Morality without god

[wynn]

Acknowledging that there was a historical development of moral philosophy that eventually led to the invention of secular humanism makes no difference to the basic assertion that secular humanism is a non-theistic system of morality.

You still need to explain what you mean by "morality without God".


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"?

Acknowledging that there was a historical development of moral philosophy that eventually led to the invention of secular humanism makes no difference to the basic assertion that secular humanism is a non-theistic system of morality.

For one, humanists cannot even define what they are about, without referring to religion and God.

For two, however fancy and non-theistic humanist principles may be, they are nevertheless taken from theistic principles.

Free will, the worth of a human life, fundamental equality - none of these can be scientifically evidenced, nor argued for without reference to some higher all-overarching, all-encompassing principles.

 

[Rav]

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense.

It makes absolutely perfect sense.

 

[James R]

wynn:

You still need to explain what you mean by "morality without God".

Just read the literal meaning of the phrase. It means that secular humanism is a system of morality that makes no reference to supernatural entities.

What's so hard about that?

For one, humanists cannot even define what they are about, without referring to religion and God.

I'm not sure about that. However, it makes sense in that that historically, humanism arose in reaction to the belief that morality requires a theistic underpinning. Clearly it does not. But some people - yourself included - still haven't worked that out. Apparently, it is something worth emphasising.

For two, however fancy and non-theistic humanist principles may be, they are nevertheless taken from theistic principles.

Not at all.

I think you're confused because humanism reaches some of the same conclusions as theism (e.g. the Golden Rule). You assume that humanism therefore is derivative of religion. It is not. And this is a point that, as you point out, is made quite explicit, so that people don't make the mistake you're making.

Free will, the worth of a human life, fundamental equality - none of these can be scientifically evidenced, nor argued for without reference to some higher all-overarching, all-encompassing principles.

What makes you think that humanism has no principles? Are you arguing that it is an incoherent system? If so, please explain why.

 

[wynn]

You still need to explain what you mean by "morality without God".

Just read the literal meaning of the phrase. It means that secular humanism is a system of morality that makes no reference to supernatural entities.

There are other definitions of God, beyond "old man with a beard in the clouds."

The idea that there is free will, even though scientific evidence indicates otherwise: that idea is one fine piece of supernaturalism.

What's so hard about that?

What's so hard about considering more than one definition of "God" and theism?

For one, humanists cannot even define what they are about, without referring to religion and God.

I'm not sure about that.

You should be.

From your link:

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?

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.

Though it posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or God, it neither assumes humans to be inherently evil or innately good, nor presents humans as "above nature" or superior to it.

Humanism identifies itself in contradistinction with theism - ie. humanism can't stand on its own.

However, it makes sense in that that historically, humanism arose in reaction to the belief that morality requires a theistic underpinning. Clearly it does not.

That's not "clearly," that yet needs to be shown.

For two, however fancy and non-theistic humanist principles may be, they are nevertheless taken from theistic principles.

Not at all.

I think you're confused because humanism reaches some of the same conclusions as theism (e.g. the Golden Rule). You assume that humanism therefore is derivative of religion. It is not. And this is a point that, as you point out, is made quite explicit, so that people don't make the mistake you're making.

The similarity between some humanist principles and theistic principles is blatant; historically, theistic principles came first; humanism identifies itself in contradistinction with theism - ie. humanism can't stand on its own; humanist principles cannot be evidenced by science.

Declared independence isn't automatically factual independence.

Free will, the worth of a human life, fundamental equality - none of these can be scientifically evidenced, nor argued for without reference to some higher all-overarching, all-encompassing principles.

What makes you think that humanism has no principles? Are you arguing that it is an incoherent system? If so, please explain why.

What makes you think I said it has no principles?

 

[wynn]

If someone claims to have "morality without God,"
then they shoulder the burden of proof to show there is no God.

 

[wynn]

It makes absolutely perfect sense.

So you are saying it is a fact that the Nazis have killed no Jews during WWII?

 

[Rav]

So you are saying it is a fact that the Nazis have killed no Jews during WWII?

You and LG can go off and discuss the Nazi's all you like in some other thread. My argument is perfectly clear all by itself.

If you can't demonstrate that a god actually exists, then you can't demonstrate that morality is contingent upon one. That is the correct form of my statement.

 

[wynn]

My argument is perfectly clear all by itself.

I'm afraid it isn't.

If you can't demonstrate that a god actually exists, then you can't demonstrate that morality is contingent upon one.That is the correct form of my statement.

I never claimed that morality is contingent upon God, and as far as I can tell, nor did LG.


Since the OP and supporters claim that a morality without God is possible, they need to demonstrate that this is the case, of course, along with demonstrating that God doesn't exist.

