What moral right does an atheist have?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Let's say that you believe that tapioca pudding is the best flavor of pudding and that God has made the universe such that tapioca is the best, but for my own subjective reasons I happen to think chocolate is best.
You want me to follow the will of God and you'd like me know what God thinks on the matter. Alas, as you don't speak to God and you have no objective proof of God's intent regarding pudding flavors, and no way to conclusively demonstrate God's view of things. You *could* well be right...maybe God agrees with your view. On the other hand, you could be wrong.
In fact, so far as you and I can tell, there is no "objectively correct" answer to the question of the best flavor of pudding. You would like to believe that your preference is the objectively correct standard, but you have (and can have) no irrefutable evidence establishing it as such.
So far as you and I can tell, the question of who's "right" is meaningless, though it is possible that God and the universe do have a hidden objective answer that us unknowable, in which case one or both of us must be wrong. Unfortunately, we will never be able to tell which of us is wrong, so all we can do is stick with our own intuitions.
Why would it be silly, if it is true?
If something is true, it should be allright to talk about it in the pertinent situations.
And in "Bones," the female protagonist is a scientist who explains current relationship issues in terms of biology, anthropology etc. E.g. she is having a conversation with her friend about a problem they are having, and she analyzes it in terms of biology etc., right there on the spot. "It's just our different genetics that are in conflict, there is nothing more to it."
(Although in the last season I have seen, 4 or 5, she actually changes her ways a bit.)
This is not possible.
If God has made the universe such that tapioca is the best, it is impossible that anyone could, for their own subjective reasons think that chocolate is best.
You don't know that.
Perhaps he does.
I don't know what that is supposed to mean. If God exists, then I suspect the statement is incorrect. If God does not exist then obviously the answer is yes.
Most atheists would therefore answer in the affirmative, because humanity is important to all humans, and as atheists are human, and God is (in that view) imaginary, it stands to reason that they would affirm that they believe humanity is more important to them than it is to the non-existent God.
Are you perhaps suggesting that humanity isn't important to people who believe in a subjectively determined morality (and therefore, by extension, atheists cannot value humanity)? If so, that may be short-sighted. Humans are social creatures and we need each other not only to survive, but to be happy. This was bred into us through millions of years of selective pressure. In fact a reasonable conjecture by evolutionary psychologists is that morality itself develops from a inbred need to conform to the norms of a group, because having such norms be generally accepted leads to a more coherent social order, which is conducive to survival.
If you are wearing glasses that filter the light so that what is ordinarily blue, appears green, then what?
Anyway, you give a bad example, as the color of an object is a phenomenon relative to the object's cirumstances and the conditions of observation, as opposed to being inherent.
Indeed.
Christian philosophy is flawed in that it assumes an inherent separation between man and God, as if the two would have qualitatively different natures.
But if God is in charge of everything and everyone and they all emanate from Him, being parts and parcels of Him, then everyone has a nature that is inherent and qualitatively the same as His.
In other words, for a consistent theist, atheists are children of God too. And as such, the theist is remiss to prosecute them, criticze them or otherwise demean them.
That is not true, or at least not obviously true. Let's assume Jesus was the Son of God. God made a universe in which Jesus was the Son of God. Yet there are plenty of people who dispute that. Let's assume God make a universe in which murder is always wrong. There are plenty of people who subjectively do not feel that murder is always wrong (with a very few being so morally callous that they have no perception of killing ever being wrong).
Assuming there is a God, it is evident that plenty of people have different views on what is and is not moral. If your suggestion were correct, then it must be that God never created a code of morality, because so many people disagree on what it is (and per your assertion, if God makes a thing so, then no one can possibly think otherwise). Either that, or that fact that sociopaths do not think murder is wrong conclusively demonstrates that God does not think murder is wrong.
The simpler explanation (again, assuming God exists in the Judeo-Christian model) is that God can make certain truths, and humans are free to accept or reject them. If they reject them, they must do so for some subjective reason.
I'm pretty certain of it. Even if he thinks he speaks to God, it is unlikely he could never convince me he does...and even if I were to believe he did, my first thought would be that he was crazy and I was too. Suffice to say that unless he is the first human in all of history to have the power to conclusively and irrefutably demonstrate the objective "truth" of a specific moral code, then my assertion is correct. I am making a pretty safe bet in saying that he does not have that particular ability. Even Jesus didn't.
is it ?
all rituals are about reverence to god , not Humanity itself
if god does exist then the answer is NO
whether god exists or not is irrelevant
Humanity is more important than god
now how did you extrapolate this from what I said ?
These are not consistent hypotheticals, and thus cannot serve to demonstrate anything, as you are mixing a hypothetical (e.g. "(Suppose) God made a universe in which Jesus was the Son of God") with an actual (e.g. "Yet there are plenty of people who dispute that").
