In Atheism can objective morality exist through evolution?

[STT]

I am addressing your question. You are having difficulty understanding.

I’ll try again…

Thanks. So I will try again.

God’s nature is ultimate reality. God is the only nature that necessarily exists. This is because God’s act of existence is absolute perfection. God is the absolute antithesis of nothing, and nothing can exist without God and nothing exists outside of God’s nature. God is absolute reality and it is this reality in which physical natures exists and in which human-beings find themselves and depend upon for their actuality… Some would say that we exist in the act of God’s eternal intellect or Mind;

God’s nature is love. He doesn’t just will love, God is Perfect Love. Love is his nature. God is ultimate and absolute reality and therefore Love is ultimate and absolute reality. We, including the whole universe and the multiverse, exist inside that reality. Therefore ultimate and absolute reality is the objective standard through which we exist and is the objective standard our actions are measured against which is ultimate truth itself

God is love, therefore Love is the objective standard through which we exist and is the objective standard our actions are measured against… Therefore Objective Moral Truth exists because if we act against love we are acting against the very standard our actions are measured against. We are acting against ultimate truth. We are acting against Love itself. Therefore we fall into error. This act is called “sin”. It is to sin against God, and that sin harms our souls because it is a rejection of the very thing that gives us life and also because Love is ultimately the only nature that will fulfill our existence…

If God does not exist then there is no objective standard of Moral truth.

Of course this is difficult to explain. It took me a long time and a lot of meditation on the subject to fully comprehend it much less explain it to someone else. I doubt you will understand it right away.

You say: God is existence, God is love, therefore He is objective moral. I don’t understand how the last part follows. Why existence should matter at all to need love for it? I don’t understand how the last part could resolve the problem of nihilism? How love or objective morality could resolve nihilism?

 

[IWantGod]

You say: God is existence, God is love, therefore He is objective moral.

Okay you seem to have gotten the basic crux of it.

1. God is existence and therefore ultimate truth.
2. God is love.
3. Therefore God is the objective standard of moral truth insomuch as God is Love and existence
4. We have our being in the act of God’s existence.

Conclusion: Therefore our actions are defined by objective moral truth. If we do not love, we are acting against the ultimate reality and therefore we are acting against the ultimate truth - Love.. We are therefore in error when we do not Love.

If such a God exists, then Moral Nihilism is not true insofar as moral nihilism argues that there is no objective moral truth.

 

[STT]

Okay you seem to have gotten the basic crux of it.

God is existence and therefore ultimate truth.

That doesn’t follow. God could be existence yet doesn’t be ultimate truth.

God is love.

Therefore God is the objective standard of moral truth insomuch as God is Love and existence

God does not need to be love in order to be objective standard of moral truth. He just need to be the truth. Whether God can justify objective morality is subject of discussion. I open a thread for that in here: Can God justify objective morality?

We have our being in the act of God’s existence.

Conclusion: Therefore our actions are defined by objective moral truth. If we do not love, we are acting against the ultimate reality and therefore we are acting against the ultimate truth - Love… We are therefore in error when we do not Love.

If such a God exists, then Moral Nihilism is not true insofar as moral nihilism argues that there is no objective moral truth.

You cannot get ride of nihilism like that. There is no relation between nihilism and love. Nihilism is lack of meaning. Love is different from meaning.

 

[IWantGod]

That doesn’t follow. God could be existence yet doesn’t be ultimate truth.

IWantGod:

Ultimate reality, that which is the source of all being, is ultimate truth.

 

[kesa82]

As an aside, “Context free language” is a thing. It’s associated with context free grammars.

uh…yeah.
I suppose maybe you could write forum posts , or 6th grade papers in them.

Go ahead and do so.

Assuming the point is valid / that there even is a point in that.

This point was that he is free in labeling others, and consistently avoids the same being applied to himself.
That is suspicious, and it is fair for me to point it out.

Now, do you wish to continue discussing how one talks to a computer , or is there a point you have to make here ?

That said he does raise a good point.

