Evidence for God from Science

A common problem that athiests face is that of lack of basis for morality, good, and evil. I was surfing the http://www.Capitalism.org site and found this. (by the way, this site totally trashes all religion as legitimate philosophy):

By what standard does one judge the good from the evil?

Man's life is the standard of value. All that supports a man's life is good, and all that destroys man's life is evil.
Is selfishness good or evil?

If evil is that which destroys man's life -- and to look after one's self interest -- is to support one's life, then how can selfishness be rationally held to be evil? It cannot.

Can someone please point to the serious flaws in using a man's life as a basis for good?

If your talking a man's life as in a individual life you have a serious problem.

However, if you are talking like in Man or Mankind (all peoples) then that comes closer to working.

Therefore selfishness being good for an individual is not good for mankind as a whole. Therefore selfishness could be considered evil if the selfishness hurts or harms others.

What seemed morally acceptable to Hitler was pretty immoral to the rest of mankind.

God in someways could be seen as a way to promote morals and laws that
are good for mankind.

I think to argue God's existence the moral standards angle is not the best
argument.

Michael

krynn9000 wrote:A common problem that athiests face is that of lack of basis for morality, good, and evil. I was surfing the http://www.Capitalism.org site and found this. (by the way, this site totally trashes all religion as legitimate philosophy):

By what standard does one judge the good from the evil?

Man's life is the standard of value. All that supports a man's life is good, and all that destroys man's life is evil.
Is selfishness good or evil?

If evil is that which destroys man's life -- and to look after one's self interest -- is to support one's life, then how can selfishness be rationally held to be evil? It cannot.

Can someone please point to the serious flaws in using a man's life as a basis for good?

This is the philisophical basis for Objectivism, popularized by Ayn Rand, although it may apply to other systems as well. Small wonder that a site dedicated to pure capitalism would use that as a foundation.

The problem with the system is that if you follow it to its logical conclusions then there is no basis for charity, no basis for selfless acts of kindness and no basis for society except for what society can do for the individual.

It effectively rejects anything outside of selfishness as "altruism."

It effectively reduces democracy to 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

How's that for starters?

Ha! I like the wolves and sheep argument

I guess what I'm asking is, and this question has been asked many times on this forum, is this. We as Christians use God as our standard of morality to judge the right from the wrong. However, many athiests will claim to be both godless and moral. If they use the above argument, then what is the best counter to this idea?

If I choose my actions based on whatever best promotes (any) man's life, without infringing on the lives of others, then can I claim to be moral? Is this still circular reasoning?

krynn9000 wrote:Ha! I like the wolves and sheep argument

I guess what I'm asking is, and this question has been asked many times on this forum, is this. We as Christians use God as our standard of morality to judge the right from the wrong. However, many athiests will claim to be both godless and moral. If they use the above argument, then what is the best counter to this idea?

If I choose my actions based on whatever best promotes (any) man's life, without infringing on the lives of others, then can I claim to be moral? Is this still circular reasoning?

Well, some of it boils down to semantics.

I think you can create a system of ethics from an atheist position and frankly I think that atheists and agnostics can be moral and ethical people.

However, the problem with morals based upon relative societal impact is that in the end, you have to appeal to a person's sense of fair play and sef-interest to get the prescribed result. If there is a reasonable chance that someone will not get caught or if they possess power and influence to where they can escape the consequences then there is no reason for them to curtail their own gratification at the expense of others.

Atheistic systems in the end must degenerate into nihilism and anarchy if you maintain them and apply ruthless logic, in my experience, observation and opinion.