If God does not exist, then everything is permissible

[Prodigal_Son]

Haven’t you played Assassin’s Creed 2? “Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.”

The original argument seems sort of a stretch. If things are ‘wrong’, then it necessitates that there is some determiner or authority on right and wrong. From there you could argue that that authority is God, but not before.

Actually, my issue is not with there being a determiner of right or wrong (which some variant of Kantian ethics can get us), but rather with there being a *reason *to obey the commands of the moral law. I do agree that the original argument isn’t really a “proof of God” – as if such a thing would ever convince anyone! – but rather with it being a line of reasoning that supports the Christian worldview.

I am not sure at all that moral statements require God to make them true, but they do require God to make them matter.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yowsah! Two days into this thread, and we’re on the sixth page? Looks like Dostoevsky knew what he was talking about…

For any atheist hangers-on who haven’t admitted that “if God does not exist, everything is permissible”, I must tell you that I am disappointed. :tsktsk: But for those who have admitted the premise, I respect your honesty, although I realize that you are ideologically restrained to reject the second premise (that some things are impermissible).

Now to a response or two…

You’ll forgive my typos; my fingers work faster than my brain sometimes.

Understood.

Well it’s an unfortunate byproduct of the condition. Luckily, there seems to be at least some semblance of inner dialogue, built into us, that dubs things (for the most part) socially non-permissible, even if they are relatively permissable.

Gee, you’re optimistic! I’m afraid, from what I’ve seen, that most people who do right do so because they are afraid of the consequences. This is what is meant by the saying “If God didn’t exist, it would have been necessary to invent Him”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No matter how many times theists repeat this argument, it doesn’t make any more sense. “Truth” is our word for thoughts being in accord with reality. Clearly, some minds are more in accord with reality than others, and it’s non-trivially easy to distinguish them.

That’s what your neurons tell you, so you’re bound to believe it.

Maybe in some cases, though I’m less interested in how useful things are than I am in how true they are.

Me too.

The realization that “everything is permissible” doesn’t “instruct” anyone or necessitate any particular actions.

Perhaps the word should be “suggests”. I can speak from my own experience that the idea that everything is permissible does at least that.

Some people with antisocial urges repress them, some sublimate them into actions more productive for society, some find outlets for them, hidden or otherwise, and some actually openly rebel against society.

The option a person chooses reveals something about their character.

But *what *does it reveal about their character? The whole idea of “character” seems to be based on a value judgment, but how – short of moral objectivism – can a value judgment ever be justified?

 

[tonyrey]

Your comments here make me suspect you think I have a view other than I actually do. All I am pointing out is that, even for people who disbelieve in divine retribution and/or justice, empathy, conformity and many other factors are quite enough for them to behave honestly and responsibly. As Paul has said, everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.

The majority of atheists do behave honestly and responsibly but whether atheism is a sufficient foundation for morality is another matter. In a valueless, purposeless universe values become precarious concepts rather than aspects of reality. The right to life becomes a human convention rather than an objective fact. Man becomes the measure of all things moral…

Now, perhaps a divine moral law would do an even better job than purely physical influences, but that’s another matter.

I admire your honesty!

 

[hatsoff]

The majority of atheists do behave honestly and responsibly but whether atheism is a sufficient foundation for morality is another matter. In a valueless, purposeless universe values become precarious concepts rather than aspects of reality. The right to life becomes a human convention rather than an objective fact. Man becomes the measure of all things moral…

I admire your honesty!

Even with God, it’s still not an “objective fact.” Whether or not God exists, we will have the social conventions. If God exists, then on top of those conventions, we may also have a divine law.

Assuming God exists and is interested in human welfare, such a divine moral code might be beneficial and worthy of following. However, I can find no good evidence that this is the case.

 

[Mangy_Donkey]

The guy with the bigger stick.

And again, the guy with the bigger stick, God or not.

Actually, I am that guy, the one with the big stick, I have to assume that I don’t wield the club is for supernatural reasons, because believe me I would like to.

 

[Ender]

All I am pointing out is that, even for people who disbelieve in divine retribution and/or justice, empathy, conformity and many other factors are quite enough for them to behave honestly and responsibly.

If morality is merely a question of preferences then the only argument to be made for being honest is that it is of some benefit to me and that as soon as it ceases to be beneficial I should choose to be dishonest. In your world I should be quite willing to trumpet the value of honesty - since it is to my benefit for people to behave honestly - but there is no argument to induce me to be honest other than fear of negative consequences to me personally. Is this not true?

