Questions on atheist morality

[Cris]

SAM,

Its not my disbelief. I insist that atheism has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

Agreed. Atheism is only about a disbelief in a god or gods.

Now if you are interested in whether morality has value outside of a religious framework then that is a more interesting topic, and which is what I thought you were asking.

Whose survival? IMO, atheist "morality" if one may call it that, is purely utilatarian, ie derived from its usefulness to their personal values.

Which is identical to the theist – they want to cheat death as well.

The essential point of Christianity is the biblical statement – “Believe in me and you shall have everlasting life”. Everything in the religion revolves around that personal desire to survive.

I suspect there is an Islamic equivalent.

Sounds like a lot of fancy tap dancing going on here. More apes and hyenas?

It’s based on science.

So how many atheists are getting their moral values from science?

Again what type of atheist are you referencing? And you are missing the point again. It is not that people are studying science to discover how to behave but that our genetic composition and evolutionary state naturally pre-disposes us to a survivalist/moral perspective. It is why we have survived so well and why we don’t go around eating each other.

 

[S.A.M.]

Again what type of atheist are you referencing? And you are missing the point again. It is not that people are studying science to discover how to behave but that our genetic composition and evolutionary state naturally pre-disposes us to a survivalist/moral perspective. It is why we have survived so well and why we don’t go around eating each other.

I'd be interested to know the religious leanings of those scientists. Sounds like anthropomorphism to me.

Do you believe a dolphin who smashes a baby dolphin to kill it has similar moral values, for instance, as a man or woman who does it?

 

[Imperfectionist]

I believe that the preferential connection we feel towards our own children as opposed to those born of another reflect the same values.

 

[Michael]

However, IMO, notions of good and bad, right and wrong are based in religion.

1) "religious" right and wrongs where made-up by humans so it's exactly the same thing.

2) You're an atheist for most Gods and Alien overlords.

3) Atheists and non-atheists have the same morals as the society at large. Japanese atheists in general have the same morals as Japanese Shinto/Buddhists. Chinese atheists have the same social values as Chinese-Taoists. etc...

 

[S.A.M.]

I believe that the preferential connection we feel towards our own children as opposed to those born of another reflect the same values.

Does this include mothers who drown their children or fathers who rape their daughters (and keep them in cellars for decades)?

 

[Imperfectionist]

You mean like Abraham sacrificing his son?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So applying this morality to society, if an atheist finds personal pleasure and satisfaction in say, abusing a child, should there be a moral objection from their moral perspective? ”

Atheists and theists share the same exact moral base. In the U.S. a survey was performed on human morality and both atheists and theists responded identically.

It's my observation that human morality is based on these fundamental built-in biological assessments:

* Is X mean? (rational threat assessment)
* Is X nice? (rational value assessment)
* Does X satisfy? (emotional value assessment)

Of course there is alot of wiggle room for culture and religion to overload these assessments in various scenarios.

No one has answered the question.

The child and any observers (mirror neurons / empathy) would morally object as the abuser is judged as being mean. It's strictly biological.

 

[S.A.M.]

You mean like Abraham sacrificing his son?

Yup, exactly, does the dolphin that beats a baby dolphin to death have the same moral values as Abraham? Or the "secularists" who ignore the thousands of children who are sacrificed for their material comfort? Or mothers who drown their children? or fathers who rape their daughters (and keep them in cellars for decades)?Which one is a progression of the animal basis of morality?

The child and any observers (mirror neurons / empathy) would morally object as the abuser is judged as being mean. It's strictly biological.

So dolphins lack these mirror neurons? What about gorillas who kill infants to make their mothers sexually available?

What is the mechanism of action of these mirror neurons?

 

[Imperfectionist]

It's possible. Maybe the dolphin heard the voice of God telling it to do that. Maybe they are perfectly religious, and they never disobey their own morality system, passed down since ancient times by a distant dolphin prophet. In some religions they don't have free will, or their only function is to feed us, or to test us with their ferocity, so by some interpretations they are already doing God's will.

I wonder why your example involves killing within the species. Why? I guess cross-species killing is considered less bad? You have unwittingly admitted a quality shared by the chimpanzees. There are sound evolutionary reasons for this.

 

[iceaura]

Thats an a posteriori argument, it shows what we actually do. I'm looking for an a priori argument, ie what we must do, and why.

So you are referring to how humans justify their actions as a priori, and what motivates and guides their actions as a posteriori ?

Actually, SAM, there has been some research into exactly this question. So far, the results seem to indicate a basic human morality common to us all - as one would expect from observing other social beings. Dawkins discusses a little of it in his book "The God Delusion" - check it out.
”
More apes and hyenas I suppose; do we also include the infanticidal dolphins and the gang warring of chimps or are they now, like communists, another "religion"?

You keep revealing your ignorance and refusal to investigate the very matters you bring up as important to you.

Yes, lots of the findings of morality in non-humans - judgments of fair and unfair, right and wrong, promise and betrayal, etc - are intriguing. And relevant, of course, to an honest argument that there is no human morality without a God to have invented it. (Which is a much different argument, btw, than the one that it is much easier to raise a competently moral human if one has a God concept handy).

And the many recent investigations of game theory and other abstractions have provided insights into exactly where simple reason breaks down in explaining human morality as it exists, as well as where it doesn't.

