Where do atheists' morals come from?

by dorayakii 94 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  dorayakii

  There are many things that I'd like to believe, but I don't because they are mere idealist views. I can read a wonderfully emotionally-charged novel, with a good plot, three-dimensional central characters and a remarkable ending. But when I put that book down, I can come back to harsh reality without believing the novel, however ideal, really took place. Thinking that something is ugly, or distasteful in no way means that it is true or false. Present evidence or at least a rational argument for why my position is wrong.

  I am familiar with the Dawkins idea. It is just that in this context it becomes plain what an utter abomination it is.

  Calling something an "abomination" just to win an arguement is how I used to argue when I was a Jehovah's Witness. It is not an argument which holds any water for me now. Now, for me to believe something, it has to be well thought-out, well argued and have at least some evidence, preferably physical or scientific, to back it up. If you have nothing reasonable, intelligent or rational to say, please refrain from saying it. It just bogs us down in pointless skirmishes.

  Objector: "Well but look! Here is an example of a genuine act of altruism!"

  The Dawkins: "Errrm. That's just where evolution fucked up."

  There are many examples of where evolution has... shall we say, "messed up". But the thing you misunderstand is that the idea of evolution "messing up" is inherently a fallacy. Evolution does not have a plan or agenda, it does not have an ideal final outcome, it is not a conscious force, deliberately seeking to do better and better.

  Natural selection and mutations can only work with what they've got.

  For example, (1) the mitochondria in our cells are said to have originally been invading bacteria. They have separate DNA from us humans and nothing to do with our genetic code. Over some time, we have developed a symbiotic relationship, to the point where we can no longer survive without each other.

  (2) In an ideal human body we would not have a vestigial appendix. Creationists may say that it actually does serve some kind of function, and that may well be. However no matter what it's supposed function, the fact of the matter is that the human body would be better without it.

  (3) Penguins use their wings originally meant to fly, to navigate underwater. Evolution has again "messed up" and made do with what it had.

  (4) Whales have to perodically come up for air because they cannot breathe underwater, because they are mammals. Evolution has again worked with what it has to produce a functioning animal. Its not ideal, but it is what it is.

  Dawkins' proposition is that human ethics come from such a process. Using a feature which was originaly used for a different purpose in our ancestors, for a new purpose. (Or sometimes for no purpose at all in the case of the appendix).
• 

  BurnTheShips

  All the above are examples of biological evolution.

  Dawkins' proposition is that human ethics come from such a process. Using a feature which was originaly used for a different purpose in our ancestors, for a new purpose. (Or sometimes for no purpose at all in the case of the appendix).

  I suspect the Dawkins should stick with biology, it's his specialty after all.

  BTS
• 

  dorayakii

  trevor: What is considered moral, varies greatly from one country to another and from religion to religion. Things that are morally indefeasible have been carried out in the name of religion under the excuse of carrying out 'God's will. '

  There is no evidence of a fixed moral code that has been passed down from an invisible being. Even the God of the Bible regularly changed his morals as he saw fit. That is if we are to believe the only book he ever wrote?

  Each society has always adopted morals that suited its needs. What is right and moral in society regarding, for example sexual conduct, can change with time. An underpopulated world desperate for population growth may adopt different morals to a world that is dangerously overpopulated.

  I agree with you. Morals change over time and from culture to culture. When we eat meat, most of us don't thing it's a morally bad thing. But from the standpoint of the animals, we are perpetrators of "mass cow, pig and sheep genocide". At the moment, we hold our species to be the ultimate group to which we have moral responsibility. Yet a few hundreds of years ago, it was our tribe, our race or our family.

  Even many Christian slave-owners felt no moral shame in enslaving or even killing black people. The Jews felt no moral shame in slaughtering the Canaanites in the name of their god.

  Can we call these people "immoral"?... I'm not too sure that we can, because that means we are imposing our moral standards anachronistically on those people.