If the Universe is made with inherent truths, it is impossible to reject them consistently and indefinitely; they can only be rejected out of ignorance or temporarily.
You mean "ever"?
In this case, this is about a particular person using particular arguments to convince another particular person, not about truth as such.
If there are truths inherent to the Universe, then knowing them is not a matter of one person convincing another.
As noted earlier, objective truths cannot be demonstrated to begin with, so this whole concern over convincing and becoming convinced is artificial.
Human morality isn't based solely on religion.
No she doesn't. Humans have mental capacities to choose whether or not to act in accordance with our genetic, altruistic morality. Which is why an athiest can be the kindest person you know and religious people can feel justified about killing people.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
There is no objective morality? There is. It may seem wrong to you, but felt right to me.
Why not? Understanding nuclear physics or optics doesn't diminish the beauty of a sunset.
There is no objective morality? There is.
Yes, I agree. But that objective morality is genetic [alturistic] not of some divine origin. Even if it were of a divine origin, how would disbelief in that divinity reduce [or as you suggest, destroy] the morality?
Good thing science isn't a democratic enterprise. Imagine the votes on Copernican or Evolutionary hypothesis.
Last edited:
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I think it is self evident that raping a child isn't just socaily disadvantages; it is really and trully evil. It is not just a socail taboo; it is an abomination which exists not just in my subjective opinion, but rather it is evident in the very nature of the act itself. It is at least self evident to me that some things really are wrong, whether people agree or not. People who say otherwise are either metally ill, or, they are purposely supressing the knowledge of that which is self evident in order to serve some other self gratfying ideology or artificail purpose; which is quite sick in itself.
Of course the evidence is not something that can be arrived at by inductive reasoning alone because moral truth has a meaning that is experential, and must be experienced by a personal nature inorder to know of it. Thus one can deny its existence while having knowledge of it and after a period of time induce ignorance of it; that is to say, dull ones senses and thus ones knowledge in regards to the objective meaning of that type of experience. In otherwords become psycologically detached from the meaning of that experience in such a way that you nolonger regognise the meaning of that experience.
The idea that knowledge of objective moral truth cannot be arrived at by logic alone is not evidence against it, but rather human beings are required to be honest about their personal experiences which is ironically what one would expect given the existence and nature of objective moral truth; that is to say, they have to admit and be true to them selves about the fact that right and wrong really exists before their dignity as personal creatures can be fully fullfiled according to a standard of objective moral truth. This is no different to the fact that one cannot reason to the existence of emotions without first having a personal experience of them, because it is by that expereince alone that we know of their existence. Yet nobody would deny the existence of them, mainly for the fact that they have nothing to loose by admiting that emotions exist.
Heres a clip from william.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQR06rDlKfc
Of course the evidence is not something that can be arrived at by inductive reasoning alone because moral truth has a meaning that is experential, and must be experienced by a personal nature inorder to know of it. Thus one can deny its existence while having knowledge of it and after a period of time induce ignorance of it; that is to say, dull ones senses and thus ones knowledge in regards to the objective meaning of that type of experience. In otherwords become psycologically detached from the meaning of that experience in such a way that you nolonger regognise the meaning of that experience.
The idea that knowledge of objective moral truth cannot be arrived at by logic alone is not evidence against it, but rather human beings are required to be honest about their personal experiences which is ironically what one would expect given the existence and nature of objective moral truth; that is to say, they have to admit and be true to them selves about the fact that right and wrong really exists before their dignity as personal creatures can be fully fullfiled according to a standard of objective moral truth. This is no different to the fact that one cannot reason to the existence of emotions without first having a personal experience of them, because it is by that expereince alone that we know of their existence. Yet nobody would deny the existence of them, mainly for the fact that they have nothing to loose by admiting that emotions exist.
Heres a clip from william.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQR06rDlKfc
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I was simply tempted to stamp on her toes because she insisted that there is no objective morality. She complains that's why I ask her why shouldn't I. It may seem wrong to her, but felt right to me.Good thing science isn't a democratic enterprise. Imagine the votes on Copernican or Evolutionary hypothesis.
He started out nice but his conclusion was totally stupid.
And moreover,
even if objective morality exists as a divine gift, not as an evolutionary outcome of social and group behaviour;
How does disbelief in god in any way affect the objective morality at all? Does he mean a divine gift exists only as long as we believe in the divinity? Sounds awefully like 'placebo', doesn't it?
You did not reply to my comment.
Your OP is a set-up, assuming yourself to have had epistemic autonomy!!!!!
Whom are you addressing this to? Me?
Last edited: