Trying to rationalize morality is an old, worn out game, just one part of the old attempt by atheists to try to deny God out of their lives. The problem is that atheists themselves have proven how silly it is by their ongoing failure.Hi all,
I caught this show and was engaged with the idea that atheist notions accidentally presuppose God, just as a scientist claiming gravity did not exist would presuppose gravity when he assumed he could walk from a to b without floating off the ground.
However, when it came to talking about the main areas in which these presuppositions are demonstrated, I do not think that God is actually required. I think we can adequately describe our experience of life atheistically, <—The atheist description tries to deny and reject God, and is not accurate OR adequate. if you will. To put it another way, how can we say authoritatively that relativism and subjectivism are false, and shown to be false in everyday life?
For example, we all observe moral language, moral feelings, moral actions - but we never see anything that makes moral right or wrong certainly a real, objective thing. I would say moral objectivity is not necessary to the functioning of morality as we know it. Murder is wrong to us in our culture because it is horrible and disgusting (subjectively); we wouldn’t want to suffer it (empathy); and we fear it. We hope that everyone else agrees, and we condemn it. When it happens we punish the perpetrator. All of this is commonplace stuff, but I think it describes the reality of moral experience, in its totality. Where is God presupposed? I would say that claiming God as the source of the reason we condemn bad acts is a way to bolster our subjective opposition to them. At least, it is logically and empirically possible to claim this from an atheistic perspective.
Claiming that morality is just consensus is not morally wrong and subversive either, nor does it make us somehow too cynical and dangerous. Consensus, emotion and empathy are real; our shared culture is real. To break a cultural/subjective rule is no light thing, just because it is not objectively existent.
So I would put the issue back to the faithful, and ask how anyone can argue from any perspective whatsoever that there is an objective set of morals, and that this, rather than evolved, cultural and subjective factors best describes the morality that we live in?
Thanks for your thoughts.
I do agree, but would say that it seems likely that these decisions are not deliberate and do not happen at a moment in time. A bit like the implicit contract which Hobbes supposed civilized people would make to transition from the condition of nature to submission to a state - mythical and hypothetical, rather than empirical.Assumptions:
- Assumption 1: In order for a society to function, people have to agree to a “system of moral conduct”, which you stated as “common consensus”. I’m sure 99.9% of people would agree with this, and so would you.
I would say the judgement of whether a society ‘works’ is made with hindsight, from a culturally specific point of view. How would we say a society worked without saying the society was morally good, therefore without simply sympathising or begging the question?
- Assumption 2: In order for the “common consensus” to work, it must generally remain the same for a relatively long period of time. Example: The U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest forms of these consensuses. A group of people and states came together to form a new nation, consenting to a set of governing rules and laws (“We the people…”). Despite being in effect for over 200 years, it has only been amended 27 times (and the first 10 were put in right after it was ratified to ensure equal rights to everyone: more common consensus"). So, in reality, it has only been changed 17 times in over 200 years. Pretty regular, wouldn’t you say?
But yes, I see what you mean - it would be good if we all agreed on some set of morals because it was objective.From here, the argument is rather clear.
- Assumption 3: The “common consensus” can contain morals which are objective or subjective, but not both.
- Argument 1: If the morality contained in a common consensus is subjective (assumption 3), meaning, subject to the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of people, then morality is subject to change, since people’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions change.
- Argument 2: Sometimes this change can be quite radical and quick (see: example of Nazi Germany above, plus countless examples of revolutions, coups, and genocides)
- Argument 3: If the common consensus morality changes quickly, then it cannot work (assumption 2).
- Argument 4: If the common consensus cannot work, then society cannot work (assumption 1).
- Argument 5: Therefore, the only way for a common consensus, and therefore society, to work, is to contain objective morals, those that exist outside of people’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions.
Is it perhaps better to accept irrevocable difference between people, rather than hope for One Vision (to steal from Queen)? Maybe there are no really really significant cultural differences between us all which cannot be overcome at present, but wouldn’t trying to gain a universal code be a risk - especially if it turned out not to be true?Now, granted, I’m not saying that every common consensus morality that is objective is going to actually conform to those morals which are objectively right. (Exactly! Hence the same argument which is given to atheists: why ought you do what is good?) I am simply making the argument that in order for a common consensus morality to work, it must acknowledge, or be built on the concept of objectivity, that is, it must assume that morals are objective.
So how does all this demonstrate the existence of God? All it means is that throughout human (and prior primate evolution), it has become necessary to cooperate for mutual survival and reciprocal altruism; but it is done sub-consciously and automatically, not as a result of existential angst about “why should I behave unselfishly”. If it had not become written into our genes from the start, and we had all massacred each other before we even got off the ground, then obviously we would not be here. Think of alll the possible living things that are actually not here!Have you read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. Here’s a quote germaine to the topic…perhaps it will pique your interest:
"Human beings, after all, have some sense; they see that you cannot have real safety or happiness except in a society where every one plays fair, and it is because they see this that they try to behave decently. Now, of course, it is perfectly true that safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes, and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other. It is one of the most important truths in the world. But as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong it just misses the point If we ask: “Why ought I to be unselfish?” and you reply “Because it is good for society,” we may then ask, “Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?” and then you will have to
say, “Because you ought to be unselfish”-which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true, but you are not getting any further. If a man asked what was the point of playing football, it would not be much good saying “in order to score goals,” for trying to score goals is the game itself, not the reason for the game, and you would really only be saying that football was football-which is true, but not worth saying. In the same way, if a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, “in order to benefit society,” for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for “society” after all only means “other people”), is one of the things decent behaviour consists in; all you are really saying is that decent behaviour is decent behaviour. You would have said just as much if you had stopped at the statement, “Men ought to be unselfish.”
Again yes indeed. Does that mean that all human fathers are God (or gods?)Isn’t atheism - at its base - a disbelief in a good and holy God who provides for His family?
These are bold claims, and rather incoherent: There is no harm in trying to rationalize morality, nor anything else. Try reading “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris,-in which he does just that. There are reasons why we act as we do; they are at best, rational reasons, and logical, and therefore scientific,-because we can say that they are done for a utilitarian or consequentialist. or motivational, or deontological reason. In political terms, morality is democratic and consensual; at first subjective, because reasons to behave originate in subjective individual Minds, and then by agreement. If everybody accepts them, they become “objective”,-and everyone says “You must not kill” (unless, etc etc etc).Trying to rationalize morality is an old, worn out game, just one part of the old attempt by atheists to try to deny God out of their lives. The problem is that atheists themselves have proven how silly it is by their ongoing failure.
The Earth and the Universe generally are are mixture of apparent fine-tuning for Life, and gross non-fine-tuning. With all the new extra-solar planets being discovered nowadays, do you really think that our solar system is necessarily unique? (it may be rare).Entropy is not a suitable reason to reject the existence of God. In fact, it indicates the existence of a Higher Power.
Astronomers know that in order for Earth like planets to exist, a universe must contain an enormous protective planet like Jupiter to survive.