Is Morality possible without God

[TheOldColonel]

No, I was talking about bicycles. What did you think I was talking about?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Vonsalza]

Given the same equipment that the astrophysicists use and their education level for understanding the mathematics, you can recreate their findings.

So we reasonably assume. But let’s not confuse that with first hand knowledge.

Anything that’s a big mystery gets dumped in the supernatural bucket instead of the “we don’t know” bucket.

It might surprise you that there are aspects of your being that aren’t subject purely to empiricism.

Take “morals” as an example among thousands, probably millions.

 

[PennyinCanada]

An atheist can make the moral choice not to shop lift in a store since the consequences of being charged with stealing and going to jail is something they decide to avoid. It’s a rational decision that atheists can make every day and it’s in their best interest to make such decisions.

However, we have the event of the miracle of Fatima on Oct 13 1917 where our blessed Mother told us that the war would end soon (WWl) and if people would not stop offending God, a worse war would follow. This as we know, happened. It shows us beyond a doubt that persons, plugged into the grace of God with their lives can change the course of history for the good and benefit of everyone, and for generations.

So if an atheist seems to think they can make some kind of moral choice in their life, big deal. Get plugged in and get into the program! There is a battle going on and the atheist is busy on the sidelines listening to music and playing on their phones while life and death struggles are going on.

 

[Damian]

So we reasonably assume. But let’s not confuse that with first hand knowledge.

That is the exact same process they went though for “first hand knowledge”. If I tell you I drove a car yesterday, and then I get you to do the exact same thing, you now have first hand knowledge of driving a car, correct?

Take “morals” as an example among thousands, probably millions.

Until you can demonstrate the supernatural is there at all, how do you know the supernatural are causally linked to “morals”? All you’re doing here is experiencing the process of humans acting morally, but how do you link that to something that has not been demonstrated to exist?
This is not the same as I see it as say observing a bend in space, but not observing the object bending the space. We understand that mass bends space, so we say its a mass bending space. If we didn’t understand that mass bends space, we would say that we are observing space being bent. But as to how or what is doing it, “we don’t know”.
When you imagine a realm with a being that can literally do anything, it becomes the an answer for everything. Why does gravity work? god did it by setting up the rules of the universe. Why does X work? because god did it by setting up the rules of the universe. Well all we can study is the universe that we can justify to be there at all. So right now, the universe is the cause of our experienced reality so far. Until you can demonstrate the supernatural is there at all, it’s not allowed to be a solution to anything at all. Otherwise, just replace god with Thanos of the Avenger’s series and you get the exact same logic.

 

[edwest]

From the 1970s:

“Show me God. If you can show me God, I might believe in him.” I’ve heard this for a long time. The Catholic Church was established 2,000 years ago. There are New Agers out there who believe the wrong supernatural things.

 

[Vonsalza]

Okay so we agree in a backhanded way that if you don’t observe the phenomena yourself then your knowledge is not first-hand knowledge.
The scale slides a little bit further away from knowing and a little closer toward believing whether you want to recognize that or not.

And as it pertains to metaphysical phenomena, it’s nonsensical to expect empirical data for a non material thing. Since I can’t quantify morality then the only conclusion you can draw is that morality doesn’t exist by your standard.

Empiricism is a wonderful tool but it’s sophomoric to consider it the only tool.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The fact that you can find both secular and religious racists doesn’t mean one set is more common than the other. To find out if one is more common than the other, you would need to perform a carefully controlled study of the issue. That is what psychologists did, several separate times. They found that more religious people were more likely to be racist.

So at the end of the day, I’m not sure what there is to disagree with, you’ll have to be more specific. Do you disagree that careful study of an issue is the right way to get to the bottom of things?

 

[Damian]

The scale slides a little bit further away from knowing and a little closer toward believing whether you want to recognize that or not.

That’s what I presented here:

I’m just pointing out the difference between first hand experience as a reason to believe something and only using arguments to believe something. The difference between the extremes of 0, 10 of belief scale and the numbers in between 0 and 10.

And as it pertains to metaphysical phenomena, it’s nonsensical to expect empirical data for a non material thing.

