by observing our place in the cosmos, we are able to see our natural role in such a place. We know that it is good for us to reproduce and exist, as life goes to amazing extents to exist in order to exist (Selfish-gene?) So obviously we live is a universe where existence is not bad thing. In fact I would claim that existence is a good. I would assert that since existence is objectively good, terminating ones existence voluntarily would be objectively evil, because it would be contrary to the natural inclination to exist, that has been infused into us through Darwinian evolution.

Now there are certain things that go along with this good of existence, as in order to exist, we have to eat. Now it is our natural inclination to eat in order to exist, and this involves taking care of our bodies. We also have a natural inclination to be happy and joyful. Now obviously this natural inclination to be happy is a lower good then the good of existence, so therefore if one were to say, eat purposefully to such an extent that it caused one’s stomach to be damaged, for the purpose of the pleasure of the food, one would call this an objectively evil (and stupid) action.

Now let’s take again the natural inclination of the human to be happy. Now the whole is naturally greater then the sum of its parts, thus the societal good, or the good of one’s whole species is greater then the individual. So say a person decided to perform an action that would satisfy his natural inclination to be happy, but hurt the society as a whole, this would be objectively evil, as the good of the society is greater then the good of happiness.

This can go on forever, and I may not have explained it perfectly, but I am sure you know my train of thought by now and will be able to fill in any gaps where I have failed to explain properly.

 

[gearhead]

Ok. I want to state that I am not attempting to attack you personally here, just your particular moral theory.

No worries. I wasn’t taking it as a personal attack.

Natural Order is any order, in the cosmos, that we participate in. Whether is be physics, mathematical, or biological, we know that there is order in the universe and that common order governs all of these disciplines. This is the God of Einstein (metaphor), the natural order. Now this order affects us too, and we have our place, as does everything that exists, in this common order that orders everything in the cosmos to a fixed end.

Now by observing our place in the cosmos, we are able to see our natural role in such a place. We know that it is good for us to reproduce and exist, as life goes to amazing extents to exist in order to exist (Selfish-gene?) So obviously we live is a universe where existence is not bad thing. In fact I would claim that existence is a good. I would assert that since existence is objectively good, terminating ones existence voluntarily would be objectively evil, because it would be contrary to the natural inclination to exist, that has been infused into us through Darwinian evolution.

But even that doesn’t work universally.

If you want, I can dig up a link, but I remember listening to a science podcast about different evolutionary strategies. One that they mentioned was a species of fly that lives on animal corpses. It has a “feast or famine” existence: when it has food, it has to consume as much as possible; when the corpse runs out, the flies have to move on and find another or they die. Because of this, the fly has developed a novel strategy:

• when food becomes scarce, emphasis is placed on genetic fitness and variation. The females produce normal flies of both sexes. These flies fly away (duh), set up shop on a new food source and reproduce sexually.
• on this new food source, when food is plentiful, the emphasis is on rapid reproduction. The flies breed asexually and only develop rudimentary bodies that are optimized for not much more than eating and reproducing. These individuals are born pregnant, but they lack the capacity to lay their eggs. Instead, when the eggs hatch, the larvae eat their way out of the mother, killing her in the process.

Personally, I see this sort of strategy as rather abhorrent. Don’t you? But if there’s an objective morality based on some sort of universal natural law, then it has to encompass these flies as well as us.

Now there are certain things that go along with this good of existence, as in order to exist, we have to eat. Now it is our natural inclination to eat in order to exist, and this involves taking care of our bodies. We also have a natural inclination to be happy and joyful. Now obviously this natural inclination to be happy is a lower good then the good of existence, so therefore if one were to say, eat purposefully to such an extent that it caused one’s stomach to be damaged, for the purpose of the pleasure of the food, one would call this an objectively evil (and stupid) action.

Now let’s take again the natural inclination of the human to be happy. Now the whole is naturally greater then the sum of its parts, thus the societal good, or the good of one’s whole species is greater then the individual. So say a person decided to perform an action that would satisfy his natural inclination to be happy, but hurt the society as a whole, this would be objectively evil, as the good of the society is greater then the good of happiness.

You started off in evolutionary terms. If one individual can gain an advantage over all the others and evolution creates some sort of moral prerogative, doesn’t this mean that pursuing individual advantage at the expense of others would be moral?

This can go on forever, and I may not have explained it perfectly, but I am sure you know my train of thought by now and will be able to fill in any gaps where I have failed to explain properly.

Well, another thing that comes to mind is that you seem to suggest that what is natural is necessarily moral. Is this your intent?

 

[Matthias123]

But even that doesn’t work universally.

If you want, I can dig up a link, but I remember listening to a science podcast about different evolutionary strategies. One that they mentioned was a species of fly that lives on animal corpses. It has a “feast or famine” existence: when it has food, it has to consume as much as possible; when the corpse runs out, the flies have to move on and find another or they die. Because of this, the fly has developed a novel strategy:

• when food becomes scarce, emphasis is placed on genetic fitness and variation. The females produce normal flies of both sexes. These flies fly away (duh), set up shop on a new food source and reproduce sexually.

• on this new food source, when food is plentiful, the emphasis is on rapid reproduction. The flies breed asexually and only develop rudimentary bodies that are optimized for not much more than eating and reproducing. These individuals are born pregnant, but they lack the capacity to lay their eggs. Instead, when the eggs hatch, the larvae eat their way out of the mother, killing her in the process.

Your partialy in error: it does apply in this situation. The problem is we are comparing a fly and a primate (human) that have been natural made different. The fly in this situation, has put the higher purpose, of its existence, over the lower purpose, of its pleasure (if they even feel pleasure) The fly is just doing what is has been prefigured to.

Take for example the female Black Window spider, she eats her mate after she is done having sex with him. Now obviously it would not be acceptable if a woman eats her mate after she is done having sex with him. There needs to be distinctions between species, as each species is certainly different.

Now the primary distinction is that humans are rational animals. The fly cannot observe the natural order and choose to act against it, he just does was he has been prefigured to do. Now as humans with free will, we are able to commit disordered actions. Obviously it is not due to natural ordering that we would bring the world to the brink of thermonuclear war. Certainly it was not natural for humans to mate with their sisters, yet some do. We can observe, the proper role that our genus (primate) serves in the cosmos and we can choose to synchronise with it, or act against it.

You started off in evolutionary terms. If one individual can gain an advantage over all the others and evolution creates some sort of moral prerogative, doesn’t this mean that pursuing individual advantage at the expense of others would be moral?

Not if this prerogative would involve breaching the already present natural order. Evolution is doing what it is doing, but in doing so it has ordered us in a way where if we were to do that, we would breach “natural law”.

Well, another thing that comes to mind is that you seem to suggest that what is natural is necessarily moral. Is this your intent?

My intent is to show that the order of the cosmos has infused in us certain inclinations to direct man towards good, and to choose contrary would be a breach of this “natural law” and thus disordered, and objectively evil.