Morality without God?

[Peter_Plato]

Hi Aloysium,

Which of all the gods through the ages does your existence prove?

A God with the potential to create the universe, fine tune the cosmological constants that order it and has the foresight to create the abundance of life based upon an open genetic code found in the first life forms; a code extensible enough to allow environmental factors to bring about the great variety of life forms extant today. Oh, yea, and throw in immaterial, eternal, unfathomably creative and omnibenevolent. Zeus, Thor, and every other god imagined through human history do not come close. In fact, these were never conceived of as having the characteristics that the reasonably understood God of monotheism has, necessarily.

By the way, it is a silly claim to insist that one must believe or think rational a belief in any gods just because a person subscribes to a belief in a particular God.

 

[Aloysium]

Hi Aloysium,

Which of all the gods through the ages does your existence prove?

you are asking me so:

the One
eternal, immutable God
“I am that I am”
His act of being contains all being
Creation emerges eternally from Him
All that is, was, and will be
exists through His love
We exist as individuals within the sea of His infinite compassion
All beauty, all Goodness and Truth is in Him
He is known by many names
I understand Him as the Trinity
I call Him Father

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t have cherished beliefs. I do think it is important though to steal a line made popular Carl Sagan that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.

We could also add that extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary explanation. There is nothing in science that explains my identity as an individual person or subject. There is nothing that adequately explains why I am me and why I am aware of that fact. No objective explanation can ever suffice where only a subjective explanation can. That extraordinary subjective experience of myself existing requires an extraordinary explanation.

Fundamentally it is a question of why I just “popped” into existence a number of years ago when that could have happened anytime anywhere, but didn’t. Why here? Why now? Why me? There are no “facts” more extraordinary than those and no explanation I have read, seen, encountered, etc. answers those, except the God hypothesis.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

What it comes down to in the end is that religion is the great unifier. The morality that commonly springs from religion is commonly known to have God as its authority. Lacking that authority, any moral system that relies on purely human whims in the end will be a good deal more dangerous than whimsical. Morality then becomes a contest of wills only … and the will to power mostly … and the winner is the moralist with the most money or the most battalions.

 

[Bradski]

Fundamentally it is a question of why I just “popped” into existence a number of years ago when that could have happened anytime anywhere, but didn’t. Why here? Why now? Why me?

Well, yes, we’ve all had that experience in the wee hours ater a few tokes, talking about life, the universe and everything. But if we had all just ‘popped’ into existence, then you may have had a point.

But from the earliest forms of life where there was no conciousness we have moved to consciousness, then through sentience to awareness and then to self awareness.

At what point along that continuum did ‘Cogito ergo Deus’ become valid?

 

[Aloysium]

Well, yes, we’ve all had that experience in the wee hours ater a few tokes, talking about life, the universe and everything. But if we had all just ‘popped’ into existence, then you may have had a point.

But from the earliest forms of life where there was no conciousness we have moved to consciousness, then through sentience to awareness and then to self awareness.

At what point along that continuum did ‘Cogito ergo Deus’ become valid?

sorry, can’t resist: looks like someone has had a few too many tokes

“But from the earliest forms of life where there was no conciousness we have moved to consciousness, then through sentience to awareness and then to self awareness.”

I don’t understand where this idea comes from. What evidence . . . what?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, yes, we’ve all had that experience in the wee hours ater a few tokes, talking about life, the universe and everything. But if we had all just ‘popped’ into existence, then you may have had a point.

But from the earliest forms of life where there was no conciousness we have moved to consciousness, then through sentience to awareness and then to self awareness.

At what point along that continuum did ‘Cogito ergo Deus’ become valid?

You have appealed to a well-developed myth that attempts to explain consciousness in general, but the myth is entirely circumstantial. It certainly doesn’t explain particular subjective experience. We all did/do pop into existence somewhere along the timeline of history with no reason for a particular “me” to exist at a particular time.

 

[Aloysium]

“But from the earliest forms of life where there was no conciousness we have moved to consciousness, then through sentience to awareness and then to self awareness.”

This is very interesting,

Would you agree that the screen in front of us exists. That whatever else is going on, there is consciousness of it?
Would you also agree that neurology is more than an illusion, that it describes the functioning and anatomy of the human nervous system?

So we have retinal cells firing in organized patterns, sending action potentials down my optic tracts, crossing the optic chiasm, to the thalamus and back to the occiput.

So the screen is the firing of these cells, the pattern of neural activity. Knock out one part of this system and you will go at least partially blind.

I would suggest that the earliest forms of life are not that different from individual neurons whose activity combines to create this experience. If this is not the case perhaps there is something that explains why the attribute of consciousness resides in them and not simple bacteria.
Since there isn’t and we have for these purposes denied the existence of a soul, then we will have to go with the idea that all life is conscious. Ultimately, life being conscious, all matter is conscious since life is simply matter undergoing transformations from one state to another.