We have direct experience of people making moral assessments all the time. We also have direct experience with people informing us of their reference point of good and bad for their moral assessment and their thought process they used to make moral assessments. These are all functions of a brain with evolved biological fundamentals for humans. Such as a need for socialization. If we don’t, we go insane. An ability, mental tool, to empathize with our tribe. An ability to store information about reality so our driving factors of socialization, safety, etc. updates our decision process on how to maximize the positive results of those fundamental driving factors. Those driving factors were evolved to us. If they were not there, we would look human but not act human. That is why human well-being seems to be the most overlapping common factor that people use for assessment of “good” or “bad” about a situation. To minimize harm to themselves and others.

You’re asserting that this comes from a magical source outside of the universe when you can not demonstrate that place even exists or that there is an entity that can do this or that the entity chose to do this if it could. You can believe that if you want, but I hope you see why I don’t believe that is justified to believe. It’s all just “Thanos did it.” or if we find a natural way, it’s five degrees of Thanos did it. Thanos made the wind blow, that moved the storm to my town, that froze the tree limb, that fell on my car and that’s how my car got broke.

 

[Damian]

Mormonism was an officially racist religion up until 1978 for example.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

And as it pertains to metaphysical phenomena, it’s nonsensical to expect empirical data for a non material thing.

We have direct experience of people making moral assessments all the time.

We also have direct evidence of people making religious assessments all the time.

I think I smell a double standard. Morality gets a pass but religion doesn’t.

most overlapping common factor that people use for assessment of “good” or “bad” about a situation. To minimize harm to themselves and others.

Human well-being is a metaphysical idea with all the same weaknesses as god.

You’re a little inconsistent about what’s got to be observable and what doesn’t.

You’re asserting that this comes from a magical source outside of the universe

Oh I place no such limit on God. If it exists, I’m the more limited entity.

You can believe that if you want, but I hope you see why I don’t believe that is justified to believe.

How many times are you going to have me say “you can’t argue someone into faith” or some similar statement?

It’s all just “Thanos did it.”

Comparing ancient religions to comic book characters is an immature and authentically stupid thing to do. You just harden those you’re ineptly trying to convince.

Thanos made the wind blow…

Silly.
Most theists I know don’t need God for “is”. Science does a fine job explaining that.

They need God for “ought”. And as science is incapable of making moral judgments, they must look elsewhere.
Humans evolved religion specifically to answer these metaphysical questions.

 

[TheOldColonel]

It appears your attempts at driving a car have all ended with hitting a tree. Aren’t you tired of that?

 

[PickyPicky]

Saying that Southerners are representative of Christians as a whole (and even according to this study the majority of them reject racism) is like saying that Stalin and Pol Pot were representative of all Atheists.

I think you might want to rethink this sentence. It comes across, no doubt inadvertently, as a nasty slur on Southerners.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

The same can be argued by stating that religious people are racist.

I specifically noted that most Southerners reject racism, even according to this study. Southerners are according to most studies most likely to come into contact with, and live alongside, people of different races and religions than theirs.

To any Southerners who were offended by my post, I apologize, as that was not my intent.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

https://www.biola.edu/directory/people/pete-hill

This guy isn’t a secularist, and his book was quoted in the article quite prominently supporting the idea.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I agree with your conclusion, but not with your premise

Just to clear up, and clear away, my sense of this matter:

If my moral sense — that largely instinctive set of reactions we call a conscience — tells me something is immoral, then to me that something is immoral. If it doesn’t, then to me that something is moral. To say something is moral does not, to me, in this context, imply necessarily some positive good, or some conscious choice, simply the absence of any immorality.

Sometimes, of course, some choice is involved, where we examine a potential course of action and consciously determine whether it fails the test of our conscience and, very occasionally, whether our moral sense, the precepts of our conscience, needs adjustment.

The eggs and bacon question actually falls both within and without the category requiring choice. Like most people, I would guess, I have pondered the morality of eating animals, and made the choice that it does not fail my conscience’s moral test. That done, I can now eat bacon without my conscience nagging me: my instinctive reactions are not now fired, and no conscious choice is now necessary. Eating bacon is, to me, moral.

You state in one post that morality is objective and then, in the very next post claim the exact opposite.

 

[PickyPicky]

You state in one post that morality is objective and then, in the very next post claim the exact opposite

Did I? Dotage, no doubt. Can you point out these conflicting statements for me? I thought I had consistently maintained it was subjective.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Not true at all. I identified that this isn’t a quantifiable phenomenon so you can’t identify where belief stops and knowing begins.