 

[Rav]

I'm afraid it isn't.

What's essentially going on here is that LG isn't paying attention. He's arguing as if I am suggesting that unless one can demonstrate that God exists, one can't demonstrate that theistic morality has an effect on secular morality. But that's not my argument, and never has been. In fact earlier in this thread I said:

Actually, it's quite obvious that theistic morality has had and still is having an effect on secular morality.

My actual argument is essentially that this fact does not translate into an effect that God has on morality, unless you can demonstrate that one actually exists (and, of course, that theistic morality is itself contingent upon such).

Since the OP and supporters claim that a morality without God is possible, they need to demonstrate that this is the case, of course, along with demonstrating that God doesn't exist.

Sure. If our existence is in any way contingent upon a god, then you can argue that by extension everything is, including morality. This would indeed mean that one would have to demonstrate that a god doesn't exist in order to demonstrate that morality (or anything else) can exist independently of such.

However, some people might be looking at it in the sense that human beings are capable of deriving a basis for morality independently of that which may or may not have been imparted to us by some greater being.

 

[wynn]

What's essentially going on here is that LG isn't paying attention. He's arguing as if I am suggesting that unless one can demonstrate that God exists, one can't demonstrate that theistic morality has an effect on secular morality.

No, it seems that you are the one arguing that that was his argument.

I went through the thread and found nothing in LG's posts to support that kind of reading of his posts as you suggest.

You'll need to copy-paste a post where you see him saying that

He's arguing as if I am suggesting that unless one can demonstrate that God exists, one can't demonstrate that theistic morality has an effect on secular morality.

However, some people might be looking at it in the sense that human beings are capable of deriving a basis for morality independently of that which may or may not have been imparted to us by some greater being.

And they yet need to show that this can indeed be the case.

(The easiest way to do so would, of course, be to operate out of a caricature of definitions of God.)

 

[Rav]

No, it seems that you are the one arguing that that was his argument.

His analogy, if designed to be a reasonably accurate rendition of my position, only makes sense if he thinks that I'm arguing that unless one can demonstrate that God exists, one can't demonstrate that theistic morality has an effect on secular morality. That would be an absurd position to take, hence the absurdity inherent in his rendition. But that is not and never has been my position.

If attention was paid to my clarifications, such as:

Actually, it's quite obvious that theistic morality has had and still is having an effect on secular morality. But in order to use that fact to demonstrate that morality is contingent upon God, one has to demonstrate that theism itself is contingent upon (an actually existing) God.

the inaccuracy of the rendition would have been obvious.

/sigh

Are we done with this now?

 

[wynn]

Copy-paste where either I or LG said that morality is contingent upon (an actually existing) God.

Especially given that LG said -

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.

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 is sensible to bring evidence into a discussion on the existence of God?

Not if one thinks that it preempts the already existent core details of theistic based morality ...

 

[gmilam]

It's obvious (again!). The title is "Morality without God". If God does not exist, then all morality has been derived without God. Duh!

 

[wynn]

It's obvious (again!). The title is "Morality without God". If God does not exist, then all morality has been derived without God. Duh!

If.


If Henry has three children, he has to buy three pairs of shoes.
Must Henry buy three pairs of shoes now?

 

[Balerion]

It's obvious (again!). The title is "Morality without God". If God does not exist, then all morality has been derived without God. Duh!

You don't even need to take it that far back. All you have to do is demonstrate that basic morality is relatively consistent throughout history, and has been founded independent of the sources theists (and they're mostly Christians telling you this) claim to be the place from which morality is derived.

And all one has to do to demonstrate that is point.

 

[Rav]

Copy-paste where either I or LG said that morality is contingent upon (an actually existing) God.

This all started with your response to James R, who was pointing you in the direction of information about secular humanism. I can only assume that he was framing it as an example of "morality without God". Your response to this was:

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?

In other words, your were, at the very least, saying that the morality of secular humanism was contingent upon theistic morality. But given that this thread is about 'morality without God" and not "morality without religion" (an important distinction), I replied:

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.

In other words, I ran your chicken and egg analogy all the way back down the line for the purposes of demonstrating that ultimately, one needs to demonstrate the existence of God in order to demonstrate that anything is contingent upon him, including morality. Again, because this thread is about "morality without God" and not "morality without religion", since in a godless universe, religious morality is essentially human morality anyway.

To that, LG replied:

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

Now, since I made it quite clear that I was running your analogy all the way back to some proposed contingency on God (and not religion), how does one not conclude, considering the context, that that above reply is not essentially implying that because theistic morality has had an effect on secular morality, that secular morality is ultimately contingent upon God?

LG either implied what I think he implied, or his comment didn't actually refute what I said (since again, in a godless universe, theistic morality is essentially human morality). Take your pick.

