Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Well, I had to skip the reasons but I’m not getting any younger and we’ll get to an agreement on those shortly.

So we agree it’s a good thing. And not saving her would be a bad thing.

So do you agree that her parents would be devastated if she drowned and that that would be a bad thing? Still looking for agreement here. So call a halt if you disagree with that statement but I would need you to agree or disagree before continuing.

Yes, of course.

Sorry but this feels like trying to teach nuclear physics to a five year old. Or playing Bach on a kazoo.

But do continue.

I will agree to everything you say – until we get to the actual reasons why things would be good or bad.

Yes to parents being devastated and drowning bad. Got it.

Baby steps, Harry. And we just did get to one reason why it would be a bad thing to let her drown. We agreed on that.

Now what would happen if you told a non swimmer alongside you that you weren’t going to jump in to save her because you’d just bought a new suit. Would people think badly of you?

 

[chercheur]

Maybe we can use this as a jumping off point.

If for the theist the question for any action has to do with obeying God, 1) why does it matter and 2) can the moral analysis stand on its own without reference to God (and does it need to)?

I think someone pointed something similar out upthread, but Christians (if I understand this correctly) see God as essentially the source of all being. So anything about the nature of the world, morality, and whatever else is somehow based on this. In the Christian worldview there literally cannot be “morality” without God, because there cannot be anything without God. In this way the concept of good depends on God’s nature.

If you accept this then you don’t really need to make reference to God in analyzing the morality of any action. But if you remove God from the picture entirely then I think you lose the capacity for anything to have truly objective moral meaning. So I think any Christian moral argument works from a secular perspective in some limited sense, but not fully. God’s nature is love, and whether something is moral or not depends on whether it aligns with this nature.

With that said, a moral argument based on such a worldview is making a different type of claim than one that isn’t based on the idea of there being anything an objective, personal source for being or goodness. Each results from a fundamentally different conception of morality, which is probably why little headway is made in discussions like these.

This is just a side note, and it may be just literally beside the point, but I sort of wonder how much any of the above actually plays into our moral decision-making. It seems to me that from the human perspective at least, the consequences of actions are the most significant driving factor for our choices when you really break it down, even if one adopts a Christian worldview.

And maybe the same could be said for the theist’s criticism of atheistic morality. You could say that it’s based on the fact that it is not rooted in an objective ontology or whatever, but I think the more compelling (to us) reason may just be that it does not tie to permanent consequences. (Of course, for the Christian, the permanent consequences depend on the whole objectivity aspect in the first place, so maybe that’s fine? I don’t really know. <_<)

And while I am not a Christian, I have to admit that this could be part of the reason why I’m not exactly an “atheistic materialist” either.

 

[Athanasiy]

You use the word atheist.
You know, some educated people are also the atheists, and sometimes their families live in elite neighbourhoods, and there are less crimes there.
In Christian emigrants neighbourhoods can be much more crimes.
(African, or Latinos communities)
We can not say that where there are atheists, there are more crimes.
Much more crimes possible even among Evangelical neighbourhoods.
Parents have large families but no time to educate children, from here comes the crimes.

 

[HarryStotle]

Here’s a question. Christians are perfectly moral if they eat ham. Jesus fulfilled the law and now allows it. Jews, however are immoral if they eat ham. They feel the law is still in effect for them. Should we base any current legislation on the eating of ham? Or, should we be able to accept that ham is perfectly moral for Christians and immoral for Jews? It seems there are cases where morality isn’t just what the Christian God decides. Since this is a case where either side isn’t too bothered by what the other side believes, we usually don’t think about it.

I suspect your confusion is the result of a unspecified definition of morality.

In Scripture, for example, the Mosaic Law that bound the Israelites and later the Jews was comprised of moral, liturgical and practical laws. They weren’t all moral. The rules against eating pork had to do with ritual purity because pork was regularly an aspect of pagan sacrifice. Circumcision was another. These were meant to separate the Israelites from their pagan neighbors who worshiped and sacrificed to idols.

Such laws were part of covenants, of which the covenant at Mount Sinai was only one of seven in total. Each covenant came with slightly different terms of agreement – i.e., the people would do this and in return God would do that.

The place of the different laws was to regulate behaviour. Some laws were practical, much like traffic laws today, and could change. Others were liturgical and tracked the faithfulness of the people to God. Moral laws would be those that apply to all people at all times because they are derived from the nature of human beings vis a vis creation as a whole. The Ten Commandments would be the moral law. The Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy (the Second Law) was assembled by Moses to provide a social blueprint – providing the specifics in terms of how the moral law would be carried out day to day – for the people to obey to show their covenant agreement with God. Leviticus would be more liturgical in terms of spelling out what ritual purity involved.

