If Good and Evil Exist then God Exists

[zro_x]

His point is that while they claim to not believe in an unchanging, objective code of morality, they actually do believe in one.

That is, no (moral) atheist would ever proclaim that racial slavery may be permissible in some cases.

No (moral) atheist proclaims that it is ever okay to cheat on your wife.

No (moral) atheist proclaims that injustice is good.

right. All of these things would go against the evolved conscience, as well as utilitarianism. None of these things brings about more happiness than they do unhappiness, so it isn’t necessary to invoke an objective morality to claim that these things are immoral.

Then ask this atheist if he believes that if 90% of humanity would benefit from the slavery of 10%, would they believe that this is moral?

That isn’t how utilitarianism works. utilitarianism is concerned with net happiness, which involves the greatest happiness for each individual, not just the number of individual happy people. So if the happiness of the enslaved people decreased by 91%, while happiness of the free people increased by 9%, slavery would still be unjustified.

If he is a thinking atheist, he will, naturally, be repelled by that thought.
Therefore, he is not a utilitarian.

The part of the atheist that says that to him, his conscience, if you will, is simply an emotional response that the atheist would say evolved over time. After giving it thought, the* thinking *athiest would probably that in a hypothetical universe where slavery somehow increased overall well-being, slavery would be justified and even perhaps morally obligatory. The atheist knows, however, that this is never the case in the world we live in. Since slavery never increases overall well-being, slavery is always evil.

 

[zro_x]

Any cursory reading of a newspaper will prove that to be false.

If we are “genetically programmed” to be moral, then why are we immoral??

we would not necessarily be genitically programmed to be moral, however, we would be genetically programmed to have a conscience.

 

[PRmerger]

That isn’t how utilitarianism works. utilitarianism is concerned with net happiness, which involves the greatest happiness for each individual, not just the number of individual happy people. So if the happiness of the enslaved people decreased by 91%, while happiness of the free people increased by 9%, slavery would still be unjustified.

Think about it, zro:

Let’s just say that your definition above correctly limns the utilitarian position (it does not, but let’s save that discussion for later)…

If 90% of the people enslave the remaining 10%, it will indeed create an increase in “net happiness”.

So a utilitarian form of morality cannot be the source for an atheist to say, “Racial slavery is wrong.”

 

[PRmerger]

we would not necessarily be genitically programmed to be moral, however, we would be genetically programmed to have a conscience.

Ok… that is the actual state of our"genetic programming", is it not?

 

[zro_x]

Think about it, zro:

Let’s just say that your definition above correctly limns the utilitarian position (it does not, but let’s save that discussion for later)…

No, it won’t. The very slight increase in happiness for the 90% is far outweighed by the sharp increase in unhappiness by the 10%.

 

[zro_x]

Ok… that is the actual state of our"genetic programming", is it not?

Yes it is. But we can’t know if that coscience is a quality of our immortal souls or if it was evolved, at least not without knowing whether or not God exists.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it won’t. The very slight increase in happiness for the 90% is far outweighed by the sharp increase in unhappiness by the 10%.

http://theinsanityreport.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bbnf4B.jpg

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it is. But we can’t know if that coscience is a quality of our immortal souls or if it was evolved, at least not without knowing whether or not God exists.

There is no reason to create a dichotomy here, zro.

 

[zro_x]

http://theinsanityreport.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bbnf4B.jpg

You’ll have to explain what you mean by this.

(BTW, this is a genuine double facepalm. the other picture you showed with the caption double facepalmto describe Trurl being banned was really just two single facepalms. )

 

[zro_x]

There is no reason to create a dichotomy here, zro.

That’s true, but the point of this thread is to show that there is no possible explanation for morality other than God. If our moral conscience has evolved, then it is possible for us to be moral without invoking God.

 

[inocente]

So you’re saying your conscience is an evolved trait, an instinct?
Linusthe2nd;10155472:

Not in the least. I merely state a fact or two from my personal life. I think most people can point to similar experiences. I know that Blessed John Henry Newman had similar experiences ( though I admit he carried the argument too far) and so have many others. The point is that a conscious awarness that a certain act or thought is good or bad arises early in life before anyone has had a chance to instruct them.

