Is Morality possible without God

[Wesrock]

I make claims that I don’t believe the supernatural exists for the same reason I don’t believe fairies exist. There is currently zero evidence of it at all and from the evidence we have of how reality operates, magic isn’t actually possible it seems.

This isn’t a bad standard, actually. Faeries, unicorns, space men, flying spaghetti monster, super powerful deities living on Mt. Olympus, I agree there is no reason to believe in these things absent any evidence. However, you are making a categorical error in thinking what we’re talking about is like these things, though. We’re not making a claim about another being in reality, we’re making a claim about the principle by which reality is real. Now, you absolutely should expect to have good reasons before accepting any claims about it. But to expect the type of evidence you would want for faeries is to misconceive what we’re talking about.

If God is to be known through natural knowledge, we should be looking to see if the first principles of reality as we know it demonstrate God to be real. I’m talking about answers to questions like “what is change?” and “what are contingent realities and what are necessary realities and are there such things?” and “is reality intelligible?” and “can two things which are different also be absolutely identical?”

Now, I don’t aim to persuade you of the existence of God here. Perhaps you’ll have different answers to these questions than me. I only mean to point out that if you’re comparing God to faeries you’re barking up the wrong tree of objections. And if you do believe the objection is correct, then what you’re objecting to is something entirely different than what the Catholic Church claims to adore.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I can assure you with great certainly you will be there, too. I doubt the Almighty could do without your keen wit or the enjoyment of your great and happy surprise at seeing Him.

 

[Damian]

There is an old principle, “The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.”

I agree, but we are talking about justified belief based on what we currently have evidence for and can investigate. I’m not talking about what we may or may not discover in the future, just where we are currently now. for having justified belief about reality. This principle is being practiced in the hope in the future evidence will be discovered and studiable. But holding a belief that the supernatural is there, because we imagined now it is there and in the future we will find a way to justify that is not how we have justified belief in the present about it. I am withholding my belief until the evidence brings me to it, but now, there currently is zero evidence of it other than people’s conviction of the idea of it. How strongly people want something to be there is irrelevant to it actually being there.

Maybe the evidence is there, but you just have not found it yet?

No one has found it yet, not just me, but everyone one.

Some people find God just by looking at the wings of a butterfly. Some find Him in the colors of the rainbow. Some discover Him in the kindness of a friend. While others find Him in the misery and disorder of their own lives.

I find this as just beauty of nature. That’s fine for me. Why does reality so fail to keep the religious excited about it that they have to add on the addition of the supernatural to make it wondrous? It’s wondrous enough as it is.

While others find Him in the misery and disorder of their own lives.

I believe they are looking at someone with the power to stop the misery and disorder and is just sitting there with folded arms going, “Huh, 100,000 people died in a tsunami. Well what can ya do?”

No one will be able to find God for you; you will need to find Him yourself.

I just want to know if its there or not. What ever relationship I’ll have with it is secondary since I have specific standards that I hold people to in order to have a meaningful relationship with them. The devil knows the deity exists, for example, and still found the deity’s character not worth it’s time to entertain.

 

[Damian]

So, what proof would you accept for the existence of God?

No idea since I have no idea how to tell the difference between the powers of a demigod, a technological superior race, etc. But your deity knows how. So it is either choosing to not do this, can not do this, or is not there. Either way, not my problem since I can’t do anything about any of those situations. Here’s a good analogy. Imagine you were Harry Potter and Hagrid shows up and tells you that you are a wizard, but never actually demonstrates any magic at all. What would it take for you to believe an entire paradigm shift of reality like that? All the religious are doing is saying there’s magic but never demonstrating it, never demonstrating the source of it, etc. It’s all just people stating its there as the evidence of it.

If people won’t even accept Jesus raising people from the dead is enough, I don’t think there is anything that will convince an atheist.

Demonstrate that actually happened.

You have everything you need to see there is a God.

All of reality is there as well for us to see, but we didn’t start off by having justified knowledge that gravity waves existed 2000 years ago. We have to have ways to study reality for what is there, not what we hope is there, and have tests to falsify our logical conclusions about reality since we are always being shown that we are logically correct about our assumptions of reality and then found to be factually wrong when we test our conclusions against reality.

