• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anti-theists avoid morality question

ImaginalDisc said:
Quiver with trepidation sans surcease at my adriot use of the language in my endeavor to inveigle the abecedarian tyro to evince that he is but a jackanape!

I'm practicing to be a Republic Serial Villain in retirement. Too purple?
Click to expand...
Eschew obfuscation.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Eschew obfuscation.
Click to expand...

You too shall suffer when I cast down capsules full of cybernetic nano-bees from my dirigible fortress to wreak my vengeance upon Paul Grice.

What's that? He's dead, you say? Oh, dark reaper of souls, truly you are my chief rival.
 
Aren't the existence of God, and moral "ought" two different questions?

If there is truly no God, aren't we all stuck trying together to solve moral issues?
 
I'm sure we can all agree that "he's a freshman" is not a refutation of his point. I'm sure we can also all agree that counterarguments that he hasn't considered are easily accessible to him.

I've exchanged 3 e-mails with him now, and he seems to be hung up on the idea that morality is meaningless unless it is given to us by a caring God. I've referenced him to several books on the evolutionary pyschology of ethics and I've given him a thumnail sketch of how genes for reciprocal altruism could give a species a differential reproductive benefit, but his response is that morality from "impersonal laws of nature" have no moral authority and therefore do not need to be followed. (Yes, he's implying that he only acts ethically because of his belief in God.)

What amazes me is how frequently otherwise intelligent people tell me that if I'd only read Mere Christianity, I would see that our moral compass is clear proof of the Christian God, and I'd become a good Christian and go to church every Sunday (Francis Collins brought it up in a recent episode of "Point of Inquiry"). I've read it, and for me, B doesn't follow from A in that book.
 
Last edited:
FaisonMars said:
I've exchanged 3 e-mails with him now, and he seems to be hung up on the idea that morality is meaningless unless it is given to us by a caring God. I've referenced him to several books on the evolutionary pyschology of ethics and I've given him a thumnail sketch of how genes for reciprocal altruism could give a species a differential reproductive benefit, but his response is that morality from "impersonal laws of nature" have no moral authority and therefore do not need to be followed. (Yes, he's implying that he only acts ethically because of his belief in God.)
Click to expand...

Yes, it is entirely true that the moral systems we have evolved and which have arisen out of the bloody and blundering march of progress "have no moral authority." They have only practical consequences and the satisfaction of a good deed done. No one has to follow moral codes. There is no punishment or reward in an oxymoronic "life after death."

However, isn't a moral code you do not have to follow, which you take up of your own free will, knowing that you will never be rewarded for what virtue you can muster a far superior way of life when compared to trying to score points with an invisible bearded patriarch? Isn't that the essence of mature responsibility?
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
However, isn't a moral code you do not have to follow, which you take up of your own free will, knowing that you will never be rewarded for what virtue you can muster a far superior way of life when compared to trying to score points with an invisible bearded patriarch? Isn't that the essence of mature responsibility?
Click to expand...

Is this not akin to "The Good Life?"
 
ImaginalDisc said:
However, isn't a moral code you do not have to follow, which you take up of your own free will, knowing that you will never be rewarded for what virtue you can muster a far superior way of life when compared to trying to score points with an invisible bearded patriarch? Isn't that the essence of mature responsibility?
Click to expand...

In fact, isn't that what morality actually is?

On phryngula, there was a comment of the ilk that if simply acting upon command to gain a reward is morality, then dancing bears at the circus are acting morally. Personally, I'd like to think of morality as more than the actions of a trained monkey.
 
pgwenthold said:
In fact, isn't that what morality actually is?

On phryngula, there was a comment of the ilk that if simply acting upon command to gain a reward is morality, then dancing bears at the circus are acting morally. Personally, I'd like to think of morality as more than the actions of a trained monkey.
Click to expand...
an "obediant" trained monkey.

I find that the displacement of moral authority from yourself to a god permits greater attorcities and amoral behaviors by diffusion of responsibility.

If you have some "other" telling you what is good or bad based upon an absolute "Because god says so", you have no ability to contradict or question whether or not it is a viable moral truth, since it is assumed at the start. This should result in time independant moral absolute since it comes from a being outside of time. However, every moral that was previously permitted by a god that has since been deemed immoral (slavery, female rights), proves this argument wrong.

In these cases you can either say, "god isn't a moral absolute", or "people previously miss interpreted the word/intent of god".

Both of these answers contradict the premise that religion is needed for moral foundation. Afterall, if religion can be wrong or if god is a moral relativist, why even use religion as a guiding post? Wouldn't we be better served by placing ownership of moral responsibility on ourselves. that way, if we are wrong, it is only us to blame?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom