Morality without god

[Arioch]

@JDawg --

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

And yes, I do acknowledge that difference.

 

[James R]

wynn:

One example is secular humanism. Look it up.

 

[wynn]

wynn:

One example is secular humanism. Look it up.

And what exactly is "morality without god" about humanism?

That people who call themselves "humanists" claim to have a "morality without god"?

 

[James R]

wynn:

Can't you find the wikipedia page on secular humanism. Here's the first sentence:

Secular Humanism, alternatively known as Humanism (often with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism), is a secular philosophy. It embraces human reason, ethics, and justice while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.

Read the rest here:

Secular humanism

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[wynn]

wynn:

Can't you find the wikipedia page on secular humanism. Here's the first sentence:

Read the rest here:

Secular humanism

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

That's like claiming that in order to make an egg omelette, no chicken are needed.
If you don't acknowledge the need for chicken, then where did you get the eggs from?

 

[Rav]

That's like claiming that in order to make an egg omelette, no chicken are needed.
If you don't acknowledge the need for chicken, then where did you get the eggs from?

What it boils down to in the end is a question of where the universe came from, and since no-one has actually demonstrated that the existence of such is contingent upon a god, no-one has actually demonstrated that Chickens are either, nor egg omelettes, nor morality.

 

[lightgigantic]

What it boils down to in the end is a question of where the universe came from, and since no-one has actually demonstrated that the existence of such is contingent upon a god, no-one has actually demonstrated that Chickens are either, nor egg omelettes, nor morality.

It is demonstrated however that secular humanism operates purely out of a moral window established by thousands of years of theism

 

[James R]

wynn:

That's like claiming that in order to make an egg omelette, no chicken are needed. If you don't acknowledge the need for chicken, then where did you get the eggs from?

You didn't read the article, did you? Go and read it, then get back to me.

It is demonstrated however that secular humanism operates purely out of a moral window established by thousands of years of theism

Demonstrated where? By whom?

 

[lightgigantic]

Demonstrated where?

anywhere with internet access it seems

By whom?

practically everyone since the moral contributions of theism in the contemporary world are so far reaching

Even something as simple as "all people are equal" as a departure point for a moral value is clearly a metaphysical (ie theistic) claim ... since, materially speaking, that claim is far from the truth

 

[James R]

Metaphysical is not the same as theistic, lightgigantic.

You do realise there are other philosophies apart from religious ones, do you not?

 

[Rav]

It is demonstrated however that secular humanism operates purely out of a moral window established by thousands of years of theism

And again, unless you can demonstrate that the existence of theism is contingent upon an actually existing god, you still haven't demonstrated that morality is.

 

[lightgigantic]

Metaphysical is not the same as theistic, lightgigantic.

You do realise there are other philosophies apart from religious ones, do you not?

sure ... but if you are going out of your way to avoid anything "supernatural" I guess in that regard it doesn't leave you too many options ... particularly if there is an already documented historical precedent for the metaphysical claim being firmly lodged in the fabric of social justice due to theistic influence (from the very same societies you are declaring secular humanism as arising from too I might add ...)

IOW to declare that secular humanism operates completely independent of any other moral systems that involve god is to deny the (theistic) chronological continuum that provided the framework for its establishment.

IOW its kind of like arguing online that one can invent the internet without going through the stages of the telegraph and wireless radio developments of the first part of the 20th Century

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

And again, unless you can demonstrate that the existence of theism is contingent upon an actually existing god, you still haven't demonstrated that morality is.

that makes as much sense as saying morality being contingent on reductionist views of the world is only valid when one actually can demonstrate the efficacy of such models

 

[Rav]

that makes as much sense as saying morality being contingent on reductionist views of the world is only valid when one actually can demonstrate the efficacy of such models

Actually, if someone was to claim that morality is not ultimately contingent upon God at some point down the line (which would essentially boil down to the claim that there is no God at all), and that this was a fact and not merely an opinion, I wouldn't just ask for a demonstration of the efficacy of whatever philosophy could lead one to such a certain conclusion, I'd ask for proof. If they couldn't provide it, then their claim would rightly be treated as an opinion and not a fact. Now, is that sensible, or not?

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually, if someone was to claim that morality is not ultimately contingent upon God at some point down the line (which would essentially boil down to the claim that there is no God at all), and that this was a fact and not merely an opinion, I wouldn't just ask for a demonstration of the efficacy of whatever philosophy could lead one to such a certain conclusion, I'd ask for proof. If they couldn't provide it, then their claim would rightly be treated as an opinion and not a fact. Now, is that sensible, or not?

No its not sensible ... unless you think that the morality pursued by nazi germany got the go ahead because it was evidenced that they are the master race.

IOW its the nature of morality (ie the making of decisions of what is good and what is bad and everything in between) to fall in line with merely how one thinks the world is.

 

[Rav]

No its not sensible ... unless you think that the morality pursued by nazi germany got the go ahead because it was evidenced that they are the master race.

IOW its the nature of morality (ie the making of decisions of what is good and what is bad and everything in between) to fall in line with merely how one thinks the world is.

So with respect to the example I gave you, it would sensible to treat the claim that there is no God, assuming that one can defend the efficacy of a philosophy that leads to such a conclusion, as a fact?

 

[lightgigantic]

So with respect to the example I gave you, it would sensible to treat the claim that there is no God, assuming that one can defend the efficacy of a philosophy that leads to such a conclusion, as a fact?

I am saying it is not sensible to bring evidence into a discussion on the existence or core aspects of s given morality.... unless you think that the moral consequences of a nazi government in germany went ahead because it was evidenced they were the master race

 

[wynn]

As I asked before:

So what exactly would that be, "morality without god"?
Can someone describe it?

What is that, "morality without god"?

"Morality without direct or indirect reference to existing theistic religions"?

"Morality that doesn't mention God nor refer to God as a justificatory instance"?

"Morality that is developed and pursued independently of God"?

"Morality that is developed and pursued independently of existing theistic religions"?

 

[Rav]

I am saying it is not sensible to bring evidence into a discussion on the existence or core aspects of s given morality.... unless you think that the moral consequences of a nazi government in germany went ahead because it was evidenced they were the master race

The claim that morality is contingent upon God essentially boils down to the claim that God exists. Is it sensible to bring evidence into a discussion on the existence of God?

 

[wynn]

And again, unless you can demonstrate that the existence of theism is contingent upon an actually existing god, you still haven't demonstrated that morality is.

What about Western secular morality and law? They are based on the firm conviction that free will exists.
Yet Western science is inclined to believe that free will does not exist.

Now what? Should we undo Western secular morality and law? Should we put off prosecuting criminals, handling insurance claims, uneployment benefits, salary raises ...?