You reject it - yet you did not ask me first to approve your faith that no God exists yet demand it from me.

Your reasons for believing are fine for you, but they don’t work for me. I need more than what it took for you to believe this.

It’s due to a lack of will that they reject God.

You can’t force yourself to believe something, only force yourself to act like you believe something. Beliefs are not a choice. They are the results of the equation of looking at reality, using your logic, and seeing what the result/belief is that comes out. 1+2=3. The 1 and 2 are facts we observe about reality. The + and = is our applied logic as we understand it works. The 3 is the result/belief you conclude. You can’t control what the conclusion is. Example: Sit in a chair and then choose to not believe you are sitting in a chair. You can’t. It’s not possible. But if your tribe tells you to not believe you are sitting in a chair, then you’ll fake it for social reward and inclusion till they believe you, but you can’t lie to yourself.

 

[Damian]

Sounds like you’re changing what the assumed classical deity was to just the uncaused cause. The first of everything. Okay, logically it makes since to have a first cause in this reality with time. But I don’t know if our logic works outside of this universe. Our logic works by first observing what is most predictable about our experienced reality. But outside of this universe, I don’t know if that still applies there or not. That’s where I think we get it wrong. To assume what works in this universe for logical truths works outside of that. I’ll just wait and see.

 

[rom]

I find this as just beauty of nature.

That’s just it. They could see (by their mind) that the beauty and function of the wings of a butterfly didn’t just happen by chance. So they find God. They didn’t add God to make the wings wonderful. They found God in the wings as the ultimate reason why the wings are wonderful.

 

[Wesrock]

Sounds like you’re changing what the assumed classical deity was to just the uncaused cause.

Without going into it, Christians would still argue there’s reason to apply Intellect, Will, and Power to it, among other things. But this isn’t me changing it. This is 2,000 year old theology, at the least. Justin Martyr, Gregory Nazianzus, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, are all theologians who speak of God in such terms. There are different nuances and such and things they’d disagree on, but God as the immutable, eternal first principle that makes reality real and is beyond reality as we know it (not another being in it) and such is common to all of them, and others, and is a doctrine/dogma of the Catholic faith.

 

[STT]

Bit circular, there. Morality is subjective because people decide what’s moral, so it’s subjective.

The problem with subjective morality as an axiom is that morality no longer functions.

Why am I robbing you? Robbery is wrong!
Because I believe in the right of might. I don’t share your moral view

I agree that morality is subjective but I don’t understand why do you have problem with my argument.

 

[Vonsalza]

When morality is perceived as subjective then compliance is simply a matter of taste.

Which means it ceases to function.

Subjective morality can’t fulfill the purpose of morality.

 

[STT]

When morality is perceived as subjective then compliance is simply a matter of taste.

Yes.

Which means it ceases to function.

No. It still function depending on what you believe.

Subjective morality can’t fulfill the purpose of morality.

How so?

 

[Vonsalza]

For the zillionth time, the purpose of morality is not individual. No one cares what your individual views are.

The purpose of morality is societal. As such, the perception of subjectivity destroys its ability to do what it’s supposed to do.

Subjectivity is arbitrary. Being arbitrary naturally invokes noncompliance.

 

[Bradskii]

For the zillionth time, the purpose of morality is not individual. No one cares what your individual views are.

The purpose of morality is societal. As such, the perception of subjectivity destroys its ability to do what it’s supposed to do.

Subjectivity is arbitrary. Being arbitrary naturally invokes noncompliance.

The natural response to this would be ‘Well, what about societies that were not as we would describe as being moral’. And there are lots of examples that one could use. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. The Nazis and others were guilty of genocide.

But the fact that morality is not what we personally decide but is that which has been decided for us (has got us to this point) does not mean that individually or as a group we cannot actually decide what is right for us (individually or as a group). Whether it is that which got us here (right) versus that which would have not (wrong) is neither here nor there. We would feel at the time that it was right but in retrospect we will always realise that it was wrong.

