Non-Existence Of Morality

[Guest mcduderson]

Someone I know who recently gave up the faith linked this site and he's been posting a bunch of stuff about how the old testament has horrible values on rape and how Christians have to believe in creationism and it was all really annoying. I've had miserable and horrible experiences in the church myself; I was home-schooled which turned me into a kind of social outcast and I never really understood or been fully integrated into church culture. It was a desire for rational thinking thats ultimately buttressed my Christian beliefs. I understand if someone leaves the church over social/emotional woes or even abuse but its not rational to give up a belief because of how you feel.

 

The problem with ethics and morality is that they can't be reduced to pure reason or empirical science. If someone believes that rape for example is morally acceptable theres nothing logically contradictory about that belief its just mean and impractical. I realized this in an apologetics class when the prof was talking about moral relativists and the argument goes if moral relativism is true then Hitler's actions were only relatively evil. The argument is persuasive because no one wants to be tolerable of Hitler but the argument is irrational. It looks like a reductio ad absurdem but theres no logical contradiction.

 

As far as scientific experimentation goes all it can do is further elucidate what is healthy which sounds like a good idea reducing morality to health but theres still an assumed obligation to be good or in this case healthy that can't be justified. Because of that theres also ambiguity as to what the point of health is; are we doing whats healthy for the individual or for the group? If a sociopath says 'fine, I understand what good is but why should I be it?' even if we had a definition of good theres no purely rational reason for being good. All we can do is threaten him or appeal to emotion.

 

So all those ex-christians who say 'look at the morality of the Bible! How could anyone believe this garbage!' or who say 'I quit the faith because bad things were happening to me' you're being illogical. I know the church failed you and that its pretty much worthless and I know what it feels like to have your life ruined by Christianity. But if you're concerned with being a rational person you can't use these feelings are reasons for not believing any more.

 

And for those who believe that you can have ethics or morality you have to be able to reduce morality to pure reason or empirical science and then ground an obligation to be good. All without appealing to emotion.

[Vixentrox]

So, that means you approve of rape, genocide, killing infants, human sacrifice, ritualized canabilism, sexism, loss of free will, slavery? Your god approves of all these things.

[Guest mcduderson]

So, that means you approve of rape, genocide, killing infants, human sacrifice, ritualized canabilism, sexism, loss of free will, slavery? Your god approves of all these things.

 

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I haven't made any claims one way or the other regarding what God approves of. You're not making an argument, you're appealing to emotions. You can't decide that something is right or wrong based on your feelings.

[Vixentrox]

So, that means you approve of rape, genocide, killing infants, human sacrifice, ritualized canabilism, sexism, loss of free will, slavery? Your god approves of all these things.

 

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I haven't made any claims one way or the other regarding what God approves of. You're not making an argument, you're appealing to emotions. You can't decide that something is right or wrong based on your feelings.

Let me kick you in the crotch a few times, steal everything in your house, rub a used tampon in your food and then I'll take a crap on the seat of your car. After all, you can't decide something is right or wrong based on feelings...or appernetly even common sense. Maybe when you get raped you can get all philosiphical about whether your rape was right or wrong. Idiot.

[Guest mcduderson]

So, that means you approve of rape, genocide, killing infants, human sacrifice, ritualized canabilism, sexism, loss of free will, slavery? Your god approves of all these things.

 

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I haven't made any claims one way or the other regarding what God approves of. You're not making an argument, you're appealing to emotions. You can't decide that something is right or wrong based on your feelings.

Let me kick you in the crotch a few times, steal everything in your house, rub a used tampon in your food and then I'll take a crap on the seat of your car. After all, you can't decide something is right or wrong based on feelings...or appernetly even common sense. Maybe when you get raped you can get all philosiphical about whether your rape was right or wrong. Idiot.

 

Thats right. It doesn't matter how I feel. And if 'common sense' is something other then reason or science then its pointless.

[Jedah]

We as humans will always have a subjective understanding of right and wrong regardless of what we believe. The only difference between Secularists and Theists is that theists like to think that they have an objective standard for right and wrong despite the fact that a basic study of the church's history proves otherwise. Freethinkers on the other hand admit to ourselves that morality is something we make up as we evolve as a society instead of trying to live in happy pretend land where magic skydaddy answers all the questions we don't like to think about for ourselves.

 

Objective morality essentially does not exist.

[Deva]

Mcduderson: You seem to have some problem with emotions and feelings. What about instinct?

