Evidence for God from Science

FL
Since morality is defined by the society in which one lives, then we could conceive of a society where violence is an acceptable means of getting ahead. (No pun intended, but ISIS sure can get a head...) And such societies exist today.
Ken
I agree!

FL
I find it odd that you would condemn Nazi Germany given your belief that morality is subjective. If a society's ruling class determines that summary executions are the correct way to keep order, who are you to criticize? What makes your morality ''better'' than theirs?
Ken
It goes against my moral beliefs. As I stated before; I define morality as
understanding the consequences of actions and how they affect my neighbour; and it starts from the position that what is harmful to my neighbour is bad, and what is helpful to my neighbour is good.
Now granted nothing is perfect; and that applies to my moral beliefs as well. One could easily claim the Jews weren’t the Nazi’s neighbours but the people they were eradicating the Jews from were; and that was helpful to their neighbour. Of course I would disagree and the debate would continue, but this isn’t about what others think, it’s about what I think. So my point stands; the reason I believe the Nazi’s were wrong is because I've determined what they did to their neighbours was harmful.

FL
Two mistakes here: 1, a law that is not enforced is still a law, and 2, God has promised to punish those who break the law with eternal damnation. You have this one life to repent of your lawlessness, otherwise you're headed for somewhere very, very hot.
Ken
For #1 I agree! An unenforced law is still a law; but it doesn’t change the fact that the invisible and non-existent look the same to me. That’s why I do not recognize the existence of such laws.
For #2; as far as God’s promises, it's one of those things I will have to see in order to believe it. I know! I know; it will be too late by then.... right?

Ken

Kurieuo
Here I think we can easily be mislead about our true starting place for where we believe morality comes from.
Since we disagree so much, I'm just wanting to build a starting block from which we can both work from.
Ken
Excellent idea.

Kurieuo
Yes, I believe morality is rooted in God. Ok, you believe morality is manufactured by society.
But, these are like secondary beliefs. I don't think these beliefs are really why we believe some things are wrong or right.
Ken
I agree!

Kurieuo
For example, in my hypothetical when I asked you what if everyone thought it alright to kill Kenny for fun...
Intuitively, I know all of society would be wrong. Just like I'd know if God asked it of me something wouldn't be right.
So where morality comes from for us appears to be more base than a belief in God or humanity.
Ken
Again; I agree. In my previous post to FL I listed my definition of morality, and where it starts.

Kurieuo
We have our own moral conscience.
Such seems intrinsic to who we are as human beings.
This then should be the correct starting place: morality is found within ourselves.

As such, we can often just appeal to the moral intuition in another person and reach an agreement that some things are really are wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.
This moral sense crosses the boundaries of any belief, religion or culture.
Ken
Good point; although often I believe our moral intuition is the result of our environment, religion, or culture

Kurieuo
Right? So, then this provides us with the same starting block to work from.
Namely that we believe some things are wrong and right just instinctively.
Maybe not all our moral beliefs align, but for the most part I'm sure you and I would both talk a similar moral language.
Ken
I agree.

Kurieuo
For example, do you really believe it wrong that millions of Jews were considered as nothing more than rats and and roaches -- a pest to be eradicated?
Would I be correct in saying that right now, you believe this would always be morally wrong regardless of what any society says?
And similarly I would believe this would always be wrong regardless of my belief in God or Scripture.
We actually don't need society, God or the Bible to directly tell us this is wrong.
Ken
I agree!

Kurieuo
So then, we both appear to believe in some moral code within ourselves as real?
Ken
True! But often the moral code within ourselves is influenced by our religion, environment, or culture.

Ken

NOTE: Some of the quotes Kenny attributed, above, to me were actually from Kurieuo.
I think I fixed the quotes-- moderator

Kenny wrote:FL
I find it odd that you would condemn Nazi Germany given your belief that morality is subjective. If a society's ruling class determines that summary executions are the correct way to keep order, who are you to criticize? What makes your morality ''better'' than theirs?