Then it wasn’t really an “aside” was it ?

A lot of the rules that we come up with in societies are not dependent on whether or not there is an afterlife making the concept of an afterlife irrelevant to them.

Not dependent on , no.
But that wasn’t the point made.

Not by me, or by anyone else recognizable as a theist in this thread.

So, right off the bat, we might ask, WHO the %@# is he referring to ?

 

[kesa82]

On second thought , I will address this — loaded — honor killing “question”.

Never mind the father, I would rather put myself in the daughters shoes a minute.

First thing I notice, as the daughter , is that twice some guy suggested that you frame the question in HER context , according to HER circumstances.

And, so far, you have refused to do that.

Opting, instead , to insert a third party context and circumstances which may have little , or nothing at all , to do with her.

As her, then , I might be inclined to doubt that your expressed concern for me and my life is genuine.

Uh? An alternative to what?

As HER , that is precisely the problem.
Do you work , sacrifice, make compromises , for free ? For nothing ? Without a point ?

And my wife is something of a looker and I’m happily married, so I’ll pass on the supermodel thing. But I will be sailing my yacht around Sydney harbour on the weekend. I’m not sure the prevailing winds are suitable for a trip to Mexico. I don’t think there’s enough beer on board anyway.

^ It sure doesn’t seem so .

What better alternative do you have to offer against what she has ?

Oh, yes, you would save her life.

— And as you have barged into her context and circumstances like a bull in a china shop, not bothering yourself with what that context might be, what those circumstances might be, hardly honoring any of it, not honoring her , it is very likely you might leave her life worse off than it was before .

Ok, so you will give her a better life ?

Great ! WHEN ? !

First thing tomorrow morning ? Next week ? Next month ? Next year ?
The meter is running. Life is short , you know ?

But then everybody knows that life is nasty, brutish , and short , except maybe for atheists, who dwell in Candy Land in the present , never mind an afterlife.

No, frankly, as her , I really don’t get the impression that you give a darn about me at all.

Anyway, since as her, you haven’t convinced even me, I figure there is a snowballs chance in Hell that you will convince my father of anything. More like you will insult him more than you have insulted me.

It comes as no surprise to me that , more often than not lately , when persons like this daughter are given a vote, they vote against the nothing you offer.
Even if that means burkas and honor killings.

 

[Bradskii]

I miss the old forum. Sensible discussions. Thoughtful posts. Well, at least posts that appeared as some thought had been put into them…

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t have a problem with atheists, but i do have a problem with this new kind of blasé Atheist who doesn’t seem to comprehend the logical consequences of his or her disbelief in God and what that objectively means for their identity as a person. Ironically they live in their own make-believe fantasy world, anesthetizing themselves, while accusing the Christian of living in an ignorant childish delusion. At the same time they either don’t care or don’t realize that their own metaphysical biases objectively destroys everything they have ever cared about and nullifies any real dignity. And if they are aware of that, they certainly don’t act like it.

I respect Atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche. I don’t respect the new pomp atheists that are popular today.

The atheist today is propped up as some kind of intellectual revolutionary, but in reality it is Christianity that is revolutionary when it comes to anything that really matters.

Atheism is a step back for humanity,.

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t have a problem with atheists, but i do have a problem with this new kind of blasé Atheist who doesn’t seem to comprehend the logical consequences of his or her disbelief in God and what that objectively means for their identity as a person.

Me too. No need to capitalise atheist by the way.

 

[HarryStotle]

kesa82:

Bradskii:

So it would only be wrong for you to be tortured and killed because there’s an afterlife?

I’m not going to hold my breathe waiting for you to posit an actual alternative.

Uh? An alternative to what? You said that it would only be wrong for me (or you) to be tortured and killed if there was no afterlife. In fact, you said that it wouldn’t even hurt my feelings. The only conclusion I can draw from that is if there is an afterlife, then it WOULD be wrong for you to be tortured and killed. And that then your feelings would be hurt.

I can imagine that it would be wrong for you to do the torturing. Maybe that’s what you meant. But not what you wrote.