Ender

 

[hatsoff]

If morality is merely a question of preferences then the only argument to be made for being honest is that it is of some benefit to me and that as soon as it ceases to be beneficial I should choose to be dishonest. In your world I should be quite willing to trumpet the value of honesty - since it is to my benefit for people to behave honestly - but there is no argument to induce me to be honest other than fear of negative consequences to me personally. Is this not true?

Yes and no. Strictly speaking, it is true. However, one must not overlook the fact that most of us have a natural and perhaps instinctive empathy for our neighbor, such that we don’t actually have to consciously reason out the benefits to ourselves in order to act towards their well-being. Rather, we consider directly the welfare of others, since our empathy is so imminently real to us.

Conformity is another factor which plays a role, as I have previously observed. I’m sure there are still other factors, too.

 

[AntiTheist]

But *what *does it reveal about their character? The whole idea of “character” seems to be based on a value judgment, but how – short of moral objectivism – can a value judgment ever be justified?

Of course it’s a value judgment. There’s no such thing as “justified” in the way you’re talking about.

I’m afraid, from what I’ve seen, that most people who do right do so because they are afraid of the consequences.

I’m glad I don’t know the people that you know. And yes, that’s a value judgment.

tonyrey:

whether atheism is a sufficient foundation for morality is another matter

Atheism isn’t a “foundation” for anything because it’s simply the absence of one specific belief.

In a valueless, purposeless universe values become precarious concepts rather than aspects of reality.

Sure. Anyone who’s not utterly confused by false beliefs will acknowledge that values come from human minds. A “value” is simply an individual’s placing of importance on something. No minds, no values.

 

[AlbertBall]

tonyrey: Atheism isn’t a “foundation” for anything because it’s simply the absence of one specific belief.

Exactly, i am amazed how many people cannot grasp this simple point.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

A “propensity towards civility” seems to be culturally based in that different cultures have very different conceptions of what behavior is or is not acceptable. If different cultures have different values, is there any basis on which to claim that culture A is morally superior to culture B?

Ender

Well the propensity is biological (being caring and non-harmful to those in your family in order to maintain and continue progeny); the social tendency aids it (we apply this internal tendency to strangers - an indirect family, of sorts; apply it at the level of your own species).

Is there a basis on which to claim that culture A is morally superior to culture B? If everything is permissable (which I think, in purely material terms, it is), then no. If we suppose some behaviours, on a social level, to be destructive to human life, either by termination or reduction in quality, then we might fancy ours to be superior.

In some ways, it’s arbitrary, but you can’t force a less arbitrary meaning because you’re not satisfied with ambiguity. Is it *morally right *for cancer to replicate itself? No, it just is. And in purely material terms, we just are. Morality and the whole bit is entirely a thing of our own divising (and a good thing, too!).

Very convenient! You can always choose to opt out when it suits you.

Well there are outliers to things in the world. I can’t make it more all-encompassing just because it would make you comfortable. If morality is a thing of our own divising, and not imputed to us from on high as you suggest, than it’s certainly more in my argument’s favour that there should be people who don’t develop morality in a way that would be productive to the quality and perpetuation of human life. Not everything fits into a neat little package, as you know.

I’m glad you admit it’s hogwash!
As for adding entities how do you account for rationality, reason, truth and love in your materialist scheme of things?

Well I said “If” it was hogwash. I account for rationality, reason, truth, and love as developing in the natural world. Those things after all are conceptions that we’ve defined and are, of course, finite. I have no use to look any further for an explanation. You can come up with as many good reasons as I can that those things are adaptive to human life.

But not harder for the victim? The point is that your “explanation” would not convince anyone…

I’m convinced, as are many. Where is your concern with my explanation? That some people are different than others, and with that fact, morality is no exception? I’m sure you knew that already.

I’m not against presuppositions, only inconsistency and inadequate explanations…

The explanation is fine. I think you don’t really understand what you’re arguing about.

That’s a very easy way out! Any question you can’t answer you define as having no definitive answer.

Not exactly. Any question that has no definite answer is not something I’m going to claim the answer to. On both biological and social levels, people realize that some behaviours are better adapted for survival. There ourpours everything you ever wanted to know about why, at their very core, people are the way they are, including morality.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Gee, you’re optimistic! I’m afraid, from what I’ve seen, that most people who do right do so because they are afraid of the consequences.

Yeah, so what are you getting at?

 

[tonyrey]

Whether atheism is a sufficient foundation for morality is another matter.