Ken

It goes against my moral beliefs. As I stated before; I define morality as understanding the consequences of actions and how they affect my neighbour; and it starts from the position that what is harmful to my neighbour is bad, and what is helpful to my neighbour is good.Now granted nothing is perfect; and that applies to my moral beliefs as well. One could easily claim the Jews weren’t the Nazi’s neighbours but the people they were eradicating the Jews from were; and that was helpful to their neighbour. Of course I would disagree and the debate would continue, but this isn’t about what others think, it’s about what I think. So my point stands; the reason I believe the Nazi’s were wrong is because I've determined what they did to their neighbours was harmful.

Well, the Nazis were wrong for you but they were acting in good conscience for the betterment of the Reich. As for how my actions affect my neighbor, I might not care! ...so that would be a positive moral position for me even though you may object. You may think the Nazis wrong but to this day, Mein Kampf is a best seller across the Muslim world, ditto for the Elders of Zion conspiracy book which blames all of the world's ills on the Jews. For many people across the world, the Nazis were heros. Who are you to say that they are wrong?

The beauty about subjective morality is that I can decide what is good and just and righteous according to my own wants. I don't have to consider anyone else.

FL

I know this wasn’t directed to me, but I wanted to add my 2 cents worth.

Kuriruo
Humans as social creatures evolved feelings of moral rightness and wrongness.
From the alpha dominance witnessed in primates, feelings evolved to the point that most modern humans value families and others.
However, having found out we evolved, why shouldn't we break free from these feelings? There is no ought to them.
Ken
Because it is nearly impossible to live in a peaceful society without them.

Kuriuo
Shaking off all sense of guilt and morality would mean we are free to live our lives how we want.
Ken
Again; guilt and morality is necessary to live in a peaceful society. Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.
Kuriuo
This is even an evolutionary advantage over others who have not yet realised morality is an evolutionary vestige.
Indeed, perhaps the next stage of the fittest surviving are those who first shake off their moral sense.
Ken
This is not an evolutionary advantage, it is a disadvantage. Cooperation is necessary to live in a society peacefully. What you are talking about is anarchy.

Kuriuo
Morality and "values" are just an illusion brought about by evolution. Feelings. Nothing more.
Ken
Nothing more until these feelings become laws enforced by society. When that happens it becomes a lot more than just feelings.

Kuriuo
An alpha wolf feels no remorse over killing rivals. Doing so allows it to extend its genes the best.
Ken
We apply morals to humans; not animals.

Kuriuo
So, as far as it benefits you, be under no illusion -- right and wrong do not exist.
Only what is best for you.
If anything, what is right is therefore what is best us personally.
And what is wrong is anything that frustrates us from fulfilling what we personally desire in life.
Ken
That only works if you live by yourself away from humankind. If you wish to live amongst others, you have to consider the wishes of the others you live with.

Kuriuo
And there you have it. Atheism is grounded.
Ken
Only a person ignorant of Atheism would believe that.

Ken

FL
Well, the Nazis were wrong for you but they were acting in good conscience for the betterment of the Reich. As for how my actions affect my neighbor, I might not care! ...so that would be a positive moral position for me even though you may object. You may think the Nazis wrong but to this day, Mein Kampf is a best seller across the Muslim world, ditto for the Elders of Zion conspiracy book which blames all of the world's ills on the Jews. For many people across the world, the Nazis were heros. Who are you to say that they are wrong?
Ken
I am the same person you are to say they were wrong. True, they will disagree with me if they don’t agree with my morals, and they will disagree with you if they don’t agree with God’s morals. What's the difference?

FL
The beauty about subjective morality is that I can decide what is good and just and righteous according to my own wants. I don't have to consider anyone else.
Ken
Subjective morality doesn’t allow someone to decide what is good according to their own wants; freewill allows this. The fact that people have the freewill to do so means morality is subjective.

Ken
PS Thanks for fixing the quotes--- Moderator

I don't want to get too distracted from making good ground, so I'll respond to your last post quickly.