 

You say "its not rational to give up a belief because of how you feel." That depends on what you mean by "belief". In the context of your statement I take it to be belief in the doctrines of the church or in Christianity. If I have a deep seated feeling, due to my own investigation, that Christianity is wrong and contrary to reason, I have every right to discard it. A lot of our decisions are just made everyday on a spur of the moment, gut instinct level. We don't have time to use a reasoning process. Look, a lot of our actions are almost purely automatic. Much more than we realize.

 

Like it or not, feeling and emotion are part of being human. Many people remain in religions for their inspirational value, aside from any sort of pure reason.

[oddbird1963]

So all those ex-christians who say 'look at the morality of the Bible! How could anyone believe this garbage!' or who say 'I quit the faith because bad things were happening to me' you're being illogical.

 

People reject christianity based on its contradiction of current morality or its own morality. No one in current society believes that rape is a good thing. It is generally accepted that rape is morally repugnant. So, when they look in the pages of the bible and see a god who appears to condone and encourage rape, murder and genocide, that is a definite logical contradiction with current moral sentiments. In a similar fashion modern christianity generally condones rape, murder and genocide at least in part based on biblical statements and on theological statements about the nature of god. When a christian looks into the bible and sees god commanding or condoning such repugnant acts a contradiction becomes apparent. Thus, in light of either current morality or the church's own sense of morality, the decision to leave christianity based on moral contradiction is in fact a rational response.

 

I don't know who you are parodying with the 'I quit the faith because bad things were happening to me' quote. I'm not sure if you refer to people who were mistreated by christians or to people who experience disease, distress and tragedy in life, not necessarily at the hands of christians.

 

In either case there is the perception on the part of christians that god will be present for the believer throughout these experiences. God is either present or not present in those situations. If the believer concludes that god has not been present in those situations, for whatever reason, then a logical contradiction exists. Therefore the decision to leave christianity can be based on the very logical basis that a contradiction exists.

[Guest mcduderson]

Mcduderson: You seem to have some problem with emotions and feelings. What about instinct?

 

You say "its not rational to give up a belief because of how you feel." That depends on what you mean by "belief". In the context of your statement I take it to be belief in the doctrines of the church or in Christianity. If I have a deep seated feeling, due to my own investigation, that Christianity is wrong and contrary to reason, I have every right to discard it. A lot of our decisions are just made everyday on a spur of the moment, gut instinct level. We don't have time to use a reasoning process. Look, a lot of our actions are almost purely automatic. Much more than we realize.

 

Like it or not, feeling and emotion are part of being human. Many people remain in religions for their inspirational value, aside from any sort of pure reason.

 

I don't have a fully fleshed out working definition of belief yet but I'd say that in the sense I'm speaking of some of its properties are objective information about the real world. Instincts as I understand them are related to survival and natural impulses not truth. I definitely don't believe in innate knowledge. Emotions have survival value as sort of indicators or maybe belief enhancers but they're not reliable for finding truth. Peta for example shows footage of slaughterhouses to inspire disgust and encourage the belief that we should be sympathetic to animals. Fundamentalists could do the same by showing footage of hardcore gay pornography to encourage the belief that homosexuality is repulsive. Both are wrong because they're not making arguments or presenting evidence just playing on emotions. It is ultimately irrational to use emotions to make decisions about whether beliefs are true or false.

 

So all those ex-christians who say 'look at the morality of the Bible! How could anyone believe this garbage!' or who say 'I quit the faith because bad things were happening to me' you're being illogical.

 

People reject christianity based on its contradiction of current morality or its own morality. No one in current society believes that rape is a good thing. It is generally accepted that rape is morally repugnant. So, when they look in the pages of the bible and see a god who appears to condone and encourage rape, murder and genocide, that is a definite logical contradiction with current moral sentiments. In a similar fashion modern christianity generally condones rape, murder and genocide at least in part based on biblical statements and on theological statements about the nature of god. When a christian looks into the bible and sees god commanding or condoning such repugnant acts a contradiction becomes apparent. Thus, in light of either current morality or the church's own sense of morality, the decision to leave christianity based on moral contradiction is in fact a rational response.

 

I don't know who you are parodying with the 'I quit the faith because bad things were happening to me' quote. I'm not sure if you refer to people who were mistreated by christians or to people who experience disease, distress and tragedy in life, not necessarily at the hands of christians.

 

In either case there is the perception on the part of christians that god will be present for the believer throughout these experiences. God is either present or not present in those situations. If the believer concludes that god has not been present in those situations, for whatever reason, then a logical contradiction exists. Therefore the decision to leave christianity can be based on the very logical basis that a contradiction exists.