I think there is something misleading about reducing kesa82’s point to merely that killing would only be wrong if there is an afterlife. The point relates to the significance of the life being taken. If matter and brute fact is all that is, then the foundations for value are kicked out from the structure of morality. If the only thing that counts regarding the determination of value is that some human does indeed value whatever is being spoken of, then the father’s values regarding honour are directly pitted against the daughter’s values regarding her life. Suppose the daughter didn’t actually value her life and didn’t care whether or not she lived or died, but the father highly valued his honour? Do his values trump hers? Why wouldn’t they without some objective standard grounded in something more than the mere fact of humans valuing things?

If matter is all that exists and values (including morality) have no foundation in existence itself because what exists is without purpose or ultimate significance, then arbitrating value and morality becomes tenuous, relative and baseless, and tied more to human emotion and transitory (i.e., relative) grounds. However, if existence itself grounds moral values because there is purpose and meaning embedded in the very nature of what it means to be, then arbitration is possible and the very existence of beings (the life of the daughter, for example) grounds their value.

It is difficult to see how brute fact and pure matter absent any inherent purpose or meaning can ground any moral system within objective reality, so your expressing the issue as “it would only be wrong for you to be tortured and killed because there’s an afterlife,” misses the point. It isn’t about “afterlife” per se, it is about the value of life in the context of a larger reality – the significance of a life vis a vis the nature of what it means to exist – afterlife just captures one aspect of that greater meaning.

 

[Bradskii]

I think there is something misleading about reducing kesa82’s point to merely that killing would only be wrong if there is an afterlife. The point relates to the significance of the life being taken. If matter and brute fact is all that is, then the foundations for value are kicked out from the structure of morality. If the only thing that counts regarding the determination of value is that some human does indeed value whatever is being spoken of, then the father’s values regarding honour are directly pitted against the daughter’s values regarding her life. Suppose the daughter didn’t actually value her life and didn’t care whether or not she lived or died, but the father highly valued his honour? Do his values trump hers? Why wouldn’t they without some objective standard grounded in something more than the mere fact of humans valuing things?

If matter is all that exists and values (including morality) have no foundation in existence itself because what exists is without purpose or ultimate significance, then arbitrating value and morality becomes tenuous, relative and baseless, and tied more to human emotion and transitory (i.e., relative) grounds…

I’m pretty much in agreement with what you have said. Although I think that you are applying some aspects of the argument to me when I don’t subscribe to them.

I need to emphasise that I am not reducing anything that kesa82 to fit any point of view. His posts are difficult to parse and I’m trying to sort through the verbiage to understand exactly what he means. He surely cannot mean that if there is no afterlife then it wouldn’t matter to me if I were tortured and killed. That is simply a bizarre statement. So he must mean that if there is an afterlife, then it must matter to someone who wants to torture and kill.

I don’t agree with the proposition, but at least it makes some sense if you accept that some people would fear eternal damnation.

And please, enough with the old saw ‘if matter is all that exists…’. I don’t know any atheist who treats family, friends and other loved ones as simply bags of chemicals. It is possible to reach a point where you can treat people as less than human (too many examples for me to really need to quote any), but it’s not the default setting, whatever your beliefs or lack of them.

I used the case of honour killing as an example of what might be classed as objective morality. If you consider reciprocal altruism and the categorical imperative, then we’re getting close to Matthew 7:12. Which was not the first time anyone had suggested to do unto others etc. You don’t need a belief in God to understand the logic of that dictum and agree with it. In fact, it’s one of the Golden Rules that has allowed civilisation to arise.

There is no doubt in my mind that my life has value. In the here and now. Not in a few hundred years or so. But right now. To me specifically, but also to my family and friends. So if I expect people to treat me and them as having value, then I have to reciprocate. Else I’d be a hypocrite

 

[HarryStotle]

And please, enough with the old saw ‘if matter is all that exists…’. I don’t know any atheist who treats family, friends and other loved ones as simply bags of chemicals. It is possible to reach a point where you can treat people as less than human (too many examples for me to really need to quote any), but it’s not the default setting, whatever your beliefs or lack of them.