Kenny wrote:I know this wasn’t directed to me, but I wanted to add my 2 cents worth.
Kuriruo
Humans as social creatures evolved feelings of moral rightness and wrongness.
From the alpha dominance witnessed in primates, feelings evolved to the point that most modern humans value families and others.
However, having found out we evolved, why shouldn't we break free from these feelings? There is no ought to them.

Ken
Because it is nearly impossible to live in a peaceful society without them.

Apes and wolves live quite peacefully in their own animalistic social order.
It is just a different order of things to how many human societies live.

Ken wrote: Kuriuo
Shaking off all sense of guilt and morality would mean we are free to live our lives how we want.
Ken
Again; guilt and morality is necessary to live in a peaceful society. Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.

Kuriuo
This is even an evolutionary advantage over others who have not yet realised morality is an evolutionary vestige.
Indeed, perhaps the next stage of the fittest surviving are those who first shake off their moral sense.
Ken
This is not an evolutionary advantage, it is a disadvantage. Cooperation is necessary to live in a society peacefully. What you are talking about is anarchy.

Kuriuo
Morality and "values" are just an illusion brought about by evolution. Feelings. Nothing more.
Ken
Nothing more until these feelings become laws enforced by society. When that happens it becomes a lot more than just feelings.

Kuriuo
An alpha wolf feels no remorse over killing rivals. Doing so allows it to extend its genes the best.
Ken
We apply morals to humans; not animals.

Kuriuo
So, as far as it benefits you, be under no illusion -- right and wrong do not exist.
Only what is best for you.
If anything, what is right is therefore what is best us personally.
And what is wrong is anything that frustrates us from fulfilling what we personally desire in life.
Ken
That only works if you live by yourself away from humankind. If you wish to live amongst others, you have to consider the wishes of the others you live with.

Kuriuo
And there you have it. Atheism is grounded.
Ken
Only a person ignorant of Atheism would believe that.

Ken

Just because one is free to shake off morality and guilt, doesn't mean they necessarily will be "evil".
There are often good reasons for doing what is considered good by many.
It can often be advantageous to, but not always.

It is very often possible to gain by being quite immoral.
People do it all the time and say it's "just business".
You also have the sex trade, drug dealers and all sorts of profitable vices.
So being amoral -- without morals -- while some things carry higher legal risk... isn't necessarily going to lead to anarchy or a bad situation for yourself.

From this post of mine that you responded to, I don't intend to challenge you.
I'd like to just highlight that there is "educated" thought out there in the world which is actually aligned to what I espoused.
This thought often discussed moral actions that we'd both consider clearly wrong, as being actually justifying such actions as perfectly natural and morally alright.

For example, let's take rape. To quote a page on this site:

In a recent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer claim that rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage," just like "the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck." In other words, rape is a biological "adaptation" that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Randy Thornhill, "Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That's not a debatable matter." According to the anthropology department at the University of California Santa Barbara, "That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict." If rape is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral?

Now, I'm not saying that you believe that. Certainly not.
But there is something happening with your own thought that differs to these authors.

You are starting from the foundation of your innate awareness of morality. Which I think is the correct starting point for us all!
So in your eyes, it is a given fact that morality exists such that it really is meaningful to call some moral action good and another bad.

That is all very good. And I wouldn't want you accepting that moral good and bad don't really exist.
However, in accepting morality as something that really exists, this opens a Pandora's box of questions about this "morality".

These authors are not starting with their own conscience, but rather what is logical to evolution.
And as such, they reach conclusions diametrically opposed the your and my own moral conscience, and very likely even their own.
But, the reason they take this approach is because they are perhaps unsure how to answer why should we listen to our moral intuition as telling us the truth rather than what "appears" natural?

In your responses above, I can't help but feel you're just answering from the end point.
That is, you are answering from the point where we just take as a given our moral conscience of right and wrong.