But that’s what the dictionary defines as instinctive = behavior or reactions not thought about, planned or developed by training.

The point he makes and that I make is that we generally make our judgments of what is good or evil based on political, social, or cultural norms.

That’s relativism. I’m pleased you agree Kreeft is a relativist.

There are exceptions and errors of course, as I pointed out. For example there are hundreds of " public " norms held out to us as good or evil. Some of these I accept, some I do not. But in each case I judge them on a higher authority. I may obey them at the " point of a gun, " but in this case my conscience does not bother me if I disobey them. Nor does it warm my heart if I obey them.

All of us have a higher authority in our head, it’s called our conscience. Kreeft supplies no logic for why one person’s conscience is objective and another’s not.

*It is not an argument from faith. Natural law is open to all. Natural law is an objective norm of morality. My faith merely reinforces that norm. But I don’t believe I said that.

My point, Kreeft’s point, is that objective norms of morality demand an ultimate authority which we call God. Read my argument again.*

I don’t remember Kreeft mentioning natural law, I don’t think that’s in his argument.

Anyway, natural law is just one of many systems of ethics, each of which give different answers. For instance, only the Thomas Aquinas version of natural law ethics says condoms are evil, I can think of no other system of ethics that does.

By the way. As a Baptist the Scriptures will support my view. The ten commandments are nothing but natural law.

Kreeft’s argument is about atheists. Do atheists read scripture?

Anyway, scripture more or less says slavery is moral, e.g. Deut. 20, but I don’t think it ever says slavery is immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

You’ll have to explain what you mean by this.

I think your presentation of the utilitarian model would prompt that response from any thinking utilitarian.

(BTW, this is a genuine double facepalm. the other picture you showed with the caption double facepalmto describe Trurl being banned was really just two single facepalms. )

Really? Where’s the double face in that picture? I see only a single face.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s true, but the point of this thread is to show that there is no possible explanation for morality other than God. If our moral conscience has evolved, then it is possible for us to be moral without invoking God.

Of course it is possible to be moral without invoking God.

Some atheists are the most moral people I know!

But the fact is, these moral atheists are being insincere when they discuss the source of their morality.

An “evolved conscience” still needs to seek succor in the fact that there is an Objective Morality to which this atheist subscribes. He is simply not being honest when he discusses the source of this Objective Morality…until he, like atheist-turned Catholic Leah Libresco, comes face to face with the glaring inconsistency of being an Objective Moralist without believing in an Objective Moral Lawgiver.

 

[EricFilmer]

Yes, but please see my post #68 to Alberti - popular opinion is not a logical argument…

inocente, thanks for going through my recent marathon of posts. Now it is my turn to ask for your patience, seeing as I want to take time to respond to some of the other comments in this thread (and I want to take things, more or less, in chronological order). I will comment on your latest (name removed by moderator)ut as time permits, hopefully before the conclusion of the weekend.

 

[EricFilmer]

Yes, but these examples of morality could have evolved. It is benificial to the individual when a society survives, so traits that help society at large could develop in individuals.

Consider two different scenarios.

scenario #1: In a small tribal community, a mutation causes a gene alteration that makes a person more likely to sacrifice themselves for the sake of someone else. No circumstance arises in which this is necessary for that person to do so. This person grows up and has children. Both of his children have this gene. One day, Son A and Son B are out hunting, and they enter a cave. It turns out that this cave is inhabbited by a bear. When they hear the bear returning, Son A tells son B to run away. Son A attacks the bear to buy time and is killed, while son B makes his getaway. son B survives to pass on his altruistic genes.

scenario #2: The same thing happens, only this time, there is no altruistic genetic mutation. In this case, both son A and son B are trapped and killed by the bear.

One can see this even more clearly at the societal level. Suppose tribe A has people who are willing to go to war and die for the sake of the community. When something happens which threatens the tribe, some of the people within it are willing to die to end the threat, so some people in the society live on. In tribe B, no one is willing to die to end the threat, so everyone in the tribe dies.