 

[wellwisher]

There is a saying, "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Although I agree that the small guy (in terms of power and influence) might still have a good sense of morality without god, due to education, law and social pressures, the people at the very top, in power, create the laws and don't have the same level of peer pressure, and often feel free to interpret morality in a way that benefits them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you add God, they become the little guy due to this extra checks and balance. There is a difference at the very top.

For example, in the US, insider trading (stocks) is illegal unless you are a member of the Congress. Everyone but the power brokers are required to be moral, since this insider trading is a form of cheating. The makers of the rules are only human, and will often justify things that benefit themselves, but see the same thing differently for others. With a higher law like GOD, the power brokers are middle management and now have to follow the rules.

There was a new law passed that prevents members of congress from engaging in insider trading. It was signed into law last week, due to the outrage that congress was not ethical although they set it up to be lawful. This law was more for show since there are still loopholes. These loopholes still do not apply to everyone, but only to those in the power structure and those who contribute money to these people.

If there was a sincere belief in God and the eternal consequence for actions, they would assume God knows when they have been naughty or nice. Without God, you modify the law to make anything that benefits you legal, even if unethical. People often assume law means morality; LOL!

Atheism and morality can be clean cut at the bottom, but tends to get fuzzy as we approach the top. The people in power get to play the role of atheist human gods. They can make law in their own image, regardless of morality. All the social laws and regulations created by government rarely stay in proportion to their own self policing laws, even though both a composed of humans.

One trick for immorality at the top, is the ends will justify the means. It is OK to abuse innocent people (under suspicion), which is immoral, if this is assumed to lead to be a good end (victimless crimes). Congressmen can do insider trading, via the loopholes, since this means justifies an ends, which only these wise people can see. I don't see it, but I am a little guy.

Global warming and the greenhouse effect, if real, would define a moral imperative to remedy the problem since it would impact us all. This is being attempted at the lowest levels, with laws to control behavior. But the leaders get to fly in private jets and add more than their share of carbon. We almost expect out leaders to be immoral. With God, even they must act properly and lead by example and not lead by the prestige of exception; divine right of kings.

 

[James R]

wynn:

There are other definitions of God, beyond "old man with a beard in the clouds."

Who cares? You asked for a morality that doesn't involve god(s). I gave you an example. It doesn't care what your definition of God is, particularly.

The idea that there is free will, even though scientific evidence indicates otherwise: that idea is one fine piece of supernaturalism.

The problem of free will can be completely divorced from the concept of God. They really are quite separate questions.

Humanism identifies itself in contradistinction with theism - ie. humanism can't stand on its own.

Suppose I look up "Christian morality" and the article starts with "Christians believe that morality is dictated by the Supreme God...". Would you then be arguing that Christianity identifies itself in contradistinction with atheism? I suppose you would.

However, it makes sense in that that historically, humanism arose in reaction to the belief that morality requires a theistic underpinning. Clearly it does not.

That's not "clearly," that yet needs to be shown.

I'll leave the job of giving you a basic education to somebody else, if you don't mind. I really have better things to do than to teach you a course in Philosophy 101 via the web.

The similarity between some humanist principles and theistic principles is blatant; historically, theistic principles came first...

You have fallen victim to the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy here. Look it up.

What makes you think that humanism has no principles? Are you arguing that it is an incoherent system? If so, please explain why.

What makes you think I said it has no principles?

Your words. Obviously you didn't mean that. Well, that clears that up, then. Sorry for my misinterpretation. Since we obviously agree on this, we needn't discuss it further.

If someone claims to have "morality without God," then they shoulder the burden of proof to show there is no God.

Nonsense.

If I claim to have morality without the Giant Flying Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, there's really no need for me to prove that the Pink Unicorn doesn't exist. If you claim that the Pink Unicorn is the source of all morality, on the other hand....

The Pink Unicorn's existence has nothing to do with my position, whereas it has everything to do with yours.

See?

So you are saying it is a fact that the Nazis have killed no Jews during WWII?

Oh dear. You've just lost whatever debate we've been having. So sorry.

[enc]Godwin's law[/enc]

 

[elte]

Morality without God pretty much just involves understanding that what goes around comes around because people tend to do what they observe other people doing. So behave well to keep the world from morally deteriorating, and be sure any young people appreciate this knowledge.

If we knew and could show that there were a good-hearted fatherly god to reward for good and discipline for bad, that would be more effective at keeping people behaving well because, as appropriately mentioned earlier, it would discourage trying to get away with hiding bad behavior from only human observers. Yet, now people have been figuring out more decisively that's not looking very likely. So, we are left with the weaker motivation described in the first paragraph above.