So we have in your reply to me many morally good things that are just accepted de facto:

• humans should apply morals -- we're not animals!
• it is good to strive for peace as opposed to good to war / anarchy is wrong
• we have not right to hit another person in the nose
• it is better to get along with others (at least if you want to be around them).

I agree with you that these are all very good.

But, this does raise what I feel are some questions regarding the nature of morality, where it comes from, what it is, our obligation to it, etc.

Hopefully, I haven't waved more "red flags" before you above.
Truth be heard, I do sometimes like doing that, and annoying and frustrating those who I think are wrong.
But, for some reason, I am now hoping that we might be able to find more common ground. Seems like it would be a more productive use of time.

Kuriuo
Apes and wolves live quite peacefully in their own animalistic social order.
It is just a different order of things to how many human societies live.
Ken
True! Their lack of intelligence allows them to live content in a way that would be impossible for humans.

Kuriuo
Just because one is free to shake off morality and guilt, doesn't mean they necessarily will be "evil".
Ken
I believe we call those sociopaths. I am not very familiar with them, but all I’ve heard of them was bad.

Kuriuo
There are often good reasons for doing what is considered good by many.
It can often be advantageous to, but not always.

It is very often possible to gain by being quite immoral.
People do it all the time and say it's "just business".

You also have the sex trade, drug dealers and all sorts of profitable vices.
So being amoral -- without morals -- while some things carry higher legal risk... isn't necessarily going to lead to anarchy or a bad situation for yourself.
Ken
It might be advantageous for the person engaged in it, but the people who suffer the consequences of the amoral person will have a problem with his behaviour. As mentioned before, if you wanna live with others, you have to consider the rights of others. Otherwise you gotta go live alone. If you go live on an island alone where you are the only human there, you will be free to live as immoral or amoral life as you choose to live, and nobody will stop you.

Kuriuo
From this post of mine that you responded to, I don't intend to challenge you.
I'd like to just highlight that there is "educated" thought out there in the world which is actually aligned to what I espoused.
This thought often discussed moral actions that we'd both consider clearly wrong, as being actually justifying such actions as perfectly natural and morally alright.

For example, let's take rape. To quote a page on this site:
In a recent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer claim that rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage," just like "the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck." In other words, rape is a biological "adaptation" that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Randy Thornhill, "Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That's not a debatable matter." According to the anthropology department at the University of California Santa Barbara, "That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict." If rape is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral?


Now, I'm not saying that you believe that. Certainly not.
But there is something happening with your own thought that differs to these authors.
Ken
On a previous post, I mentioned when discussing morality, I like to leave science off the table. That is an excellent example of why.

Kuriuo
You are starting from the foundation of your innate awareness of morality. Which I think is the correct starting point for us all!
So in your eyes, it is a given fact that morality exists such that it really is meaningful to call some moral action good and another bad.

That is all very good. And I wouldn't want you accepting that moral good and bad don't really exist.
However, in accepting morality as something that really exists, this opens a Pandora's box of questions about this "morality".
Ken
Such as.....

Kuriuo
These authors are not starting with their own conscience, but rather what is logical to evolution.
And as such, they reach conclusions diametrically opposed the your and my own moral conscience, and very likely even their own.
But, the reason they take this approach is because they are perhaps unsure how to answer why should we listen to our moral intuition as telling us the truth rather than what "appears" natural?
Ken
An example of using science to discuss morality.

Kuriuo
In your responses above, I can't help but feel you're just answering from the end point.
That is, you are answering from the point where we just take as a given our moral conscience of right and wrong.

So we have in your reply to me many morally good things that are just accepted de facto:
• humans should apply morals -- we're not animals!
• it is good to strive for peace as opposed to good to war / anarchy is wrong
• we have not right to hit another person in the nose
• it is better to get along with others (at least if you want to be around them).
Ken
I agree.
Kuriuo
I agree with you that these are all very good.
But, this does raise what I feel are some questions regarding the nature of morality, where it comes from, what it is, our obligation to it, etc.
Ken
I agree. I believe our intelligence causes us to think this way. Animals for the most part don’t think this way; for the few that do, they don’t do it to the extent that humans do.