 

I was parodying myself to be honest. I think thoughts like that when I'm in a bout with depression.

 

Those are all false dichotomies though. If the moral teachings of the old testament contradict the moral teachings of Christ there are more possibilities then the ones you've presented. Same with the belief that God will be present through experiences. The believer could just as well question that belief rather then conclude that God must not exist.

[Deva]

I don't have a fully fleshed out working definition of belief yet but I'd say that in the sense I'm speaking of some of its properties are objective information about the real world. Instincts as I understand them are related to survival and natural impulses not truth. I definitely don't believe in innate knowledge. Emotions have survival value as sort of indicators or maybe belief enhancers but they're not reliable for finding truth. Peta for example shows footage of slaughterhouses to inspire disgust and encourage the belief that we should be sympathetic to animals. Fundamentalists could do the same by showing footage of hardcore gay pornography to encourage the belief that homosexuality is repulsive. Both are wrong because they're not making arguments or presenting evidence just playing on emotions. It is ultimately irrational to use emotions to make decisions about whether beliefs are true or false.

 

Would you say with regard to a great work of art that stirs you- that at least in some sense, it is true? Why don't you believe in innate knowledge? Other animals and birds show elaborate unlearned behaviors.

 

I am not advocating an accepting and uncritical attitude to propaganda films, such as you describe. Human beings have the ability to reason and compare evidence. That, for example is what a court of law and the scientific method is supposed to do. Having said this, I don't believe there is out there some objective, big Truth with a capital T. Everything (all information from the world) is filtered through our senses and colored and selected by our memory and past experiences and preferences. For that reason, it is subjective.

[Guest mcduderson]

I don't have a fully fleshed out working definition of belief yet but I'd say that in the sense I'm speaking of some of its properties are objective information about the real world. Instincts as I understand them are related to survival and natural impulses not truth. I definitely don't believe in innate knowledge. Emotions have survival value as sort of indicators or maybe belief enhancers but they're not reliable for finding truth. Peta for example shows footage of slaughterhouses to inspire disgust and encourage the belief that we should be sympathetic to animals. Fundamentalists could do the same by showing footage of hardcore gay pornography to encourage the belief that homosexuality is repulsive. Both are wrong because they're not making arguments or presenting evidence just playing on emotions. It is ultimately irrational to use emotions to make decisions about whether beliefs are true or false.

 

Would you say with regard to a great work of art that stirs you- that at least in some sense, it is true? Why don't you believe in innate knowledge? Other animals and birds show elaborate unlearned behaviors.

 

I am not advocating an accepting and uncritical attitude to propaganda films, such as you describe. Human beings have the ability to reason and compare evidence. That, for example is what a court of law and the scientific method is supposed to do. Having said this, I don't believe there is out there some objective, big Truth with a capital T. Everything (all information from the world) is filtered through our senses and colored and selected by our memory and past experiences and preferences. For that reason, it is subjective.

 

Behavior is different then knowledge. Birds don't flap their wings to fly because they have a proposition in their head that says doing this will help you fly. They just have instinct driven behavior. I suppose eating and walking is the same way with humans, I don't think the ability to do these things relies on having beliefs about the outside world. Information from the senses is different. And we can use reason and logic to understand how we are getting this information and what it is of and how to discern the difference between authentic information and memory or personal preferences or feelings. There is truth with a capital T in that we can have beliefs that accurately describe an objective reality. Emotions don't help us achieve any accuracy with reliability. We can also know things through logic alone. Like the belief that there is no objective truth is a contradiction, it would have to be objectively true that there is no objective truth. So there must be some objective truth.

[dagnarus]

As far as scientific experimentation goes all it can do is further elucidate what is healthy which sounds like a good idea reducing morality to health but theres still an assumed obligation to be good or in this case healthy that can't be justified. Because of that theres also ambiguity as to what the point of health is; are we doing whats healthy for the individual or for the group? If a sociopath says 'fine, I understand what good is but why should I be it?' even if we had a definition of good theres no purely rational reason for being good. All we can do is threaten him or appeal to emotion.

 

For a rational reason to act morally read about the prisoner's dilemma. The basic thrust is that while I can act like an asshole and make out like a bandit some of the time this will quickly to everybody being worse of (including me).

[oddbird1963]

 

I was parodying myself to be honest. I think thoughts like that when I'm in a bout with depression.

 

Those are all false dichotomies though. If the moral teachings of the old testament contradict the moral teachings of Christ there are more possibilities then the ones you've presented. Same with the belief that God will be present through experiences. The believer could just as well question that belief rather then conclude that God must not exist.