Hence we can always look back and think ‘What were we/they thinking?’

 

[STT]

The natural response to this would be ‘Well, what about societies that were not as we would describe as being moral’. And there are lots of examples that one could use. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. The Nazis and others were guilty of genocide.

But the fact that morality is not what we personally decide but is that which has been decided for us (has got us to this point) does not mean that individually or as a group we cannot actually decide what is right for us (individually or as a group). Whether it is that which got us here (right) versus that which would have not (wrong) is neither here nor there. We would feel at the time that it was right but in retrospect we will always realise that it was wrong.

Hence we can always look back and think ‘What were we/they thinking?’

Yes, sir. I wanted to say that.

 

[Vonsalza]

The natural response to this would be ‘Well, what about societies that were not as we would describe as being moral’.

That doesn’t make morality subjective, it makes their Aztec Jaguar God wrong and your beloved Yahweh is right.

They’re not sacrificing that poor person because Tom or Frank decided it would be a good idea. They’re sacrificing that poor person because god objectively and clearly demands it - not subject to personal interpretation.

Similarly it’s wrong because Yahweh or his representatives said it’s wrong. Not because you said it was wrong. Again, no one cares what you think (you in the general, human sense. Not personal).

 

[Vonsalza]

Probably won’t have a chance to check back for most of the day. In the mean time, reply away.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The natural response to this would be ‘Well, what about societies that were not as we would describe as being moral’.

That doesn’t make morality subjective, it makes their Aztec Jaguar God wrong and your beloved Yahweh is right.

They’re not sacrificing that poor person because Tom or Frank decided it would be a good idea. They’re sacrificing that poor person because god objectively and clearly demands it - not subject to personal interpretation.

Similarly it’s wrong because Yahweh or his representatives said it’s wrong. Not because you said it was wrong. Again, no one cares what you think (you in the general, human sense. Not personal).

You are talking about acts not moral decisions.

If a god/leader says: ‘Kill these people’ then you have 3 choices:

1. You can think it’s the right thing to do.
2. You can think it’s the wrong thing to do.
3. You don’t think at all and just follow orders (god/leader must be right).

We can skip 3. There was no moral decision made. But in the other two cases, whether people were killed or not, personal moral decisions were made.

Almost all Christians will say that God’s commands are morally correct. Now they represent either 1 or 3. That is, they have come to a personal decision that what God has decried is correct or…they are just following orders.

There are way too many category 3s in the world for my peace of mind. But as for those in category 1…see if you can find any that will admit to it. Because what they are doing is personally defining morality.

 

[TheOldColonel]

As an atheist, you are a typical specimen. I think it’s no doubt most edifying for many here to see and study your strategy, though unremarkable, for discounting obvious truth and attempting to berate those of faith. But, I suggest you adopt the Golden Rule here. Treat others as you would wish to be treated. Otherwise, you might miss out on the greatest enjoyment of CAF… it’s wonderful users and what they have to share with you.

 

[vz71]

Okay, logically it makes since to have a first cause in this reality with time. But I don’t know if our logic works outside of this universe

Where else would you like reality to work?

 

[o_mlly]

Atheists seem to profess belief that no transcendent being exists to compel their behavior. If they profess a moral code then that code seems to be based usually on only its utility to their happiness, not the happiness of others. We can tolerate other people who believe no power is greater than their own unless those others have the power.

 

[Ender]

Use Kant’s Categorical Imperative. If you think that stealing is acceptable, then you must agree to live in a society where everyone thinks the same. Obviously that wouldn’t work. Not even at the group level.

No, I really don’t. I’m not trying to build a set of moral rules for society; I am simply addressing how I should decide on what my personal morality should be. How others choose to behave is up to them to decide.

I’ve been trying to make the point that if morality is merely subjective then one set of rules is the equivalent of any other set because in fact morality is itself illusory. I imagine people can come up with any number of practical reasons why it’s a bad idea to murder someone, but I don’t believe there is any moral objection that doesn’t include the concept that morality is actually objective.

I’d be happy to entertain an argument on that point if anyone would like to make one.