Kuriuo
Hopefully, I haven't waved more "red flags" before you above.
Truth be heard, I do sometimes like doing that, and annoying and frustrating those who I think are wrong.
Ken
Actually I find this conversation thought provoking, informative, and satisfactory. For that I thank-you.

Kuriuo
But, for some reason, I am now hoping that we might be able to find more common ground. Seems like it would be a more productive use of time
Ken
I agree.

Ken

I think we have several things in common that we could work from in our above exchanges.

1) We both have a moral intuition that appears to an innate part of us.

2) Science, while it has it's benefits, should not be used to figure out morality. For it often leads to morals that contradict what we know to be true.

3) People acknowledge and behave to varying degrees. Some appear ignoring moral values completely (psychopaths), others have a distorted picture whether through their own society going awry (e.g., Nazi Germany), or scientific, religious or other sorts of beliefs influencing us.

In my last message I mentioned that accepting morality as true opens up a Pandora's box of questions.
You asked like what. Really, I'm not sure which path to go down next.

But, there is something that stands out to me more than anything else. That is where do these moral values that appear truly designed in us, come from.
Sure I may not have a perfect and clear picture of everything to do with morality -- there are grey areas as you say depending upon the circumstances one finds themselves within -- but by and large I have these "moral values" and I also see many others like yourself share the same moral ideals.
It seems a part of the human immaterial DNA if you will.

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways are often discussed during philosophy at some point. I feel his fourth way is particularly helpful here in relation to morality:

The fourth way is based on the gradation observed in things. Some things are found to be more good, more true, more noble, and so on, and other things less. But such comparative terms describe varying degrees of approximation to a superlative; for example, things are hotter and hotter the nearer they approach what is hottest. Something therefore is the truest and best and most noble of things, and hence the most fully in being; for Aristotle says that the truest things are the things most fully in being. Now when many things possess some property in common, the one most fully possessing it causes it in others: fire, to use Aristotle's example, the hottest of all things, causes all other things to be hot. There is something therefore which causes in all other things their being, their goodness, and whatever other perfection they have. (Reason and Responsibility 13th Edn, p.22)

If you like me accept this reasoning is sound, and we all possess a moral fabric quite similar to one another even if to varying degrees (as we would expect if religion, social conditioning, culture, science, environment, physiology, etc influences), then what is the hottest source of morality that is emitting it's heat and warming us?

Obviously, as a Christian I see that hottest source as God.
The more Agnostic person might just say they don't know and perhaps think on it further.
For the Atheist, there is Evolution... however, this seems a little odd to me, particularly because science may contradict what we intuitively know to be morally wrong. I agree with you that we should not use science to determine morality. For example, the rape example I mentioned earlier. Far from being the "hottest" source, science can lead people to a quite cold morality.

Thoughts? I'm also happy for you to prod in a direction if there's something else you'd like to explore further.

Kurieuo wrote: In my last message I mentioned that accepting morality as true opens up a Pandora's box of questions.
You asked like what. Really, I'm not sure which path to go down next.

But, there is something that stands out to me more than anything else. That is where do these moral values that appear truly designed in us, come from.
Sure I may not have a perfect and clear picture of everything to do with morality -- there are grey areas as you say depending upon the circumstances one finds themselves within -- but by and large I have these "moral values" and I also see many others like yourself share the same moral ideals.
It seems a part of the human immaterial DNA if you will.

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways are often discussed during philosophy at some point. I feel his fourth way is particularly helpful here in relation to morality:

The fourth way is based on the gradation observed in things. Some things are found to be more good, more true, more noble, and so on, and other things less. But such comparative terms describe varying degrees of approximation to a superlative; for example, things are hotter and hotter the nearer they approach what is hottest. Something therefore is the truest and best and most noble of things, and hence the most fully in being; for Aristotle says that the truest things are the things most fully in being. Now when many things possess some property in common, the one most fully possessing it causes it in others: fire, to use Aristotle's example, the hottest of all things, causes all other things to be hot. There is something therefore which causes in all other things their being, their goodness, and whatever other perfection they have. (Reason and Responsibility 13th Edn, p.22)

If you like me accept this reasoning is sound, and we all possess a moral fabric quite similar to one another even if to varying degrees (as we would expect if religion, social conditioning, culture, science, environment, physiology, etc influences), then what is the hottest source of morality that is emitting it's heat and warming us?

