Evidence for God from Science

Birdie wrote: As for the morals of Atheist, I didn't really think they all had rules to live by. I though they just live. Doesn't mean atheist go around murdering people but I don't think an atheist has to have a Bible to know that murder or stealing or anything else like that is wrong.
That's just common sense.

The term "atheist" simply means "someone who does not believe that god(s) exist." That's it, period.

When atheism comes up there's a tendence on the part of both sides to start labeling. Theists frequently (and inappropriately) add words like immoral, satanic, ignorant, blind, and unethical to the definition, while atheists often (inappropriately) add free-thinking, skeptical, moral, ethical, and so on. In both cases a subjective value judgement is being wrongly applied to a simple, precise word.

Persoanlly, I am an atheist. I happen to believe that Garza's moral code pretty much summs up how we should all live our lives, and I try to follow it. On those occasional days when I slip up I take personal responsibility for my actions and do what I can to make it right. God is not a factor in this process.

Canuckster1127 wrote: Common sense in the sense of moral awareness is something a little more.

It is common grace. The human conscience has an imbedded sense of what is right and wrong that is a residual part of the image of God that we were created in.

This makes no sense to me. If we have an imbedded sense of what is right and what is wrong then why have we always been so free to slaughter, enslave, and conquer our neighbors? For that matter, why does the Bible condone violent conquest of neighboring tribes?

My position, that morality is simply the set of rules that we must follow to maintain an orderly and prosperous society, stands up much better to that question. Personally I would argue that primitive morality, as seen in Hammurabi's Code, the Torah, and the Bible, exists to promote internal stability. In Rome, for example, one could not kill, rob, or rape one's countrymen. That was immoral and illegal. One could, however, kill, rape, rob, enslave, torture, and abuse the Gauls, Goths, Carthaginians, Celts, and any other groups that resisted Roman conquest and occupation.

Granted, the Romans were pagans, but the fact remains that they had their own (internally applied) objective moral code. If you want examples of christian barbarity there are the Crusades (including those called against Eastern European christians), as well as endless wars of expansion and conquest.

Where was god's grace while these things were happening? For that matter, where was god?

Canuckster1127 wrote:I don't dispute that atheists and non-Christians can be very ethical and apparently good people. I know many and respect them on that level.

One does not have to base their morality on the Bible in order to form an ethical code to function by.

Thank you for that - it's a rare christian that makes that concession. Although I'm not sure what you mean by "apparently" good people...

Canuckster1127 wrote:It misses one important point however. That conscience and common grace is a part of what can lead us to God.

Bart

And there I disagree totally. I actually believe that religion is far more apt to muddy the waters and confuse people. It doesn't seem like religious people can manage to get along with each other at all.

Case in point - I once saw a debate on a fundamentalist christian forum over whether or not drinking alcohol was a sin. Within a day the thread was 20+ pages long, the insults were flying, everyone insisted that everyone else was going to hell, and they all used Bible quotations to justify their supposedly unassailable positions.

Atheists meanwhile, lacking any specific dogma to defend and valuing rationality over religion, seem to be far more reasonable, respectful, and honest with one another. That, to me, is common grace, but it leads us to reason, not to god.

Jay

Canuckster1127 wrote: What natural moral code?

The law of the jungle and natural selection is hardly indicative of anything being valued above survival and reproduction.

I suspect the male preying mantis being devoured after mating is not conceptualizing on the justice or injustice of it all.

The Law of the Jungle is exactly what the Law of the Pack seeks to overcome, at least within the pack itself. Within the confines of one's own society (the Pack) one must behave appropriately, meaning in a way that will help the pack to function harmoniously. Outside the confines of the pack it's a dog-eat-dog world. There's no rule about killing foreigners and taking their stuff.

Beyond that, as Garza mentioned, we are a lot smarter than other animals. We (unlike a praying mantis) are capable of putting our instincts, both good and bad, into words and of putting the good of the pack over our personal desires. We're also capable of identifying cause-effect relationships, and of thinking abstractly about how negative examples of such relationships might be avoided while positive examples were encouraged.

The whole concept is very straightforward and logical, assuming you're willing to view it with an open mind, or at least a sense of intellectual detachment.