Atheism has positive implications, e.g. that the universe is valueless and purposeless…

In a valueless, purposeless universe values become precarious concepts rather than aspects of reality.

Sure. Anyone who’s not utterly confused by false beliefs will acknowledge that values come from human minds.

You seem utterly sure your disbelief is true. How on earth would you justify such dogmatism? Do you have privileged insight into the nature of reality?

A “value” is simply an individual’s placing of importance on something.

So if you regard life as valueless it becomes valueless, does it? You must be morally infallible…

No minds, no values.

Indeed. How do you know human minds are the only minds that exist?

 

[Oreoracle]

1. If God does not exist, then everything is permissible.
2. Not everything is permissible. (i.e. some things are wrong).

Therefore, God exists.

I’m not seeking to rebuke this argument, because I don’t suspect you’ll ever prove that anything is truly “wrong” in an objective sense; you’ve declined the challenge to prove an ethic’s truth value without the use of other ethics multiple times. Even if you could do so, you would be hard-pressed to prove that God is relevant to the “wrongness” of things. Your argument’s validity is hollow without its soundness.

However, I do seek clarification: What is meant by “permissible?” Permissibility always implies other conditions, much like necessity. For example, if someone told me that I needed to drink water, I might ask why. They would clarify by saying that I need to drink water to live (“to live” was the implied condition in this case), but I may point out that I don’t need to live, and the discussion could continue indefinitely with an infinite chain of conditions and necessities.

Necessity makes no sense without conditions to accompany it, therefore we must always ask, “Necessary…for what?” Or, if you prefer, “I need X” is meaningless unless it is part of “I need X for Y.” Similarly, we must ask when presented with the “permissible” label, “Permissible…given what?” For example, my assertion that driving my vehicle at 100 MPH is permissible might raise a few brows, but it is true under certain interpretations. While the law may not permit me to do so, the structure of my vehicle permits me to attain such speeds. As such, driving my vehicle at 100 MPH is permissible given one context, but prohibited given another.

So I must ask: In what sense are certain things not permissible given the existence of God? What context do you place permissibility under?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m not seeking to rebuke this argument, because I don’t suspect you’ll ever prove that anything is truly “wrong” in an objective sense; you’ve declined the challenge to prove an ethic’s truth value without the use of other ethics multiple times. Even if you could do so, you would be hard-pressed to prove that God is relevant to the “wrongness” of things. Your argument’s validity is hollow without its soundness.

Actually, I’ve kind of discarded this argument myself. I believe it to be true, mind you, but I’m afraid that its plausibility rests on an equivocation of “permissible”. You recognized something of this in your comments above. In the first premise, “permissible” means that you can ultimately get away with things that you do – at least, if you do them secretly. In the second premise, “permissible” simply means “wrong” – or, at least, that’s the reason the premise seems relatively noncontroversial. But in order to make the argument valid, I must use “permissible” in the same sense in both premises, which would make either the first or second premise less universally acceptable.

As I said to start the thread, however, my intention was not to “prove” God, so I’m not terribly disappointed with this result.

So I must ask: In what sense are certain things not permissible given the existence of God? What context do you place permissibility under?

The context of the afterlife, for one. But I know believing in such a thing is so terribly naive that I should set aside my belief and take up backgammon.

Your comment about “proving an ethic’s truth value”, by the way, is way off. If your standard for believing something is proof, you will only believe truths of mathematics and logic. No wonder you seem to have opted for moral nihilism, then!

 

[Oreoracle]

But in order to make the argument valid, I must use “permissible” in the same sense in both premises, which would make either the first or second premise less universally acceptable.

…which in turn would incline others to ask either for evidence or a strong rationale to be provided before they accept the argument. Granted, people should be doing that anyway.

As I said to start the thread, however, my intention was not to “prove” God, so I’m not terribly disappointed with this result.

Right, but the conditional used in the argument suggests that no ethical considerations matter without God, whether he exists or not. That’s a dangerous thought for you to toss to impressionable people offhandedly, don’t you think? Mind you, I’m not afraid that anyone will dismiss morality because they lack belief in God, but this sort of reasoning does encourage theists to associate atheists as “moral nihilists” (which you have mistakenly done with me, I might add) or “those people who disbelieve in something so they don’t have to be obedient to it.”

There are a good deal of bigots in this world, and arguments like this only give them ammunition (and permission to continue being bigots).

The context of the afterlife, for one. But I know believing in such a thing is so terribly naive that I should set aside my belief and take up backgammon.