But there has also been considerable investigation into human morality, with a view toward discovering relationships and sources and patterns and the nature of it.

It tends to support the view that atheistic - even areligious - cultures get their morality from the same sources theistic ones do. The justifications are different, naturally - and that's an important topic. How humans justify their actions can influence those actions, especially when they have time to think and consult each other.

But that's another topic: Religion - does it normally enable reason, or curb its influence, in moral decisionmaking ? How does an atheistic religion differ from a theistic one in its doctrinal codification and incorporation of human morality ? Lots of worthwhile questions available.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's possible. Maybe the dolphin heard the voice of God telling it to do that. Maybe they are perfectly religious, and they never disobey their own morality system, passed down since ancient times by a distant dolphin prophet. In some religions they don't have free will, or their only function is to feed us, or to test us with their ferocity, so by some interpretations they are already doing God's will.

I wonder why your example involves killing within the species. Why? I guess cross-species killing is considered less bad? You have unwittingly admitted a quality shared by the chimpanzees. There are sound evolutionary reasons for this.

Not really, I am assuming that atheists are the same species.

So you are referring to how humans justify their actions as a priori, and what motivates and guides their actions as a posteriori ?

You keep revealing your ignorance and refusal to investigate the very matters you bring up as important to you.

Yes, lots of the findings of morality in non-humans - judgments of fair and unfair, right and wrong, promise and betrayal, etc - are intriguing. And relevant, of course, to an honest argument that there is no human morality without a God to have invented it. (Which is a much different argument, btw, than the one that it is much easier to raise a competently moral human if one has a God concept handy).

And the many recent investigations of game theory and other abstractions have provided insights into exactly where simple reason breaks down in explaining human morality as it exists, as well as where it doesn't.

But there has also been considerable investigation into human morality, with a view toward discovering relationships and sources and patterns and the nature of it.

It tends to support the view that atheistic - even areligious - cultures get their morality from the same sources theistic ones do. The justifications are different, naturally - and that's an important topic. How humans justify their actions can influence those actions, especially when they have time to think and consult each other.

But that's another topic: Religion - does it normally enable reason, or curb its influence, in moral decisionmaking ? How does an atheistic religion differ from a theistic one in its doctrinal codification and incorporation of human morality ? Lots of worthwhile questions available.

So basically, these considerable investigations are extrapolations based on inferences derived from assumptions of empirical observations of established social behaviour?

 

[Imperfectionist]

The quality we share with apes is that killing within the species is considered worse than killing other species, killing within the group is worse than killing a member of another group, killing within a family is the worst of all. Religion is just a reflection of these innate values.

 

[S.A.M.]

The quality we share with apes is that killing within the species is considered worse than killing other species, killing within the group is worse than killing a member of another group, killing within a family is the worst of all. Religion is just a reflection of these innate values.

I doubt it. People go to war all the time and support death sentences and abortion while buying Gucci sweaters for their dogs.

 

[Imperfectionist]

All examples of behavior involving people that are far off or apart from our lives, or have broken other moral codes. Punishment of immoral acts isn't considered immoral by most people. Far off people often disobey the moral codes of our own culture.

 

[S.A.M.]

All examples of behavior involving people that are far off or apart from our lives, or have broken other moral codes. Punishment of immoral acts isn't considered immoral by most people. Far off people often disobey the moral codes of our own culture.

I do not consider supporting abortion to be a far off distant venture.

And plenty of innocents have died on death row.

Many Americans would be more overcome at the death of a puppy in Iraq than the hundreds of thousands killed or tortured. Probably the same holds true for those who supply arms to many conflict ridden places as a means of control.

 

[Imperfectionist]

now you are debating the finer points of your own moral code. I don't see religion preventing these things either. In fact, religion demands killing in some cases, it's in the bible.

 

[S.A.M.]

now you are debating the finer points of your own moral code. I don't see religion preventing these things either. In fact, religion demands killing in some cases, it's in the bible.

No one is arguing about the source of theists morality here.

 

[iceaura]

No one is arguing about the source of theists morality here.

You are. You started the whole thread with questions about atheists's morality. Human morality doesn't have different fundamental sources depending on cultural epiphenomena, does it?

Many Americans would be more overcome at the death of a puppy in Iraq than the hundreds of thousands killed or tortured.

And this would be as true regardless of their theism, or lack of it.

 

[James R]

So basically, these considerable investigations are extrapolations based on inferences derived from assumptions of empirical observations of established social behaviour?

Not extrapolations. Just reasonable inferences based on the available data. That's how science works.

On the other hand, the best the theists have to offer is "Morality comes from God, because I assume it does."

 

[S.A.M.]

You are. You started the whole thread with questions about atheists's morality. Human morality doesn't have different fundamental sources depending on cultural epiphenomena, does it?

In my opinion, notions of good and bad arise from religion. :shrug:

Since atheists have never built a successful society on their own, I assume, they merely adopted the mores of the religious as a means of survival in their societies.

Not extrapolations. Just reasonable inferences based on the available data. That's how science works.

On the other hand, the best the theists have to offer is "Morality comes from God, because I assume it does."

The available data I see is that all societies are predominantly religious and have laws based on or evolved from the predominant religion in their society, either present or past.