I used the case of honour killing as an example of what might be classed as objective morality. If you consider reciprocal altruism and the categorical imperative, then we’re getting close to Matthew 7:12. Which was not the first time anyone had suggested to do unto others etc. You don’t need a belief in God to understand the logic of that dictum and agree with it. In fact, it’s one of the Golden Rules that has allowed civilisation to arise.

I wouldn’t so freely discard old saws. They can be, and often are, sharpened and their teeth reset. And saws can be quite dangerous.

The past century saw a great deal of killing (over a hundred million) at the hands of self-proclaimed atheistic dictators who didn’t see their fellow human beings as any more indispensable than bags of chemicals. Clearly, these are not your circle of friends.

So while your decency and upstanding morality are to be lauded, it isn’t clearly the case that all atheist thinkers are as moral as the friends you hang with. Perhaps it isn’t so much your atheism as your moral perspective that forms the basis for your friendships?

It would appear to be virtually self-evident that there is an easy and clear path from…
… matter is all that exists, to…
… matter, in itself, has no inherent value, to…
… human beings are merely agglomerations (clumps) of cells with no persistent value beyond death, to…
… there are no lasting moral consequences for human behaviour because all there is is matter, to …
… human beings are expendible given the proper incentives, circumstances, or ideological ends.

If we are honest, the same easy trajectory to a reduced valuation of human beings CANNOT be logically constructed from “ALL human beings have infinite value in the eyes of God, the eternal, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent moral arbitrator, who will hold us accountable for our actions.”

Ideas, we have seen from history, have consequences, and materialism does have some rather unpalatable logical entailments for those who might be inclined away from morality and good conscience. You and your friends notwithstanding.

It just occurred to me…

…what is the difference between “bag of chemicals” and “clump of cells?” Perhaps amending “bag of chemicals” to “bag of biochemicals” will bring the two closer into line?

Isn’t “clump of cells” precisely the rationale given for aborting millions of human babies every year?

You see, even “old saws” like “clump of cells” and “bag of biochemicals” seem to have sharp and consequential teeth.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m always bemused that so many people of faith keep pointing out all the ‘atheist atrocities’. As if they were all down in the name of atheism. To reverse the argument, one could say that apart from recent atrocities, all deaths in the last few thousand years can be blamed on everyone other than atheists. Which would be an equally nonsensical argument.

And to take the US as an example, one of the most Christian countries on the planet, someone is sexually assaulted every 90 seconds. There are more people incarcerated per head of population than any other country. The abortion rate is horrendous. The murder rate is shocking. And you want to blame atheism for the world’s problems? Ye gods, if the percentage of Christians was 4% and the rest atheists, you might have a point.

And nobody treats loved ones as bags of anything. What we all should be doing is treating everyone the same. But it doesn’t take much to de-humanise people (think Nazi Germany…all those Christians sending Jews to the ovens). We are all prone to it. A belief in God seems to make no difference.

It’s no good God suggesting that we all have equal value without everyone agreeing with Him. And there is no reason whatsoever that we can’t all come to that conclusion ourselves. You seem to be implying that we need to be told.

 

[HarryStotle]

You seem to be implying that we need to be told.

Actually, that comes very near the point. We do need “to be told” by what is objective and true – I.e., by the way things are.

We can’t expect that what we concoct in our minds and in our imaginations will be true and necessarily so merely by the fact that we think or imagine it, can we? The way things are needs to be uncovered or revealed to “tell us” what the truth is regarding any matter. That is also the case with morality and moral principles. We just don’t make them up to suit our fancy.

The point being, once again, that if morality is purely subjective and fully sourced in human beings ( we don’t need to be told, BECAUSE we are free to fabricate) then morality has no ground in the way things are, only in the way any of us might want or choose things to be.

