Godless morality?

[tonyrey]

The Godless are not necessarily ungrateful but it doesn’t make sense to express gratitude to purposeless particles!

•   	 		 	 	 **Bradski** I’m really not sure who you are trying to convince. But I have an awful feeling it might be yourself.

Does it make sense to express gratitude to purposeless particles? Or tell them we’re sorry for having caused unnecessary misery?

 

[belorg]

Does it make sense to express gratitude to purposeless particles? Or tell them we’re sorry for having caused unnecessary misery?

To purposeless particles? No, of course it doesn’t make sense.

 

[tonyrey]

Does it make sense to express gratitude to purposeless particles? Or tell them we’re sorry for having caused unnecessary misery?
To purposeless particles? No, of course it doesn’t make sense.

Thanks. It follows that the **reasons **why we feel grateful or contrite are in the same category as far as material reality is concerned. In other words morality doesn’t make sense either because the universe is not reasonable!

 

[belorg]

Thanks. It follows that the **reasons **why we feel grateful or contrite are in the same category as far as material reality is concerned. In other words morality doesn’t make sense either because the universe is not reasonable!

That does not reasonable follow at all.

 

[Aussieman88]

Godless morality? not possible. There has to be some kind of moral law for us to even differentiate the difference between good and evil. The next argument is therefore there must be a moral law giver.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Goodness Gracious me…

 

[Bradski]

Godless morality? not possible. There has to be some kind of moral law for us to even differentiate the difference between good and evil. The next argument is therefore there must be a moral law giver.

Someone suggested earlier in another post (hi PR. Tony got here before me - and has already mentioned purposeless particles!) that if morality wasn’t based on some religious foundation then, in effect, we have to accept everyone’s individual moral viewpoint. Which, of course, we don’t.

The example used was torturing a cat. And that if an atheist said that they thought it was entirely acceptable to torture a cat then we would have to accept that as a valid viewpoint.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that it’s valid at all for any number of reasons, none of which are connected with a ‘moral law giver’. I think that, despite the fact that I can’t recall anything in scripture about feline mistreatment, it’s a pretty bad idea.

Hands up anyone who can’t think why that is so without recourse to your faith.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Someone suggested earlier in another post (hi PR. Tony got here before me - and has already mentioned purposeless particles!) that if morality wasn’t based on some religious foundation then, in effect, we have to accept everyone’s individual moral viewpoint. Which, of course, we don’t.

The example used was torturing a cat. And that if an atheist said that they thought it was entirely acceptable to torture a cat then we would have to accept that as a valid viewpoint.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that it’s valid at all for any number of reasons, none of which are connected with a ‘moral law giver’. I think that, despite the fact that I can’t recall anything in scripture about feline mistreatment, it’s a pretty bad idea.

Hands up anyone who can’t think why that is so without recourse to your faith.

You didn’t specify any reason that its bad though, and without a definite lawmaker, you cannot specify a reason. I challenge you to specify a quantitative reason that harming the cat is bad (beyond them being cute and fluffy, which is a perfectly valid reason in my book >_>) without recourse to an authority figure.

 

[tonyrey]

Someone suggested earlier in another post (hi PR. Tony got here before me - and has already mentioned purposeless particles!) that if morality wasn’t based on some religious foundation then, in effect, we have to accept everyone’s individual moral viewpoint. Which, of course, we don’t.

The example used was torturing a cat. And that if an atheist said that they thought it was entirely acceptable to torture a cat then we would have to accept that as a valid viewpoint.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that it’s valid at all for any number of reasons, none of which are connected with a ‘moral law giver’. I think that, despite the fact that I can’t recall anything in scripture about feline mistreatment, it’s a pretty bad idea.

Hands up anyone who can’t think why that is so without recourse to your faith.

As one non-believer on this forum remarked, it is just a matter of sentimentalism. If you disagree you need to explain why.

 

[tonyrey]

It follows that the reasons why we feel grateful or contrite are in the same category as far as material reality is concerned. In other words morality doesn’t make sense either because the universe is not reasonable!

Why not?

 

[belorg]

Why not?

Because the fact that the universe as a whole is not reasonable does not there cannot be reasonable parts in it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Because the fact that the universe as a whole is not reasonable does not there cannot be reasonable parts in it.

I think you need to reword that, it made no sense. Punctuation is your friend; this is the comma: “,” use him well and he will guide you to wonders unimaginable by the human mind!

 

[JamesATyler]

It is wrong to torture a cat or any other creature because these creatures feel pain. The creatures are operating according to their nature and have done nothing to deserve the pain.

Furthermore, God created mankind to have a nature of love. If we torture creatures we are operating outside of our intended nature.

 

[snarflemike]

It is wrong to torture a cat or any other creature because these creatures feel pain. The creatures are operating according to their nature and have done nothing to deserve the pain.

Does this mean carniverous animals are immoral?

In the atheist world, “pain” is just electrical signals that get converted to certain muscular reactions. How can there be a moral component to electrical signals or muscular reactions?

 

[tonyrey]

Because the fact that the universe as a whole is not reasonable does not there cannot be reasonable parts in it.

You need to explain - as with purpose - how reason can be conjured up from things that cannot reason…

 

[JamesATyler]

Does this mean carniverous animals are immoral?

In the atheist world, “pain” is just electrical signals that get converted to certain muscular reactions. How can there be a moral component to electrical signals or muscular reactions?

Good question about carnivorous animals. That includes most of the creatures in the world. Torture is defined as inflicting pain as a form of punishment or to make do or say something. Most animals put their prey to the death as quickly as they can. We humans have deemed it immoral to torture our food.

Even in the atheist world, if someone starts torturing you, those electric signals will amount to more than their substance because of how they feel to you. They have extra meaning in that it truly does hurt.

 

[JamesATyler]

You need to explain - as with purpose - how reason can be conjured up from things that cannot reason…

They just believe that we’re more than the sum of our parts. That is true, we are.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Good question about carnivorous animals. That includes most of the creatures in the world. Torture is defined as inflicting pain as a form of punishment or to make do or say something. Most animals put their prey to the death as quickly as they can. We humans have deemed it immoral to torture our food.

Even in the atheist world, if someone starts torturing you, those electric signals will amount to more than their substance because of how they feel to you. They have extra meaning in that it truly does hurt.

Some animals do, but some animals will actually lose interest in their food if it just lays there and dies. They have to play with it for a bit, have it try to escape and such.

But in any case, we can point to something like pain and say that it is bad (although that is really too simple), but saying doesn’t make it so. It has to be bad for a reason, and because I say it is bad is not anywhere near sufficient reason for it to be considered acually bad.

 

[snarflemike]

Good question about carnivorous animals. That includes most of the creatures in the world. Torture is defined as inflicting pain as a form of punishment or to make do or say something. Most animals put their prey to the death as quickly as they can. We humans have deemed it immoral to torture our food.

But from an atheist perspective, how can it be immoral?

Even in the atheist world, if someone starts torturing you, those electric signals will amount to more than their substance because of how they feel to you. They have extra meaning in that it truly does hurt.

“How they feel to you” just refers to electrical activity in the brain. From an atheist perspective, why should one animal (especially a human animal) care about the electrical activity in the brain of another animal?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

That does not reasonable follow at all.

But it does. If it makes no sense to be grateful to anything that exists, and if gratitude only exists with an object, then it makes no sense be grateful.