To our athiest friends,

At what point in your lives did you decide that there is no God? And when you did what was your evidence of that?

FFC

FFC wrote:To our athiest friends,

At what point in your lives did you decide that there is no God? And when you did what was your evidence of that?

FFC

I don't recall any precise moment when a shift in belief happened. I recall reading Genesis back in middle school, and later comparing it to other creation myths. From there there were many, many more things that simply made no sense.

For example: if god is all-knowing then he knew that Adam and Eve would eat the apple if he put them in the garden with it. He knew that people would become sinful. He knew that he would destroy the vast majority of them in the great flood. He knew all of these things before he made a single speck of dust, yet he went ahead and did it anyway. Why? Is he a sadist? Is he a fool? Does he just not care? It makes no sense unless, that is, you view the Bible as a work of mythology written by primitive goathearders.

As for evidence that there is no god, I don't need any. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. The burden of proof is on him; it's not my job to try and make sense of the whole mess and then somehow force myself to believe it.

I can pin the time down pretty close. It would have been around the middle of June, 1949, a couple of months before my ninth birthday. Up till Christmas, 1948, I had never given any thought one way or the other to whether god existed. At Christmas that year I decided that I would read the bible all the way through and see what it was all about. The only translation I had was the Authorised Version of 1611, so it was some rough going, especially at first. I had to look up a lot of words, and ask a lot of questions.I had heard all the stories before, but had never seen all the connecting material. I read some every night, and was nearly through it all by the time the school term ended that year. I finished around the middle of June, and from that time till now have been an atheist.

One good thing that came out of going through the entire 1611 AV was that when I got to high school, Shakespeare was no problem.

You might find it interesting that during that same summer I was recruited to sing in an Anglican church choir. I was made first treble at age ten, and thrown out of the choir a short time before I turned 13 when my voice began to lose that clean, clear, high perfection. I never dug the message, but I loved and still love the music. There are few things created by man as beautifull as a Tallis Agnus Dei or a Bach chorale. And don't think that I was a little hypocrite. I never made any secret of my non-belief.

I appreciate the points you are attempting to make.

If you will allow me, apart from my religious background this has significant bearing as well upon another area of growing expertise of mine which is being further developed in a Master's Program in the Field of Organizational Leadership. This degree program is directly in the the field of psychology and it deals in part with the development and application of ethics in terms of groups and organizations.

Contrary to what is being suggested here, the highest level of sensitivity to morality and ethics is generally found within the individual. In fact, as organizations build and systems develop the tendency is for ethical and moral awareness to diffuse. Individual responsibility and questions of right and wrong diminish as systems become more complex.

Why is that?

The answer will depend upon your world view and what you believe about man, man's origins and whether there is a God, and if there is a God what the nature and characteristics of God are.

What has been suggested by some on this thread is consistent with what often is concluded in the philisophical framework typical of a world that sees man as an advanced higher level animal, which has evolved in the context of natural selection, with herd dynamics at play and then further either denies the existence of God or relegates God to a simple first cause deistic entity.

Given those presuppositions, the conclusions are pretty much going to fall along the lines of what is stated here.

The problem is that there are some inconsistencies, in my opinion, with what we observe in reality with men as opposed to what is claimed.

1. If ethics and morality are a result of a "herd" mentality it should follow that the better organized an group or organization the higher the level of ethics displayed. This, as I've stated is not always and it could be argued even usually the case. As groups form individuals begin to cease differentiating a sense of morals and ethics and individual responsibility diminishes. This begs the question, as to why individuals operating independently appear to evidence a higher level of personal responsibility and personal application of ethics. If ethics find their roots in social order, it seems it should be expected to follow that social organization heightens this.

2. Further, it should follow that ethics will form independently within each group. There certainly are cultural differences we observe today that reflect different orders and systems but what runs counter to this is that at the root of every major social group reflected ethinically, by culture and religion there are repetative values that consistently arise and appear to be pretty universally held. This begs the question as to why. Again depending on one's presuppositions, the answer will seem faily obvious. Those presuppositions however will radically affect the outcome.