The earth is a complex entity; myriads of complex molecules interacting and forming intricate patterns of material substance.
The earth is but one among billions of planets contained in billions of galaxies.

(What is this sense of wonder and awe?)

An atheist has to be at least a pantheist, unless they wish to hide in ignorance.
If there is no God outside the physical, the physical has to be God.

But wait. Why are we not all part of one mass entity encompassing the universe?
My screen exists in isolation from yours.
So what is this self that my nervous system is aware?
I’ll cut it short here, could it be my soul?

thinking, meditation and prayer gets one a lot higher than any toking, and you get to enhance your mind

 

[Bradski]

You have appealed to a well-developed myth that attempts to explain consciousness in general, but the myth is entirely circumstantial.

I didn’t realise there was a myth. Especially one that explains it. We know it exists and we know that there is a continuous line from no consciousness at all to self-awareness. In life in general and within each species over time. Follow your family line back far enough and your great great etc grandad was not self-aware. You are. It happened very gradually over a period of time too long to really comprehend.

It most certainly didn’t happen that one of your ancestors woke up in the morning one day and though: ‘Hey, I’m me!’ So at what point was it valid to say that there must be a God because of self-awareness? Does the possibility of God increase as self-awareness increases? Would your argument be less strong if you were only vaguely aware of yourself?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

**It most certainly didn’t happen that one of your ancestors woke up in the morning one day and though: ‘Hey, I’m me!’ So at what point was it valid to say that there must be a God because of self-awareness? Does the possibility of God increase as self-awareness increases? Would your argument be less strong if you were only vaguely aware of yourself? **

I’m wondering if any of this recent discussion has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[hansard]

It does not have to be “perfect” - whatever it means. A smoothly working society would derive its morals from the principle of reciprocity (which translates into the two versions of the golden rule). That is all that is needed. Do not harm others. Respect others. “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. No deity needed there. Reason is sufficient. And, of course, no “authority” is needed!

Exactly my view.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Bradski

**It most certainly didn’t happen that one of your ancestors woke up in the morning one day and though: ‘Hey, I’m me!’ So at what point was it valid to say that there must be a God because of self-awareness? Does the possibility of God increase as self-awareness increases? Would your argument be less strong if you were only vaguely aware of yourself? **

I’m wondering if any of this recent discussion has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

It does in the sense that only a conscious, autonomous subject can be capable of moral thought and actions. From a strictly materialistic conception of the universe, the ground for moral authority is limited to “self.” If God exists, presumably his omniscience and omnibenevolence, and his authorship of all that exists does de facto make him the moral authority regardless of whether we wish to accept that fact or not. It also would seem that a will to throw off that authority and replace it, especially if it clearly stems from a will to self-determine the nature of morality and reduce it to whatever purpose I desire to instill in my actions, should rightly be seen as more akin to a political coup than a mindful moral decision.

If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent then hs knowledge and goodness bestow on him the authority that “knows better” than we do. It is not mere authority but rightful authority that ought to be listened to because of its greater knowledge and goodness.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But without God, there would be no reason for everybody to be reasonable. The man who says “The right of my fist is unlimited” cannot be challenged as immoral if his the power of his fist is unlimited. In that case, what good is an appeal to reason?

When appeals to reason fail the next solutions are penalties (both violent and non-violent), violence, threats, force, and death. Take for example the American civil war, American Civil Right’s movement, one of the World Wars, or even a situation where a police force is brought in. After reason and negotiation fails then the fall back plan tends to be to take action against the interest of one that disagrees. When success is achieved it might not always be because the non-conforming party now agrees, but because that party wishes to avoid the penalties that the other group will apply.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m wondering if any of this recent discussion has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

sorry, point i was trying to make:
there is a God who contains all goodness, justice and morality

that being the case:

• morality without God is nonexistant
• an act outside of God’s will and love is immoral
• someone who acts morally, is doing God’s will; he may not conceive of it as such, but He knows God

 

[Hamlet123]

It does in the sense that only a conscious, autonomous subject can be capable of moral thought and actions. From a strictly materialistic conception of the universe, the ground for moral authority is limited to “self.” If God exists, presumably his omniscience and omnibenevolence, and his authorship of all that exists does de facto make him the moral authority regardless of whether we wish to accept that fact or not. It also would seem that a will to throw off that authority and replace it, especially if it clearly stems from a will to self-determine the nature of morality and reduce it to whatever purpose I desire to instill in my actions, should rightly be seen as more akin to a political coup than a mindful moral decision.