 

Yes, you could make the case that those are false dichotomies or that the belief that the god will be present through experiences is a false beliefs. We could extend the conversation to a full discussion of the basis for morality or the existence of objective morality. In fact there are recent threads on this forum that deal with such issues.

 

However, these are not the issues you raised. You asserted that people who use such reasons are being illogical. Since you are now extending that discourse to discussions of false dichotomies and such, then you too feel the rational pull. Ultimately, the conclusion may turn out to be false. However, you have not laid sufficient ground work to come to that conclusion.

 

Based on extensive analysis I believe those premises to be true. The teachings of the new testament and the current moral climate of the church contradict the morality of the old testament. The current moral climate of our society contradicts the morality of the old testament. The bible does present a god who will be present in life's experiences and he is not. Therefore the decision to leave christianity is not irrational.

 

Now, there are millions of brilliant, well-trained , self-disciplined thinkers out there. Many may agree with you. Still more will disagree with you along a wide range of positions. Do you believe that only the ones who agree with you are the logical ones?

[dagnarus]

Personally I think their is a very reasonable reason to reject the Bible because of its low moral tone in many areas. The thrust of it is that it paints an image of God which is extremely nasty and thus would appears to us as being utterly untrustworthy, In fact the rock bottom moral tone in some areas makes the areas with a high moral tone appear to be double speak. Anyway part of the thrust of the christian religion is to entrust everything you have to this god, you should entrust everything of this life and the next to god. This makes sense if he's an all loving, all righteous, all holy being. If on the other hand he is shown to be a hateful, conniving, bastard then this is completely irrational. In the bible god is shown to explicitly lie to people, moreover he is shown to while "lovingly" chastising his people, have them slaughtered, raped, and damned to eternal hellfire, not to mention his calling for the genocide of many different peoples. When a rational person is confronted with this image he has to come to the conclusion that given the fact that he seems all to willing to decieve and to look upon human life as if it were nothing that they have absolutely no reason to belief that he is dealing honestly with them. If he says that if you just sell your soul to him you will be safed from eternal hellfire you have no reason to believe that he won't renege, and into this the fact that you only have his word that you even need to be safed from eternal torment and all the rest of the outlandish claims about his power, knowledge and general greatness and it makes sense to reject the whole thing.

[Guest mcduderson]

 

I was parodying myself to be honest. I think thoughts like that when I'm in a bout with depression.

 

Those are all false dichotomies though. If the moral teachings of the old testament contradict the moral teachings of Christ there are more possibilities then the ones you've presented. Same with the belief that God will be present through experiences. The believer could just as well question that belief rather then conclude that God must not exist.

 

Yes, you could make the case that those are false dichotomies or that the belief that the god will be present through experiences is a false beliefs. We could extend the conversation to a full discussion of the basis for morality or the existence of objective morality. In fact there are recent threads on this forum that deal with such issues.

 

However, these are not the issues you raised. You asserted that people who use such reasons are being illogical. Since you are now extending that discourse to discussions of false dichotomies and such, then you too feel the rational pull. Ultimately, the conclusion may turn out to be false. However, you have not laid sufficient ground work to come to that conclusion.

 

Based on extensive analysis I believe those premises to be true. The teachings of the new testament and the current moral climate of the church contradict the morality of the old testament. The current moral climate of our society contradicts the morality of the old testament. The bible does present a god who will be present in life's experiences and he is not. Therefore the decision to leave christianity is not irrational.

 

Now, there are millions of brilliant, well-trained , self-disciplined thinkers out there. Many may agree with you. Still more will disagree with you along a wide range of positions. Do you believe that only the ones who agree with you are the logical ones?

 

I don't need to make a case for false dichotomies; they are false dichotomies. And if the other possibilities are not taken into consideration then its not a valid reductio ad absurdem and the conclusion drawn is irrational. I actually did raise the issue of the basis of morality and objective morality in the original post. I also don't know why you're mentioning the moral climate of the church or modern society. If the church is failing to obey the morality laid out in scripture thats not an argument against scripture. You also need to justify the belief that the Bible says God will be present in life's experiences and further elucidate just what that means in order to conclude that theres a contradiction.

[oddbird1963]

mcduderson,

 

You never really answered my question.

Now, there are millions of brilliant, well-trained , self-disciplined thinkers out there. Many may agree with you. Still more will disagree with you along a wide range of positions. Do you believe that only the ones who agree with you are the logical ones?

 

It seems like you are deflecting. My point was that rational people make rational decisions to leave the church all the time. Their reasons are well laid out and logical.