1. I believe that man is created in the image of God as taught within the Bible. Implicit within that image is a reflection of some of the attributed and characteristics of God that He chose to share with men. Ideas such as Justice, Mercy, Fairness, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong etc are tied into this. I believe this is consistent with my obervation that these elements tend not to strengthen as groups organizae and increase in size. In fact, it appears evident that these characteristics diminish and diffuse often.

2. What happened then if this is true? The Bible states that man fell and through the introduction of sin, this image of God was broken or marred. It was not completely destroyed however. Remnents of this sense of justice and right and wrong and an idealistic sense of right and wrong are still present in men within their fallen state.

This is what I am referring to in part when I use the term common grace.

It also explains why individuals and groups will violate these concepts for reasons of selfishness, greed, fear, pride etc.

I can build on this more as necessary and I respect that others here have their own ideas.

You ask us to keep an open mind. Is your mind open to considering alternate understandings and systems too? Are you willing to not just promote your conclusions? Are you willing to question your underlying assumptions and presuppositions in examining this issue?

Let us know and I think you'll find we can have a conversation that may prove beneficial all the way around.

Blessings,

Bart

2.

In reading all this stuff, there seems to be a lot of confusion about God here. God is simply LOVE.... If you know love then you know God. Is that too hard to understand?

I'm trying to find a reason why this is such a bad thing to follow. If an atheist can prove to me that God is not love, I'm all ears because I would not follow such as thing... So far nothing here has convinced me otherwise...

I certainly agree with you on one point, that '...the highest level of sensitivity to morality and ethics is generally found within the individual', but I do no agree that that is in conflict with the concept of the herd dynamic, the law of the pack.

On the one hand, I must always and forever take full responsibility for my own actions. While I see the law of the pack as a biological starting point for building an objective morality, I also have evolved that bothersome big brain that must see beyond any narrow reading of that objective morality. Thus my 'pack' extends beyond my immediate family, beyond my extended family, to include all of humanity.

And I must also realise that my very simple statements outlining that objective morality require considerable filling-in day to day. Thus a simple moral law evolves into a complex code of ethics, just as a nation's constitution, printed in a relatively few pages, turns into massive volumes of laws enacted by a parliament to turn that constitution into step-by-step instructions. The constitution says taxes are to be fair, and that gets turned into a four hundred page Value Added Tax Act.

In the same manner the simplistic 'do good, do no harm' must be turned into something that will work as a practical, day-to-to day, guide on the street. That's not always easy.

Winston is an 18-year-old crack-head who sleeps in an abandoned car and begs up and down Freetown Road and round by Farmers' Market. I give him money to buy food. Is that good or bad? Am I just feeding a drug habit? Am I killing any ambition Winston might have of getting off the street and into a better life? Maybe. But there are two answers to that. First, I cannot look into the face of a hungry person and say 'no'. Second, I am trying to get Winston into a programme that will help him. I want to find an organisation that will take on the task of rehabilitating Winston.

The sad thing is that the only place Winston would be likely to get the help he needs in in Central Prison, and he has never done anything to attract more than mild interest by the Police. So in the meantime do I give Winston a few dollars and insist that he buy food, or do I say no and walk away?

The world is not the easiest place to live in sometimes, but if each of us gets up every day determined to make it a little better, if only for one person, then we will one day have the kind of world that every child deserves to grow up in.

The world is not the easiest place to live in sometimes, but if each of us gets up every day determined to make it a little better, if only for one person, then we will one day have the kind of world that every child deserves to grow up in.

Garza, that is a cool thing to do as long as we say that God (or love) get's the credit and not ourselves.. I don't see any problem in what you are doing...

Gman - Perhaps you have missed the point that I am an atheist. You might want to go back and read through all my posts to get the full picture of what I believe.

But otherwise, thank you for the thought.

Garza,

I understand what you are saying.

I still don't understand how you can claim herd or group dynamics as a foundation for ethics without explaining why it progresses beyond that context and finds its strongest expression at the individual level.

In terms of the practical question you pose in terms of how you determine what s really the highest good in dealing with the young mand you cite, I appreciate the problem.

I had the same issue in the past when I worked for a Church and had people walking on off the street asking for money and help. I don't know that I always handled it well.