Not to mention the other points on the continuum of certainty that indicate doubt rather than certainty.

In the end, it’s not a quantifiable idea, so your ability to critique it as such will always be a bit of a category error.

Good grief. I have 4 days sans wifi and in the meantime someone has dug up a dead horse and is beating the daylights out of it.

Did the sun come up in your neck of the woods this morning? Your answer will be classed as knowledge.

Will it come up tomorrow? Your answer will be classed as belief. And you act as if it will (or will no). Which is practically the same as knowledge…but isn’t.

I was thinking about it B, and I guess the best way to sum my view is that individual morality is meaningless. Group morality is objective to the individual under it, and subjective between competitors. A different “tier”, I guess.

I really think there has to be an authority one can appeal to in order for morality to function. I believe it almost religiously.

 

[toddy]

Yes, morality is possible without the existence of G-d, just as different kinds of belief in G-d, i.e. religions, have their own variations in morality. People have to decide for themselves what is moral and what is not, just as religion decides. It is often rather complicated in the real world and in extreme situations, as we can see in moral dilemma problems. Essentially, whatever personal moral values one adopts are an individual choice and whatever moral values a given society or culture adopts are based not only on religion but on common human values and norms of behavior, including justice, fairness, compassion, equity, as well as legal rules and regulations that bind a society or culture together.

Morality without God is outlaw in universe, because God created the universe not men.

What do people do when they believe they have god on their side?

1: Force indigenous children into religious schools after being kidnapped from their tribe

2: Child brides

3: anti-science

4: Genital branding of infants

5: Holy Wars

6: Dark Ages

7: Stagnation of science and math progress

8: Women and children as property

9: Genocides

10: Protection of child rapists for church unity

11: Child sacrifice

12: Disownment of family members

13: etc.

People indulge in their darkest sides once they believe they are immune from prosecution from their deity or the state.

Hourly prayer, not daily: “Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from devil”.

So we have two fundamental problems.

1. What constitutes a moral decision in the first place?
2. How do we determine what the correct moral decision is?

Virtues of morality were included in the Gospel

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You state in one post that morality is objective and then, in the very next post claim the exact opposite

Did I? Dotage, no doubt. Can you point out these conflicting statements for me? I thought I had consistently maintained it was subjective.

Sorry, Picky. It was o_mlly that was pushing objective and your post was immediately after that one.

Put it down to a late night. Or dotage.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Vonsalza:

Not true at all. I identified that this isn’t a quantifiable phenomenon so you can’t identify where belief stops and knowing begins.

Not to mention the other points on the continuum of certainty that indicate doubt rather than certainty.

In the end, it’s not a quantifiable idea, so your ability to critique it as such will always be a bit of a category error.

Good grief. I have 4 days sans wifi and in the meantime someone has dug up a dead horse and is beating the daylights out of it.

Did the sun come up in your neck of the woods this morning? Your answer will be classed as knowledge.

Will it come up tomorrow? Your answer will be classed as belief. And you act as if it will (or will no). Which is practically the same as knowledge…but isn’t.

I was thinking about it B, and I guess the best way to sum my view is that individual morality is meaningless. Group morality is objective to the individual under it, and subjective between competitors. A different “tier”, I guess.

I really think there has to be an authority one can appeal to in order for morality to function. I believe it almost religiously.

And who makes the decision that this authority has the correct answer?

Let’s say we live in a perfecr world in that everyone gets to study theology and then makes up their mind as to whether it is valid in any sense and if so then which group has the correct interpretation of the numinous (failing that, each person is making retrospective judgements on a religious belief into which they have been brought up).

The fact that they ‘make up their mind’ is the very definition of subjective. Whether the authority they decide to accept is correct or not is beside the point.

And in passing, the original post mentioning dead horses was actually flagged by someone as being inappropriate. What the…? Maybe someone who has English as a second language believed I was advocating equine cruelty.

A more rational explanation is based on the fact that I have had half a dozen posts flagged in the last 3 or 4 weeks which is half a dozen more than in the last few years. I’m pretty certain that my posting ‘style’ hasn’t changed but maybe I’m becoming more paranoid.