 

The "other possibilities" have been taken into consideration and I still conclude that the bible morally contradicts itself. It is not illogical to reject christianity based on the moral climate of today, whether that climate be reflective of the church of today or today's society in general. It is totally rational for an individual to say, "the god of the bible violates my moral beliefs, therefore I reject the god of christianity" regardless of the source of that morality.

 

If you are saying that morality can only be established because of societal enforcement and emotional appeals, then I agree. That is the way I believe morality has always worked. To say "there is no morality" is false, because, in fact, all humans think and behave within a matrix of moral reasoning.

 

If you are saying that morality must be based on scripture, then you commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. It is not that the church not following scripture is a problem with scripture. The problem would be IF the church followed the moral teaching of scripture in all cases. That would be the problem. Thankfully, though the church supports some practices which I find morally objectionable, they do not stone people for committing adultery or raid villages and murder women and children (this century anyway ).

 

What I'm objecting to is you saying that people who reject christianity on moral grounds are being emotional rather than logical. I just don't think your case holds up. I have shown you how a thinking person can come to the conclusion that they should reject christianity without an appeal to emotion. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

 

Now, please, answer my question.

[Deva]

behavior is different then knowledge. Birds don't flap their wings to fly because they have a proposition in their head that says doing this will help you fly.

 

I submit that you don't really know whether or not this is the case, since you can't get inside a bird's head. How do weaver birds build their elaborate nests? How do bees know how to do a dance that tells every other bee in the hive where the pollen is? Its also a proven fact that birds and other animals do, in fact learn things as well. They do have knowledge, which manifests as behavior.

 

 

They just have instinct driven behavior.

 

That is a very broad and inaccurate statement. Birds and animals do in fact learn from previous example. You simply cannot dismiss these elaborate behaviors as "just instinct", nor is it "just learned" behavior.

 

 

I suppose eating and walking is the same way with humans, I don't think the ability to do these things relies on having beliefs about the outside world.

 

Automatic behaviors - eating, walking, typing, driving a car, list goes on....

 

 

Information from the senses is different. And we can use reason and logic to understand how we are getting this information and what it is of and how to discern the difference between authentic information and memory or personal preferences or feelings....

 

Are you saying you have never had an accurate instinctual feeling about something? You had a feeling something wasn't right, couldn't nail it down, but in fact it turned out to be so? We can know things through many different routes. Logic is used (wish it were used more!), but that isn't the only way we have discernment.

 

Like the belief that there is no objective truth is a contradiction, it would have to be objectively true that there is no objective truth. So there must be some objective truth.

 

Very clever with words here, but you have not addressed my objection. You also failed to address my example of art being true as well.

[Guest mcduderson]

mcduderson,

 

You never really answered my question.

Now, there are millions of brilliant, well-trained , self-disciplined thinkers out there. Many may agree with you. Still more will disagree with you along a wide range of positions. Do you believe that only the ones who agree with you are the logical ones?

 

It seems like you are deflecting. My point was that rational people make rational decisions to leave the church all the time. Their reasons are well laid out and logical.

 

The "other possibilities" have been taken into consideration and I still conclude that the bible morally contradicts itself. It is not illogical to reject christianity based on the moral climate of today, whether that climate be reflective of the church of today or today's society in general. It is totally rational for an individual to say, "the god of the bible violates my moral beliefs, therefore I reject the god of christianity" regardless of the source of that morality.

 

If you are saying that morality can only be established because of societal enforcement and emotional appeals, then I agree. That is the way I believe morality has always worked. To say "there is no morality" is false, because, in fact, all humans think and behave within a matrix of moral reasoning.

 

If you are saying that morality must be based on scripture, then you commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. It is not that the church not following scripture is a problem with scripture. The problem would be IF the church followed the moral teaching of scripture in all cases. That would be the problem. Thankfully, though the church supports some practices which I find morally objectionable, they do not stone people for committing adultery or raid villages and murder women and children (this century anyway ).

 

What I'm objecting to is you saying that people who reject christianity on moral grounds are being emotional rather than logical. I just don't think your case holds up. I have shown you how a thinking person can come to the conclusion that they should reject christianity without an appeal to emotion. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

 

Now, please, answer my question.