This is general, though and there are intermixtures of types of laws between the books of the OT.

If God exists, then morality is precisely what God “decides” because God, properly understood, is the determiner of the nature of reality. God is fundamental reality properly speaking, so the nature of what it means to exist in reality is what determines the nature of morality.

We may not see that or understand that, but that would be because we don’t fully apprehend the nature of reality or God. We don’t even properly understand our own nature or existence, but that might be part of the moral journey we are on as individuals and as a collective of individuals.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

I often hear the argument that faith doesn’t matter because we can each just “be a good person”. But without faith we too often think we are being “good people” by being terrible.

For example, we are fine with abortion. People live together and those who don’t want to be accountable hurt their partners by delaying or refusing marriage. Or people toy with other people’s emotions such as having sex with someone they don’t care about. People view marriage as a financial arrangement rather than a moral commitment.

Employers do not consider morality in mistreating employees, firing people for sham causes, and generally getting away with whatever they can.

Catholicism requires you and I to avoid platitudes like that we can just be “good people” and specifically requires us to fly right, and perhaps most importantly, regularly examine our own concience.

Of course abandoning what makes us respect ourselves and each other allows decline and evil to emerge and grow.

 

[upant]

Well I thought that would be stating the obvious.

so your morals aren’t truths, just feel good rules for the greatest number and we are back to where we started. we don’t have morals and there is no right and wrong or good and evil, just choices and consequences approved by agreement.

Just like David Robertson said and I posted in post #25.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Well I thought that would be stating the obvious.

so your morals aren’t truths, just feel good rules for the greatest number and we are back to where we started.

Who’s posts are you reading, upant? I was agreeing with your view that not everyone agrees when it comes to moral matters. That’s a given. Some people think it’s morally acceptable to kill homosexuals. We don’t.

Therefore, some people (you and I) disagree with other people (Brunei government) on moral matters. I think you knew that.

 

[Freddy]

Catholicism requires you and I to avoid platitudes like that we can just be “good people” and specifically requires us to fly right, and perhaps most importantly, regularly examine our own concience.

Shouldn’t everyone do that whatever their beliefs or lack of them?

 

[upant]

Therefore, some people (you and I) disagree with other people (Brunei government) on moral matters. I think you knew that.

so we are back to who is the arbitrator? If both views are valid, morals don’t exist. which brings us back to the statement in post 25

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Therefore, some people (you and I) disagree with other people (Brunei government) on moral matters. I think you knew that.

so we are back to who is the arbitrator?

The person who convinces us that their position is correct. How else would one decide?

 

[Lys]

I suppose that level of good as defined by the non-existence of God might move you to some degree or other to try to feed such an emergent being, of which there are billions.

Yes, it does move me to “some” degree. As Freddy pointed out, this is based upon reciprocal altruism and accepting that the other being is basically just like me.

However, if the being whose hunger is overcome is a 60-70 year long phase of a potentially eternally existing creation of the Eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who is the foundation of existence itself and who has a definitive plan for each and every one of these human creations that far exceeds their limited imaginations, then the level of good that is bestowed on that human person by providing bread to them has infinite and eternal consequences.

If only you had ANY evidence for this God, your point would be worthy to consider. Unfortunately that is not the case. As I pointed out before, in this existence there is no sign of this omnimax God. The only observable evidence points to some neutral, deistic being, who does not care one iota about our existence or well-being. (Or the lack of any God at all.) Remember… observable evidence.

Because the only evidence you can present is the so-called hearsay evidence.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

Of course, we should all try to be good, but when we rely on only ourselves as arbiters of what makes us good people, we can justify whatever we want to do.

Example…yesterday, a presidential candidate bragged that she will wear a pro abortion scarf for her presumed innauguration. She has assigned virtue to abortion.

Other people justify everything from extramarital sex to cheating on taxes as admirable behaviours.

Catholicism sets standards that are not up to the individual. A good Catholic is following church teaching based on the word of God, rather than justifying their own preferences

 

[Pattylt]

That was a very nice Catholic answer about ham but means nothing to the Jew. Dividing the Mosaic laws into categories was something Christians did so they would be able to determine which laws Jesus fulfilled. The eating of ham was put into the fulfilled category. The Jews did not do this. The prohibition on ham applied to every Jew. God did it to keep them separate but that’s not the point. The point is it is immoral for any Jew to eat ham (there are exceptions)…all Jews. THEY consider it immoral to eat and you do not. This is a clash of morals even if a minor one.

So, how do we live amongst each other with conflicting morals. Must we always be trying to change someone else’s morality? Or, can we accept that we have different morals and while not agreeing, live beside each other without hatred?