Obviously, as a Christian I see that hottest source as God.
The more Agnostic person might just say they don't know and perhaps think on it further.
For the Atheist, there is Evolution... however, this seems a little odd to me, particularly because science may contradict what we intuitively know to be morally wrong. I agree with you that we should not use science to determine morality. For example, the rape example I mentioned earlier. Far from being the "hottest" source, science can lead people to a quite cold morality.

Thoughts? I'm also happy for you to prod in a direction if there's something else you'd like to explore further.

I think you raised some excellent points. I think this sorta goes back to the objective/subjective morality issue. Temperature and fire are objective; they can be demonstrated. So when you say the hottest of hot or the coldest of cold, or the purest of a material substance; it can be demonstrated as true. With morality, unless it can be demonstrated, how can you prove something to be the purest of good? If we assume morality is objective, and there is something that is the purest of morality and good, I will be the first to admit I am far from perfect; have made plenty of mistakes and will continue making them for as long as I live; so how will I recognize something as perfectly good, as flawed as I am? I would have to be perfectly good to recognize perfectly good; don’t cha think? If “x” is good but because of my flaws I perceive “x” as bad, how am I supposed to know I am in error? If we were dealing with temperature and I made the mistake of claiming (for example) water boils at 190 degrees, with the proper tools, I can be shown to be in error because it can be demonstrated that water boils at 212 degrees, not 190. But how is this done with morality? I think with perfection; the old saying "it takes one to know one" comes to mind.

Unless I am mistaken, the only way I can see this done is if I were to put blind faith in something to be perfect .The reason I say blind faith is because unless I am perfect, how can I recognize perfection? How can I know what I am calling perfect IS perfect? So I have to trust that this is perfect even though I am unable to demonstrate that it is. Of course for the theist this is simple; they put their faith in the God they worship; but for a skeptic such as me; I see flaws in everything! (to various degrees of course) But I also recognize that if I there were such a thing as perfection and I did see it, I wouldn’t recognize it as perfect; when it goes against what I erroneously assume to be true, I will see IT as flawed rather than myself. So the best I can do is to go with what appears right to me, and if someone disagrees I can be open to discuss it.

I will admit, if morality, good and bad were able to be demonstrated this way, it would make life soooo much easier! That would fix a whole lotta problems in this world; but unfortunately we have to go with what we have available to us; and that is the reality that good and bad can’t always be demonstrated, and if perfection did exist; I doubt anybody would be able to recognize it.

Ken

Hi Ken,

Earlier you mentioned believing that some actions are morally wrong and right.
How should I to understand you when you say that we should strive for peace, and that anarchy is wrong? That rape is wrong?
Is this not based upon some "fire" that has somehow warming (informing) your consciousness?

I'd prefer to avoid subjective/objective because I feel we may have a different understanding.
They certainly seem like loaded terms. So I'm not sure it is beneficial to use them as catch-all terms.

But, I agree with you. Neither of us have proven what we believe is morally right and wrong is objectively true.
That is an area of epistemic justification (what justifies beliefs as true).

Nonetheless, regardless of the particulars we both do very much believe some things are morally right and wrong.
What you believe is right and wrong is based upon your same intuition that embraces your own existence and physical senses.

To me, it's kind of like logic and reason. We use it all the time to prove things, but can we prove logic and reason itself?
Any attempt to would be circular because you would have to use logic and reason to prove logic and reason.
So what do we do? We take a little step of faith and believe logic and reason can determine truth.
It just seems obvious that we have to do this.