 

I didn't answer your question because its not an important one. Lots of people of all educational backgrounds have myriads of beliefs that can be rational or irrational. Just because a group of people believe something doesn't mean its true and just because a smart person believes something doesn't mean its true. I've laid down good deductive arguments against objective morality. If a PhD disagrees s/he can give a counter argument or such but simple opinion is worthless. Take Noam Chomsky whom I'm a big fan of. Theres a video where someone just asks him flat out why don't we just invade countries and take their oil? And Noam says 'fine, lets just admit that we're Nazis.' Chomsky and everyone around him knows that this is an appeal to emotion or ad hominem or what have you and that its not rational but thats not the discussion their having, they're assuming that nations should try to avoid being Nazis. Rational well respected intellectuals make mistakes all the time, it doesn't matter if they simply disagree they have to present arguments and evidence.

 

Being capable of moral reasoning doesn't prove the existence of morality any more then being capable of numerological reasoning proves the existence of numerology. The moral climate is of literally zero consequence. Entire peoples can have moral beliefs of any kind and it means nothing to the truth of those beliefs. Groups of people having the same belief does not make that belief true.

 

Its not that the possibilities have to be considered or kind of thought about they have to be ruled out. Example: If my car is wet then either: A. it rained B. it was hit by the sprinkler C. someone sprayed it with a hose. The task now is to consider each possibility to see if it results in a logical contradiction or in this case if the answers can be ruled out through empirical investigation. Theres also the possibility of missing or left out possibilities and/or combinations of possibilities.

 

If the morality of the Old Testament and the morality of the New Testament contradict there are more possibilities then just God does not exist. Those other possibilities have to be demonstrated to be false.

 

Heres the point I was making about morality; consider moral nihilism, the belief that there is no morality. This belief does not entail a logical contradiction and there is no way to empirically falsify the belief. For any moral belief to be true it is assumed that moral nihilism must be false. So someone could not simultaneously believe that it is immoral to kill innocent people and believe that moral nihilism is true. Since moral nihilism can't be falsified moral beliefs are therefore impossible. So when you see morality of God or Zeus or anyone and you disagree it can't possibly be for rational reasons. So these little outrages and tirades about how evil and vile the old testament are not rational reasons for rejecting the Bible because however you may feel about these beliefs they could still be true.

[chefranden]

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't usually so bad at expressing yourself. Was it the hour, or is English a second language for you? Anyway you are not very clear on what you want. Even your title (Replying to Non-Existence Of Morality) is vague. No one here doubts the existence of Morality.

 

...I understand if someone leaves the church over social/emotional woes or even abuse but its not rational to give up a belief because of how you feel.

 

Seems to me that it is rational to take shelter in a hail storm, or to take your hand off a hot pan when both actions are prompted by feelings. If one is getting ones ass kicked by a church it seems equally rational to move one's butt elsewhere. How do you know when something is bad? I know when I feel it. That is the way a human is designed and it seems irrational to pretend otherwise.

 

The problem with ethics and morality is that they can't be reduced to pure reason or empirical science. If someone believes that rape for example is morally acceptable theres nothing logically contradictory about that belief its just mean and impractical. I realized this in an apologetics class when the prof was talking about moral relativists and the argument goes if moral relativism is true then Hitler's actions were only relatively evil. The argument is persuasive because no one wants to be tolerable of Hitler but the argument is irrational. It looks like a reductio ad absurdem but theres no logical contradiction.

 

Evolutionarily speaking moral behavior came before reasoning, so it is not surprising that it can't be reduced to pure reason. Feeling always trumps reason in the short run. In the long run reason can choose between conflicting feelings, but it will choose to go with some feeling.

 

Cognitive science has shown that people who have diminished emotional capacity have a great deal of difficulty choosing courses of action including moral courses of action. See The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness and Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought

 

As far as scientific experimentation goes all it can do is further elucidate what is healthy which sounds like a good idea reducing morality to health but theres still an assumed obligation to be good or in this case healthy that can't be justified. Because of that theres also ambiguity as to what the point of health is; are we doing whats healthy for the individual or for the group? If a sociopath says 'fine, I understand what good is but why should I be it?' even if we had a definition of good theres no purely rational reason for being good. All we can do is threaten him or appeal to emotion.

 

I agree there is no purely rational reason for being good. I disagree that any human can be purely rational if you are supposing they can be.

 

So all those ex-christians who say 'look at the morality of the Bible! How could anyone believe this garbage!' or who say 'I quit the faith because bad things were happening to me' you're being illogical. I know the church failed you and that its pretty much worthless and I know what it feels like to have your life ruined by Christianity. But if you're concerned with being a rational person you can't use these feelings are reasons for not believing any more.

 

Some people find the behaviors described in the bible disgusting. It is usually rational to reject what one finds disgusting. Few of us are concerned with being Spock if that is what you are driving at.