That would mean an atheist dictator with the blood of millions on his hands can hold his atheism up as his justification precisely because it is atheism which has placed his view of morality and the reins to drive it entirely into his hands. He didn’t need anyone to tell him differently, he was just as correct in his view on morality as anyone else so he could autonomously lead his moral principles wherever he chose to take them. At least, that is what his atheism told him. For him, and he is certain of it, there is no higher power to tell him differently.

 

[Jamie5]

Actually, that comes very near the point. We do need “to be told” by what is objective and true – I.e., by the way things are.

You can’t expect that what we concoct in our minds and in our imaginations will be true and necessarily so merely by the fact that we think or imagine it? The way things are needs to be uncovered or revealed to “tell us” what the truth is regarding any matter. That is also the case with morality and moral principles. We just don’t make them up to suit our fancy.

The point being, once again, that if morality is purely subjective and fully sourced in human beings ( we don’t need to be told, BECAUSE we are free to fabricate) then morality has no ground in the way things are, only in the way any of us might want or choose things to be.

That would mean an atheist dictator with the blood of millions on his hands can hold his atheism up as his justification precisely because it is atheism which has placed his view of morality and the reins to drive it entirely into his hands. He didn’t need anyone to tell him differently, he was just as correct in his view on morality as anyone else so he could autonomously lead his moral principles wherever he chose to take them. At least, that is what his atheism told him. For him, and he is certain of it, there is no higher power to tell him differently.

Ironically:

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/13/557459193/trump-set-to-address-values-voter-summit-for-first-time-as-president

 

[HarryStotle]

I am missing the “ironically” part.

 

[Lucretius]

Christians believe that humans can, in principle, know the moral law without revelation. It is “written on our hearts,” as St. Paul puts it. However, because of the innate weakness of our minds, as well as our minds weakness due to our personal sins and vices, this can be very different, and take years of education, prayer, talent, development of the virtues, etc. to become possible for some people to achieve, which is why God deemed both the basics and the more obscure aspects of the moral law fitting to reveal directly.

We might be able to learn about natural law by examining evolutionary history, but I’d be skeptical of most claims, since we don’t have much evidence regarding the evolution of humans, and most of the theories proclaimed today (especially the more controversial ones) are usually reducible to just so stories, or not even based in any actual evidence, just the theorist’s erroneous views on human behavior now (look at anything a theorist says about earlier humans and sex to see what I mean: Sex at Dawn basically paints a view of human sexuality that is based more on the '60s “freelove” nonsense than any real evidence from fossils and the like, let alone actual human behaviors, motivations, and consequences towards and behind sex from history, and the present).

Christi pax.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That would mean an atheist dictator with the blood of millions on his hands can hold his atheism up as his justification precisely because it is atheism which has placed his view of morality and the reins to drive it entirely into his hands.

Knowing that someone is “atheist” doesn’t inform what their value system or system of ethics is. The person may or may not conform to some value/ethical system while also being an atheist (humanism, ethical egoism, biocentricism, so on). Someone that isn’t an atheist might also match some of these. From interacting in these forums I gather there is some view that “atheist” implies a self centered utilitarianism.

 

[JustLamb]

who gets to be the arbitrator of what is right and what isn’t?

How about a six year old?

 

[HarryStotle]

From interacting in these forums I gather there is some view that “atheist” implies a self centered utilitarianism.

I can’t speak for “these forums,” but the point would be that a deliberate embrace of atheism implies a deliberate embrace of no higher moral authority than human beings. Which means that any morality implied by atheism will necessarily have no grounds in any reality except humanity. In that sense it is “human centered” which may or may not imply self-centered. Although, since having a “self” is the highest attributive quality for being human, it would seem that atheism does imply human self-centered morality, although a case would need to be made that utilitarianism necessarily follows from that. I haven’t seen many atheists argue for anything but utilitarianism, so that might be a PR issue on the part of atheists.

What is the ground for atheist morality if not human “selves?” And what standard would there be for atheist morality if not utility regarding what works or doesn’t work for preservation of human selves?

Can you make the case that atheism doesn’t imply “self centered utilitarianism?”