 

[HarryStotle]

Yes, it does move me to “some” degree. As Freddy pointed out, this is based upon reciprocal altruism and accepting that the other being is basically just like me.

When it isn’t at all clear what it means, fundamentally, to be “just like me,” then it is equally unclear how those who are just like me ought to be treated. Shot in the dark kind of thing.

If only you had ANY evidence for this God, your point would be worthy to consider. Unfortunately that is not the case. As I pointed out before, in this existence there is no sign of this omnimax God. The only observable evidence points to some neutral, deistic being, who does not care one iota about our existence or well-being. (Or the lack of any God at all.) Remember… observable evidence.

Because the only evidence you can present is the so-called hearsay evidence.

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. There are many facts, but for anyone to treat those as evidence requires them to see the big picture into which those facts fit. Absent the big picture, all evidence will be overlooked as the fallout from having a particular point of view.

Turning a method into one’s metaphysics pretty much guarantees you will look for only one kind of evidence, the kind that fits your method. Ergo, drunk guy looking for his keys under a lamp post because “the light is better over here.”

 

[Freddy]

Of course, we should all try to be good, but when we rely on only ourselves as arbiters of what makes us good people, we can justify whatever we want to do.

Example…yesterday, a presidential candidate bragged that she will wear a pro abortion scarf for her presumed innauguration. She has assigned virtue to abortion.

Other people justify everything from extramarital sex to cheating on taxes as admirable behaviours.

Catholicism sets standards that are not up to the individual. A good Catholic is following church teaching based on the word of God, rather than justifying their own preferences

We don’t rely on ourselves, Kindness. We are judged by others. And it’s not setting the standards that’s important. It’s how we perform in maintaining those standards. If you don’t live up to them you obviously don’t consider them that important. You should check to see which is the largest group of women who actually have abortions.

And if you know people who can justify cheating on their wife then obviously they don’t consider the vows they made to their spouse worth much. Whatever their religion or lack thereof.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Then you get a disagreement.

so morals can both be good and evil to different people? you don’t see an issue with this?

What do you do when you can’t reach an agreement?

This is what happens.

see https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/c...ils-3-for-christmas-bomb-plots-to-please-god/

Supreme Court judge Christopher Beale said the three had embraced IS ideology and believed the planned attack would be pleasing to Allah, the Australian Broadcasting Corp said.

The plan was “one of the most substantial terrorist plots disrupted over the last several years”, prime minister Malcolm Turnbull had said.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

If you are depending on what is popularly supported rather than God, that’s not much of a standard.

 

[Freddy]

If you are depending on what is popularly supported rather than God, that’s not much of a standard.

Not ‘what is popularly supported’. You are held to account by the common morality of your peers. That’s something a little more substantial than whatever happens to be popular at the time. Although what is considered to be morally acceptable does change. Treating women as second class citizens might be one example. And one with which you would no doubt agree.

And if @HarryStotle ontinues with our discussion we shall see how common some views are throughout society - believers and unbelievers alike, without having to recourse to theology. Well, when I get back from watching the golf anyway.

 

[upant]

The person who convinces us that their position is correct. How else would one decide?

who decides when you don’t agree? you go on believing it is moral while the other person thinks it is immoral? exactly what we have with abortion, euthanasia, etc. this system of morals is useless. It is a feel-good personal code subject to change.

This is what happens.

had embraced IS ideology and believed the planned attack would be pleasing to Allah,

yes, and it shows what kind of actions you get when someone gets to choose what they believe to be moral. Do you believe these extreme beliefs are tenets of the religion?

There can be only one truth and this is not the thread to discuss truth in religions.

we shall see how common some views are throughout society - believers and unbelievers alike, without having to recourse to theology.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that believers and non-believers don’t have similar views, it is what backs those views that matter. Your views aren’t backed by anything other than groupthink. You can change yours or not follow them without issue, God’s can only be misinterpreted by man, but not changed. Believers who don’t follow them will have to account for their behavior. Atheists don’t have accountability, there is no basis for morals in a world formed by physical forces.

what happens if an atheist decides he doesn’t want to follow any moral laws? he just suffers the social consequences, if there are any, nothing more.

 

[Freddy]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that believers and non-believers don’t have similar views, it is what backs those views that matter. Your views aren’t backed by anything other than groupthink.

what happens if an atheist decides he doesn’t want to follow any moral laws? he just suffers the social consequences, if there are any, nothing more.

Stick around to this thread and I’ll do my best to explain that it’s not just ‘group think’. Although @HarryStotle seems to have dropped out of the discussion. I hope he continues with it.

And we all suffer the social consequences of breaking agreed moral laws. If you think that a fear of further punishment is sufficient to keep people on the straight and narrow then that seems not to work. Why should I therefore grant it any credibility?