 

Nevertheless, while moral feeling is one reason to give up the faith, there are others that could be more intellectual like original sin, the trinity, 6000 year old earth...

 

And for those who believe that you can have ethics or morality you have to be able to reduce morality to pure reason or empirical science and then ground an obligation to be good. All without appealing to emotion.

 

I suggest you try retyping this sentence when you are more awake.

[Guest mcduderson]

behavior is different then knowledge. Birds don't flap their wings to fly because they have a proposition in their head that says doing this will help you fly.

 

I submit that you don't really know whether or not this is the case, since you can't get inside a bird's head. How do weaver birds build their elaborate nests? How do bees know how to do a dance that tells every other bee in the hive where the pollen is? Its also a proven fact that birds and other animals do, in fact learn things as well. They do have knowledge, which manifests as behavior.

 

 

They just have instinct driven behavior.

 

That is a very broad and inaccurate statement. Birds and animals do in fact learn from previous example. You simply cannot dismiss these elaborate behaviors as "just instinct", nor is it "just learned" behavior.

 

 

I suppose eating and walking is the same way with humans, I don't think the ability to do these things relies on having beliefs about the outside world.

 

Automatic behaviors - eating, walking, typing, driving a car, list goes on....

 

 

Information from the senses is different. And we can use reason and logic to understand how we are getting this information and what it is of and how to discern the difference between authentic information and memory or personal preferences or feelings....

 

Are you saying you have never had an accurate instinctual feeling about something? You had a feeling something wasn't right, couldn't nail it down, but in fact it turned out to be so? We can know things through many different routes. Logic is used (wish it were used more!), but that isn't the only way we have discernment.

 

Like the belief that there is no objective truth is a contradiction, it would have to be objectively true that there is no objective truth. So there must be some objective truth.

 

Very clever with words here, but you have not addressed my objection. You also failed to address my example of art being true as well.

 

If the disagreement is still over whether or not some knowledge is innate; animals being able to learn things doesn't prove innate knowledge exists just that what I said about animals was wrong. If the kind of knowledge we are talking about is composed of beliefs and objective information about the outside world then the ability to perform rudimentary functions is also not proof of innate knowledge. I think you'd have to justify the belief that being able to use limbs and operate a body as it were for lack of better terms requires beliefs. As it stands its not obvious that you need to have beliefs about anything to be able to make a fist and I'd assume thats true for things animals do. Birds don't have to know what a nest is in order to build one. Birds may even lack the capacity to know anything at all.

 

As for that experience you described I can't say I've ever really had that but thats not really relevant because we shouldn't believe things based on someone else's personal testimony. Either were logical or were not and emotions are not. I don't really know what to say about the art thing. I don't know what it means for art to be true and I don't see how that helps a case for innate knowledge. I think there are subjective truths that no one can dispute with you like 'I like pizza' or 'wine taste good.' Maybe art fits into that category.

[Skankboy]

Like the belief that there is no objective truth is a contradiction, it would have to be objectively true that there is no objective truth. So there must be some objective truth.

 

In my opinion, that's really just semantics. There most likely is an objective reality but we all experience it subjectively. As the only tools we have to observe the objective world are, by their very function, subjective we cannot ever have a truly "objective" view of anything.

 

Be careful though when you equate abstract ideals ("truth" or "justice" for example") onto objective reality. Most of them are purely human creations and thus don't exist in objective reality.

[chefranden]

Heres the point I was making about morality; consider moral nihilism, the belief that there is no morality. This belief does not entail a logical contradiction and there is no way to empirically falsify the belief. For any moral belief to be true it is assumed that moral nihilism must be false. So someone could not simultaneously believe that it is immoral to kill innocent people and believe that moral nihilism is true. Since moral nihilism can't be falsified moral beliefs are therefore impossible. So when you see morality of God or Zeus or anyone and you disagree it can't possibly be for rational reasons. So these little outrages and tirades about how evil and vile the old testament are not rational reasons for rejecting the Bible because however you may feel about these beliefs they could still be true.

 

I don't think that you have your thoughts worked out very well. Are you supposing that an exchristian (not all here are atheists) are moral nihilists, i.e. think there is no morality? Not even the atheists think that. Many here have at least in part rejected Yahweh for his immorality. I think you are confused.

 

It seems that you are arguing that it is not rational to be moral. But you are not being very clear about it. Are you trying to argue for objective morality given from above? Are you trying to argue for an absolute dividing line between emotion and reason? Neither of these things can be true.