So can we not embrace morality in the same sense?
It seems so real to us that we live our very lives by it!

Moral values like "love" and "honour" and "respect" seem so obvious to us as being good.
Such that actions which break these good values we often declare to be morally wrong.
Those whose actions support such values we often see as being morally good people.

Moral duties -- what we ought to do and not do -- can become clouded based upon moral dilemmas (when two moral values clash), our knowledge, different situations and the like.
However, I believe all humanity share in the same the moral values. Even the worst of us.

But, that's a little beside the point being discussed here I think.

The point being that we have agreed some things are wrong and even much more than that during our discussion here.
So we are saying we have seen the fire, at least the warmth of fire in us, such that we embrace the truth that some actions are morally wrong and right.
To then turn around on ourselves and say that the fire of morality is not objectively proven (and ok, it's not), it seems like we're pulling the rug from underneath ourselves.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:@Audie - the form ethical egoism I espoused isn't just a concept I came up with, but it is certainly an alternative that makes the most sense in a godless world and which modern scientific thinking supports.

.

What you said about evolutionary advantage probably wasnt original to you, no. But wherever you did getb6
thar, it was not from science. Misrepresented science may lead to sense, but not
good sense.

It seems you just want to try and assault me over and over.

Nonetheless, it's interesting you give no other alternative, to what I thought was a solid Atheist defense re: morality.
No explanation of this "bigger picture" that you feel some need to bite your tongue on because it might what... be more insulting then you're being to me here?

Quite typical of my discussions with self-proclaimed Atheists (at least online).
That is, quick to criticise, but silent when asked to contribute at the table.

At least Kenny is trying, although I'm sadly still seen as an antagonist rather than friend.

You didnt seem worth a second chance. I dont do thirds.

I didn't even know I was on my second chance.
But, you know what they say? Third time lucky.

Kurieuo wrote: To me, it's kind of like logic and reason. We use it all the time to prove things, but can we prove logic and reason itself?
Any attempt to would be circular because you would have to use logic and reason to prove logic and reason.

I use logic and reason as tools to come to conclusions; and like any tool, it is all about the person using it. Two people can use the tools of logic and reason for a given situation and sitll come to different conclusions. I don't see logic and reason as being able to prove anything or determine truth.

Kurieuo wrote:Moral duties -- what we ought to do and not do -- can become clouded based upon moral dilemmas (when two moral values clash), our knowledge, different situations and the like.
However, I believe all humanity share in the same the moral values. Even the worst of us.

What about the various opinions about homosexuality, abortion, religion in school and public places, birth control, etc I believe everyone agrees on the easy stuff like murder and rape, but when it comes to some of the more complicated issue, I see people all over the place on those.

Kurieuo wrote:The point being that we have agreed some things are wrong and even much more than that during our discussion here.
So we are saying we have seen the fire, at least the warmth of fire in us, such that we embrace the truth that some actions are morally wrong and right.
To then turn around on ourselves and say that the fire of morality is not objectively proven (and ok, it's not), it seems like we're pulling the rug from underneath ourselves.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I think the only way for that to happen is if everybody agrees on a moral base upon which all moral issues will be established upon. Fire/tempatrue is agreed upon by everyone. Everyone knows typical wood burns at approx 1000 degrees, water boils at 212, and it freezes at 32 degrees, and all the tempatures between the two, these standards are agreed upon by everyone. In order for this to work for morality, one standard will have to be agreed upon by everyone weather it be religious, secular, or something in between. What's the chance of something like that happening? Do you see any other way?

Ken

Hi Kenny,

Happy to delve into any moral issue that you may want my take, if you consider taking the discussion in that direction important.

You know, I have avoided doing that because I don't really believe it is important to seeing that a morality does in fact exist a part from us.

I think underlying your recent responses is a feeling of "objectiveness".
Something I earlier dismissed, but perhaps we should delve into that...
if there is something more you wish to express regarding objective morality?

Otherwise, please allow me try again with an example, to clarify what I'm getting at.