First of all, I agree that genetics has an important role in behavior (I once took a class in physiological psychology). But it is not enough to simply theorize that there can be a genetic impulse to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of society. What also has to be taken into account are other genetic impulses which provide conflicting signals, and examine the one that a person decides to act upon.

Consider the following genetic-based motivators of human behavior:

1. Self-preservation.
2. Desire to produce a survivable offspring.
3. If already possessing dependent children, the desire to survive in order to protect and provide for them.
4. Theory presented in your scenario: Self-sacrifice (or self-risk) for the benefit of society.

I think it is safe to say that these impulses are not equal in strength. Moreover, it seems natural to consider #4 as the least in this regard. Yet, as I mentioned in my earlier post, there are many people who risk their lives to save total strangers, and some do it on a regular basis (such as firefighters). The basic situation is that one person is in danger and another person is safe. The second person is in a position to help the first, but doing so exposes him to the same deadly risk. When deciding upon a choice of action, one or more of the first three genetic impulses I listed would probably be stronger than Impulse #4. But the conscience plays a role in providing an additional impulse, one that recognizes that the second person ought to try to rescue the person in need, even though the stronger impulse is to remain in a safe location. I don’t see how a genetics-only concept of morality can provide a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon. C.S. Lewis stated that this concept was one of the things that led him to recognize the existence of objective morality, as outlined in the first part of his book, Mere Christianity (given the time of this writing, he describes the impulse for risking oneself to save a stranger as “herd instinct” rather than a socially developed genetic attribute).

 

[EricFilmer]

interesting video, but I think that Kreeft attacks a straw man.

First of all, in order for Kreeft to be guilty of a straw man fallacy, he has to provide a refutation to an argument that atheists are not actually making. In the video Kreeft admits that there are a variety of sources that atheists consider to be the basis of morality, of which he has elected to address five. Therefore he admits that his presentation is not all-inclusive (and understandably so, seeing as the whole thing is less than six minutes long). In terms of the ones he chose to address, a few simple Google searches show that such discussions about morality do exist out there, and therefore there is no straw man fallacy being committed.

I agree, athiests have no reason to believe in an unchanging, objective code of morality, but in my little experience with atheists, few actually take this approach. Most that I’ve come across prefer to use utilitarianism or the idea of an evolved conscience… and accept the full consequenses of either appoach.

Both the evolution-only and the utilitarian-only theories of morality are addressed in the video. So if most of the atheists you’ve encountered resort to an evolution or utilitarian explanation of morality, and Kreeft addressed them both, then why do you believe that Kreeft “attacks a straw man”?

Moreover, I think it is important to point out that Kreeft does not actually prove that evolution and utilitarianism cannot provide a system for morality (nor does he promise to), but only demonstrates the ramifications of accepting such theories. In my opinion, Kreeft’s video is a “food for thought” presentation based on the modern common ground perception that certain things, such as slavery and the Nazi war crimes of WWII, are considered to be evil and never acceptable. The “food for thought” aspect is whether or not a person thinks that the ramifications of certain proposed theories of morality are truly in keeping with what seems to be an innate sense of morality shared by the vast majority of people. If someone wants to, as you say, “accept the full consequences of either approach” then Kreeft is pointing out that those full consequences includes not being able to call slavery and Nazi war crimes universally evil, despite the fact that the vast majority of people consider them evil, morally repugnant and never acceptable.

Those who take the approach of the evolved conscience typically do agree that morality does and must evolve over time, and those who operate under utilitarianism would say that if you could actually increase the overall happiness of a nation by adopting slavery, then it would be morally obligatory to adopt slavery. Of course, most know that this possibility is rediculous.

But how does an evolution-only or utilitarian-only theory of morality allow someone to believe that the possibility of slavery being considered moral in the future is “ridiculous”? To make that prediction, they have to step outside of these systems of morality and appeal to another standard of morality.

The other approach atheists seem to take is that of moral relativism, and the belief that there is no standard of morality at all.

I have yet to see such a concept proposed. In my experience with interacting with atheists, they all accept the idea of a moral code (or at least live their lives as if they do). What is debated is the source of the moral code, what is involved when a human makes a moral decision or a moral judgment, and how extensive a particular standard of morality is.