In general, I never turned anyone away without providing food. I never gave money. If they insisted, I maintained a list of jobs they could do around the church and if they worked for it, I would provide money. More often then not, they moved on to greener pastures.

The thing I learned over time was that assistance without building a relationship upon which to reach further into their life, was generally not effective.

I often wrestled with those types of issues.

I still do at times, but I'm more set in terms of my "scripts" with how I handle things like this based on experience and convictions.

My experience has been that the principles found in Scripture are reliable and work when applied in the context of love and care as taught and modelled by Jesus Christ.

Bart

garza, yes I know that you are an atheist... And I still stand in what I said also... If you do things in love, then you do things in God... It's that simple.

garza wrote:August - Sorry, I guess I buried the answer too far into the post. The answer is that there is an 'objective moral code that we should be bound by as humans'.

First of all, we are pack animals. We share that with the other great apes and with many other mammals. We inherit an instinctive drive to protect other members of the pack against harm. It's a survival mechanism for the species.

We have also inherited a larger brain and greater cognitive reasoning power. This is both good and bad. The good part is that we can recognise this biological urge to help protect the pack and consciously follow through on it. We see the need to protect one another, to help one another, and, biological drive aside, we can see and understand an ethical, moral, standard of behaviour that is right for us to follow. We can also recognise that the pack includes every other member of the species.

The down side to the bigger brain and greater cognitive ability is that we develop cultural biases that are destructive. We are told that Slavs and Africans are sub-human. Hutus are taught that Tutsis are cockroaches and should be killed. Muslim, Jew, and Christian are daily killing one another, each wanting to prove that the way he worships god is the only right way. When we go down this kind of road, when we sell crack to kids, rape a woman, put a knife at someone's throat and demand their goods, we are violating that basic moral code.

That is all very nice speculation and all, but still does not explain why you should be moral. Being a humanist, do you believe in free will? If you do, please show how within that context why we should choose to be moral. The way your explanation comes across is that you believe our compulsion to be moral to be deterministic, but that does not tie in with secular humanism.

Also, please present some proof for your assertions above. Where do cultural biases come from? How does greater cognitive ability and reasoning power translate to morality? How does a biological urge become an objective moral code?

Organised religion often gets in the way of following that natural moral code. I have no religion. I believe in humanity. I believe we must all work together, help one another, never harm one another, be pro-active in the defence of our fellows and willing to sacrifice for their good.

What is the "natural moral code"? Where is it? How do you know it? Please prove your assertion that "Organised religion often gets in the way of following that natural moral code."

Birdie wrote:I can understand why it frightens him. That a person would only do good because this book say so. What would happen if the book wasn't there? If suddenly some proof that God's existence is near impossible? Of course your answer to that would be 'No I would still keep my faith' but other Christians might not. Not that I think they would all riot or anything like that. Lol.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I assume you are referring to the Bible. It is there, so your starting premise is wrong.

I help people because I just like to make peoples life a little easier. They have feelings too.

Why do you care about their feelings? Why do you like to help people? Please explain this from an atheistic perspective.

As for the morals of Atheist, I didn't really think they all had rules to live by. I though they just live. Doesn't mean atheist go around murdering people but I don't think an atheist has to have a Bible to know that murder or stealing or anything else like that is wrong.
That's just common sense.

Where does "common sense" come from? If it is common sense, then why do people still murder or steal?

NeedMoreChipotleTabasco wrote:Personally, I believe that an objective moral code has come into being as the result of the gradual evolution of human societies. To put it simply, behaviors that are beneficial to the strength and stability of a given society are what we see as morally good behaviors and behaviors that lead to weakness or chaos within a society are regarded as immoral.

Do you have any proof for that?

I personally see religion as a bulwark created to supplement the common-sense rules that we all know and understand but don't always follow, as well as a virtually unassailable divine-right explanation to justify the power and privilege of the ruling elite.

Or to put it more plainly, people created an objective moral code based on reason and pragmatism. God is not a necessary component.

Please show how people can create an objective moral code. Who did it first? Who are these people who created it? What caused morality to come into existence?

I will ask you the same question I asked Garza, do you believe in human free will?