 

Morals are evolved behaviors that allow a species to live in groups of individuals that cooperate to an extent that furthers the survival of the species. Moral behaviors are relative to the species' history and present circumstances. The more flexible these behaviors are the more a species can adapt to varying and changeable environments.

[Guest mcduderson]

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't usually so bad at expressing yourself. Was it the hour, or is English a second language for you? Anyway you are not very clear on what you want. Even your title (Replying to Non-Existence Of Morality) is vague. No one here doubts the existence of Morality.

 

...I understand if someone leaves the church over social/emotional woes or even abuse but its not rational to give up a belief because of how you feel.

 

Seems to me that it is rational to take shelter in a hail storm, or to take your hand off a hot pan when both actions are prompted by feelings. If one is getting ones ass kicked by a church it seems equally rational to move one's butt elsewhere. How do you know when something is bad? I know when I feel it. That is the way a human is designed and it seems irrational to pretend otherwise.

 

The problem with ethics and morality is that they can't be reduced to pure reason or empirical science. If someone believes that rape for example is morally acceptable theres nothing logically contradictory about that belief its just mean and impractical. I realized this in an apologetics class when the prof was talking about moral relativists and the argument goes if moral relativism is true then Hitler's actions were only relatively evil. The argument is persuasive because no one wants to be tolerable of Hitler but the argument is irrational. It looks like a reductio ad absurdem but theres no logical contradiction.

 

Evolutionarily speaking moral behavior came before reasoning, so it is not surprising that it can't be reduced to pure reason. Feeling always trumps reason in the short run. In the long run reason can choose between conflicting feelings, but it will choose to go with some feeling.

 

Cognitive science has shown that people who have diminished emotional capacity have a great deal of difficulty choosing courses of action including moral courses of action. See The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness and Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought

 

As far as scientific experimentation goes all it can do is further elucidate what is healthy which sounds like a good idea reducing morality to health but theres still an assumed obligation to be good or in this case healthy that can't be justified. Because of that theres also ambiguity as to what the point of health is; are we doing whats healthy for the individual or for the group? If a sociopath says 'fine, I understand what good is but why should I be it?' even if we had a definition of good theres no purely rational reason for being good. All we can do is threaten him or appeal to emotion.

 

I agree there is no purely rational reason for being good. I disagree that any human can be purely rational if you are supposing they can be.

 

So all those ex-christians who say 'look at the morality of the Bible! How could anyone believe this garbage!' or who say 'I quit the faith because bad things were happening to me' you're being illogical. I know the church failed you and that its pretty much worthless and I know what it feels like to have your life ruined by Christianity. But if you're concerned with being a rational person you can't use these feelings are reasons for not believing any more.

 

Some people find the behaviors described in the bible disgusting. It is usually rational to reject what one finds disgusting. Few of us are concerned with being Spock if that is what you are driving at.

 

Nevertheless, while moral feeling is one reason to give up the faith, there are others that could be more intellectual like original sin, the trinity, 6000 year old earth...

 

And for those who believe that you can have ethics or morality you have to be able to reduce morality to pure reason or empirical science and then ground an obligation to be good. All without appealing to emotion.

 

I suggest you try retyping this sentence when you are more awake.

 

I don't know why you bothered replying to my post. I state quite clearly in the beginning that this post is about a friend of mine who stopped believing in God because, as he claims, he came to be disgusted with the morality of the Old Testament. I argued that if you're concerned with being a rational person these are not rational reasons for leaving the faith. I was talking specifically about giving up beliefs not ending your attendance at church. I don't know why you think evolutionary origins of morality have anything to do with whether or not beliefs about morality are true. In fact, if the feelings predated reason and are demonstrated to be the source of irrational beliefs then I suppose moving towards spock would be evolutionary progress. I don't anyone could really say that with certainty though. I'm not saying we should never have emotions or feelings but that they are not sources of knowledge. I personally don't see anything wrong with that last sentence but I'll take a stab at re-phrasing: To have rational moral beliefs one must define morality using logic and/or empirical science and also use logic and/or empirical science to ground an obligation to be moral.

[Deva]

mcduderson:

 

I disagree with your position that there is such a thing as "objective truth". I also disagree with your position that there is no innate knowledge. You seem to be referring to the word "knowledge" in a rather restricted way.

[Legion]

McDuderson I am having difficulty understanding your point.

 

Something like... it is invalid to reject Christianity on the grounds that the Old Testament God was immoral. It is invalid because we have no rational basis for claiming that our morals are somehow better than this God’s morals.

 

Is that about right?