 

[EricFilmer]

right. All of these things would go against the evolved conscience, as well as utilitarianism. None of these things brings about more happiness than they do unhappiness, so it isn’t necessary to invoke an objective morality to claim that these things are immoral.

I don’t see how this adds up. Evolution represents an ever-changing environment, and therefore an evolution-only concept of morality does the same. Slavery was once considered morally acceptable at certain times and places in the past, and therefore with an evolution-only system of morality one has to admit that the conditions that allowed for this may be present again in the future. Therefore, one is not able to predict what future generations will consider to be happy or unhappy.

That isn’t how utilitarianism works. utilitarianism is concerned with net happiness, which involves the greatest happiness for each individual, not just the number of individual happy people. So if the happiness of the enslaved people decreased by 91%, while happiness of the free people increased by 9%, slavery would still be unjustified.

So how does a utilitarian-only basis for morality explain why past societies deemed slavery to be morally permissible? Obviously past slaves were not happy about it.

The part of the atheist that says that to him, his conscience, if you will, is simply an emotional response that the atheist would say evolved over time. After giving it thought, the* thinking *athiest would probably that in a hypothetical universe where slavery somehow increased overall well-being, slavery would be justified and even perhaps morally obligatory. The atheist knows, however, that this is never the case in the world we live in. Since slavery never increases overall well-being, slavery is always evil.

But does he really have to contemplate a “hypothetical universe”? After all, there are plenty of real-life past examples of societies which considered slavery to be morally permissible. So the question remains, as Kreeft brought up, how someone who believes in an ever changing system of morality (such as an evolution-only based one) can conclude that “slavery is always evil.”?

That’s true, but the point of this thread is to show that there is no possible explanation for morality other than God. If our moral conscience has evolved, then it is possible for us to be moral without invoking God.

Well, I’m not sure this is the point of this thread. I think Kreeft is making an argument for the existence of objective morality which leads many to conclude that there is a divine Creator behind it. Once again, this is what happened to C.S. Lewis in the process of his conversion from atheism to Christianity. I don’t think this thread is really saying that other kinds of morality are impossible, only that such theories do not seem to square with what most humans embrace in terms of moral principles (such as the condemnation of slavery and Nazi war crimes).

 

[EricFilmer]

First let me say that I am not saying that God does not exist. I am answering the implied conclusion , if God did not exist morality would be impossible…

I don’t really see Kreeft making such a conclusion, even implicitly so. Please see my above comments to zro x in Post #94 & the bottom of Post #95 for my explanation as to what I deem to be the purpose of the video.

 

[zro_x]

I think your presentation of the utilitarian model would prompt that response from any thinking utilitarian.

I doubt it. I was a utilitarian at one point. This is exactly how I thought that all moral dilemmas should be approached. Even if it seems reprehensible, if it increases the general wellfare, it should be adopted. That’s why you have some utilitarians advocating anything from betiality to infanticide.

Really? Where’s the double face in that picture? I see only a single face.

there is no double face, but there are two hands. when a movie gets two thumbs up, it means that one person gave it two thumbs up, not that two people each gave it one thumb up.

 

[zro_x]

Of course it is possible to be moral without invoking God.

Some atheists are the most moral people I know!

But the fact is, these moral atheists are being insincere when they discuss the source of their morality.

I was referring to the fact that it is possible for a source of morality could possibly exist outside of God in the form of a evolved conscience; I wasn’t questioning the morality of atheists.

An “evolved conscience” still needs to seek succor in the fact that there is an Objective Morality to which this atheist subscribes. He is simply not being honest when he discusses the source of this Objective Morality…until he, like atheist-turned Catholic Leah Libresco, comes face to face with the glaring inconsistency of being an Objective Moralist without believing in an Objective Moral Lawgiver.

the atheist subscribes to a law of morality, sure. This law of morality is unchanging for him, because his genetics do not change over the course of his lifetime. But the atheist might very well accept that there would be a different, yet just as valid, standard of morality in the distant future.