If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent then hs knowledge and goodness bestow on him the authority that “knows better” than we do. It is not mere authority but rightful authority that ought to be listened to because of its greater knowledge and goodness.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

** Originally Posted by Tyrion View Post
It does not have to be “perfect” - whatever it means. A smoothly working society would derive its morals from the principle of reciprocity (which translates into the two versions of the golden rule). That is all that is needed. Do not harm others. Respect others. “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. No deity needed there. Reason is sufficient. And, of course, no “authority” is needed!**

Well, you have to have authority, or else you have anarchy. It will either be the authority of an elected government or of a tyrant. In either case you have have corrupt authority if that authority does not have a yet higher power to answer to.

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler

Peter
**
If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent then hs knowledge and goodness bestow on him the authority that “knows better” than we do. It is not mere authority but rightful authority that ought to be listened to because of its greater knowledge and goodness. **

 

[Bradski]

** Originally Posted by Tyrion View Post
It does not have to be “perfect” - whatever it means. A smoothly working society would derive its morals from the principle of reciprocity (which translates into the two versions of the golden rule). That is all that is needed. Do not harm others. Respect others. “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. No deity needed there. Reason is sufficient. And, of course, no “authority” is needed!**

Well, you have to have authority, or else you have anarchy. It will either be the authority of an elected government or of a tyrant. In either case you have have corrupt authority if that authority does not have a yet higher power to answer to.

But you are talking about an authority that, persumably, enforces ‘the rules’. Morality isn’t a set of rules that have to be enforced. Morality guides how you should act. Whether you act in that way or not doesn’t depend on any authority. If it did, you may well acting in a particular way because of fear of punishment. Such as…oh, I don’t know…eternal damnation for example.

I’m sure that you’d agree that you’d trust someone more if she were doing the right thing because she personally felt it was the right thing to do rather than feeling obliged to do it because she had been told it was the right thing to do.

If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent then hs knowledge and goodness bestow on him the authority that “knows better” than we do. It is not mere authority but rightful authority that ought to be listened to because of its greater knowledge and goodness.

What’s his specific view on the ethical treatment of animals? Or are you given free will to decide on this?

 

[PetrusRomanus]

But you are talking about an authority that, persumably, enforces ‘the rules’. Morality isn’t a set of rules that have to be enforced. Morality guides how you should act. Whether you act in that way or not doesn’t depend on any authority. If it did, you may well acting in a particular way because of fear of punishment. Such as…oh, I don’t know…eternal damnation for example.

I’m sure that you’d agree that you’d trust someone more if she were doing the right thing because she personally felt it was the right thing to do rather than feeling obliged to do it because she had been told it was the right thing to do.

How do we know for a fact that this hypothetical person were doing the right thing because they felt it was the proper thing to do and not for I don’t know… a reward or recognition?

 

[Bradski]

How do we know for a fact that this hypothetical person were doing the right thing because they felt it was the proper thing to do and not for I don’t know… a reward or recognition?

I wonder if it really matters if it turned out that everyone was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. The world would undoubtedly be a better place. You’d go through life thinking that everyone was wonderful.

But what if you were having a few drinks with someone late at night. You congratulated him on something he’d done during the day and (in vino veritas) he admitted to you that he’d done it because he had been told that it was expected of him. He still felt it was right, but he had been told that there could be a reward sometime in the future if he always acted correctly and punishment if he didn’t. Now he’s not really sure why he behaves as he does. ‘What if I’d been brought up somewhere else and was told something different. Would I accept it or disagree?’

He wants to know if you’d been told the same thing. You tell him you hadn’t. So he asks why you seem to do the right thing without having been told. And you wonder why he just can’t see it himself. Isn’t it obvious?

Now you’re not sure if everyone else is acting the way they are because they feel it’s the right thing to do or not. Maybe they all are. But from now on, you can’t be sure.

So do you do the right thing because you’re a Christian? Or do you do the right thing as well as being a Christian? If it’s the first, then please don’t lose your faith. If it’s the second, then you’re the same as me.

 

[Crude]

I wonder if it really matters if it turned out that everyone was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. The world would undoubtedly be a better place. You’d go through life thinking that everyone was wonderful.

Sure, rather like how it doesn’t matter if a politician really believes the things he’s saying. So long as they’re laudable things, there’s nothing to worry about.

So do you do the right thing because you’re a Christian? Or do you do the right thing as well as being a Christian? If it’s the first, then please don’t lose your faith. If it’s the second, then you’re the same as me.

What is “the right thing” for an atheist, specifically an atheist who is also a materialist?

For the Catholic or Christian, the Right Thing is something God (Goodness Itself) has commanded, or seeking the God, or is informed by Natural Law, etc, etc.

For a materialist atheist, “the right thing” can only be “what I happen to like, right now”.