Naive? That depends. I would ask why you believe in an afterlife before I come to a conclusion. Most people believe in an afterlife because–you guessed it–they don’t want to die*. Believing in something because it feels good is terribly naive, if not downright foolish. Luckily, regarding belief in an afterlife, it’s usually harmless.

• And by “die” I mean really die. I don’t mean coming back after death. After all, death followed by life defeats the purpose of death, does it not? It’s like firing somebody and then having them return to work as an employee the next day. If death is merely displacement from one plane to another, it seems rather insignificant.

Your comment about “proving an ethic’s truth value”, by the way, is way off.

If your standard for believing something is proof, you will only believe truths of mathematics and logic.

I thought you were beyond playing semantical games, Prodigal. By “proof” I mean “verification.” If I said that there are exactly 100 chairs in a room, we can verify that claim by checking the room. How do we verify a “should” statement without using other “should” statements?

No wonder you seem to have opted for moral nihilism, then!

If we’re using the strictest definition of “nihilism,” then I contend that there are no nihilists. Nihilism is the position that ethics are worthless because, quite simply, nothing is of worth. The claim is not that value is subjective, but rather that value doesn’t exist in any form. Since every sentient being prefers some sets of circumstances to others, I’m inclined to think that everyone has values, so I don’t believe nihilists exist.

I do identify myself as a moral subjectivist, if that’s what you mean. That label doesn’t sound nearly as offensive as “nihilist!” though, so few use it when addressing moral subjectivists.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Builds on a very important message about morals.
youtube.com/user/nonstampcollector?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/2/NWKDOikIgIs
Yeah, it’s satire; don’t worry about it. Enjoy

 

[Oreoracle]

Your comment about “proving an ethic’s truth value”, by the way, is way off.

Sorry, I forgot to remove this from my last post. Disregard it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Right, but the conditional used in the argument suggests that no ethical considerations matter without God, whether he exists or not. That’s a dangerous thought for you to toss to impressionable people offhandedly, don’t you think?

No *purely *ethical consideration does matter without God. If you can do wrong in secrecy without penalty, they you are permitted to do wrong, in the most absolute sense of “permitted”. Is this a dangerous thought? Well, yes, of course. But if people do not realize this thought consciously, it still operates on them unconsciously; better to have it all out in the open. And I, after all, am seeking for the truth. Not for “safe” thoughts.

Mind you, I’m not afraid that anyone will dismiss morality because they lack belief in God…

They won’t dismiss rule-following, but I don’t see why they should hold onto morality-as-such. If they’re left in a room with a thousand dollars that aren’t theirs, and no one will ever know they took it, how would it be rational (absent God) for them to leave the money on the table?

There are a good deal of bigots in this world, and arguments like this only give them ammunition (and permission to continue being bigots).

I don’t see why.

Naive? That depends. I would ask why you believe in an afterlife before I come to a conclusion.

I shall answer with a poem by Hopkins:

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod; 5
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things; 10
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Oreoracle, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

And by “die” I mean really die. I don’t mean coming back after death. After all, death followed by life defeats the purpose of death, does it not?

Why, on your account, should there be a purpose to death?

It’s like firing somebody and then having them return to work as an employee the next day. If death is merely displacement from one plane to another, it seems rather insignificant.

Well, clearly there’s a lot of uncertainty involved on this side, which makes death meaningful.

I thought you were beyond playing semantical games, Prodigal. By “proof” I mean “verification.” If I said that there are exactly 100 chairs in a room, we can verify that claim by checking the room.

But verification amounts to the same thing as proof; I see no difference. There is no way I can verify any significant position about the meaning of life, not even the hypothesis that there are people who really love me. The most important beliefs – if not all beliefs about the external world – are impossible to verify.

If we’re using the strictest definition of “nihilism,” then I contend that there are no nihilists. Nihilism is the position that ethics are worthless because, quite simply, nothing is of worth. The claim is not that value is subjective, but rather that value doesn’t exist in any form. Since every sentient being prefers some sets of circumstances to others, I’m inclined to think that everyone has values, so I don’t believe nihilists exist.

*Why *does he prefer one set of circumstances to another? What is a value? If value is simply a thing that a person prefers, then the statement “those things people prefer are valuable to them” simply means “those things people prefer, they prefer”. How can that tautology be a truth about ethics?!?

Alternately, you might say that “those things people prefer become *truly *valuable, because they prefer them”. Is this what you are saying?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sorry, I forgot to remove this from my last post. Disregard it.