If you see smoke, although you may not be able to see through it, you know there is a fire source. Right?

So turning back to Aquinas' reasoning in his 4th way of gradation.
To be clear, "gradation" simply means "change from one shade, tone, or color to another" or "or change in a series of successive degrees."
The argument therefore doesn't need "perfect sight" in us towards morality in order to work -- just graduated forms of morality.

The fact most in society agree about many good moral values, reveals much about a common moral standard within that we all appear have.
Yes, there are differences across a range of moral issues, but theses are simply "gradations" based upon our knowledge, preferences and tastes.

The fact that humanity displays this "gradation" in relation to morality, I'd agree with Aquinas points to an actual source of morality.

While we can't see through the smoke to agree in some objective manner about every particular moral issue, we are still in fact seeing the smoke itself.

You don't need to have perfect moral sight to know and believe some things are morally wrong or right.
Therefore you don't need a perfect morality to see its smoke.
The smoke is objectively real even if the details are hazy due to our subjectivity.

So if we see the smoke (moral values that we identify with), then according to Aquinas's reasoning, there is a source of this smoke (moral values).

I don't want you feeling like I'm laying some kind of trap.
So to be totally transparent and show my cards, the source for me -- the fire -- is God Himself.
Christian theology sees "Goodness" a part of God's very nature, along with other attributes like "Holiness", "Immutability", "Eternality", "Love", etc.
God for me, is the fire -- the ultimate source of all the smoke I see (the innate moral values we both possess and identify with).

If you see the smoke, and claim there is no fire (which I don't see you doing by the way), then that does seem a little odd to me.

For the Atheist, there is Evolution... however, this seems a little odd to me, particularly because science may contradict what we intuitively know to be morally wrong. I agree with you that we should not use science to determine morality. For example, the rape example I mentioned earlier. Far from being the "hottest" source, science can lead people to a quite cold morality.

Thoughts? I'm also happy for you to prod in a direction if there's something else you'd like to explore further.[/quote]

Could you please say why you think as in bold?

As for the example you used earlier, while there is a sort of countercurrent thing there,
there is more to the picture than that being an exception to disprove a rule.

With salmon, for example, the 'king" or "Chinook" salmon, the males may weigh as much as 100 lbs. The contest for females is just that, a contest.

BUT, while the big boys are busy contesting, a "jack" (sorry Jack) salmon can slip in and fertilize some eggs.

The "jack" is a two yr old that may weigh five pounds, and in no way could compete directly.

It is a successful strategy, to some extent. But it has not resulted in the entire population of males being 5 pounders any more than human society has gone to an all-rape reproduction system.

Kurieuo wrote: While we can't see through the smoke to agree in some objective manner about every particular moral issue, we are still in fact seeing the smoke itself.

You don't need to have perfect moral sight to know and believe some things are morally wrong or right.
Therefore you don't need a perfect morality to see its smoke.
The smoke is objectively real even if the details are hazy due to our subjectivity.

So if we see the smoke (moral values that we identify with), then according to Aquinas's reasoning, there is a source of this smoke (moral values).

I don't want you feeling like I'm laying some kind of trap.
So to be totally transparent and show my cards, the source for me -- the fire -- is God Himself.
Christian theology sees "Goodness" a part of God's very nature, along with other attributes like "Holiness", "Immutability", "Eternality", "Love", etc.
God for me, is the fire -- the ultimate source of all the smoke I see (the innate moral values we both possess and identify with).

If you see the smoke, and claim there is no fire (which I don't see you doing by the way), then that does seem a little odd to me.

I agree! Like the old saying goes; where there is smoke there is fire. Of course the Theist will see the Fire (source of morality) as God. While I can’t speak for all atheists, I can only speak for myself; I see the source of morality (fire) as a human desire to live peacefully. I believe humans are for the most part peaceful and social creatures; and in order to live socially and in peace each has to feel they are treated fairly otherwise there will be no peace, IOW there has to be empathy for one another. I believe this is the source of morality, and morality is the source of human laws.

Ken