  Maybe in a couple of hundred years when our protein is artificially synthesised and we no longer need to eat meat, we in the 21st century will be viewed as barbarians for killing and eating animals.
• 

  dorayakii

  I suspect the Dawkins should stick with biology, it's his specialty after all.

  That's true, biology is Dawkins speciality but he's an intelligent man, I'm sure he can cope with more than just biology. The fact that I'm a linguist commenting on a thread about morality and biology proves that humans don't usually have just one interest or field of thought. Besides, biology encompasses many other things. Our behaviour is an intrinsic part of biology. I don't know if you've ever read "The Extended Phenotype", but it suggests that even a beaver's dam and lodge is a manifestation of its biology. The instructions for making the dam are not learnt from beavers parents, they are written in their DNA. This was proved by many experiments involving taking baby beavers from their parents beforeany learning could happen. The beavers still made dams. Other experiments involved leaving beavers in large, empty rooms. The beavers still went through the motions of making dams.

  (By the way, why do you put a "the" in front of Dawkins' name? I assume English is your native tongue. If it's not then just to respectfully let you know that we don't usually put articles in front of peoples names unless we're being facetious.)
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I agree with you. Morals change over time and from culture to culture. When we eat meat, most of us don't thing it's a morally bad thing. But from the standpoint of the animals, we are perpetrators of "mass cow, pig and sheep genocide".

  I didn't know that pigs cows and sheep could think in those terms. Fascinating.

  At the moment, we hold our species to be the ultimate group to which we have moral responsibility. Yet a few hundreds of years ago, it was our tribe, our race or our family.

  Eventually, we will be morally responsible even to rocks and stones and things. Rocks exist! Just like us! Free the Geodes now!

  Seriously though, it is obvious that you believe in "moral progress" even if I have caricatured it here. On what basis is there such a thing if all morality is subjective? Apparently from reading this thread, atheists are just as interested in progress as theists are. However, such "progress" can be just about anything that is a change. So where to make a value judgement?

  Apparently in an atheist worldview anything can be "moral", if any act or attitude can be subjectively and arbitrarily decreed moral.

  Christian theology has long dealt with what is called natural law. It loomed especially large in Aquinas' Summa. Atheists cannot escape the natural moral law because it is built into our human nature. Atheists will be moral by instinct, as it were --like your encarcerated beaver, eager to play with a log. However because atheists deny God, they can persuade themselves at will that the moral law built into their nature is not objective because there is no absolute ground for it, it is merely an evolutionary product, and that morals can change depending on time, culture and personal preference.

  If moralilty has evolved blindly then then it is changeable.
  
  If it is changeable then it is optional.

  If it is optional then it is not an obligation any longer but merely a recommendation.

  All the atheist has left to ameliorate the practical effects of this is an anemic apologia using some idea of a social contract.

  BTS
• 

  BurnTheShips

  (By the way, why do you put a "the" in front of Dawkins' name? I assume English is your native tongue. If it's not then just to respectfully let you know that we don't usually put articles in front of peoples names unless we're being facetious.)

  I've long used this form. The Dawkins has never minded. I personally think it feeds it's vanity. So much the better, pride being before the fall and all of that.

  BTS
• 

  mavie

  What kind of society do I want to live in?
  
  To a large extent, this is how my morals are defined.
• 

  Rabbit

  Dorayakii

  So this begs the question, if the Bible is not the direct source of morality, yet it does inspire moral behaviour, what is the real source of human ethics ? Why are we humans moral creatures?

  *I* believe in the inherent goodness of humanity. I also recognise that the trauma & mental illnesses of humans affect believers, agnostics and atheists alike.

  *I*believe that all the various thousands of 'gods' humans have worshipped over it's history -- were created in thousands of human minds ! What other logical reasons can explain all the differences in these 'gods' ? their personalities ? their geographical peculiarities ? ( gods of volcanoes, oceans, waves, stars, sun, moon, animals, wind...) their (sometimes) unique powers ? their status among other gods (my god can beat your god) ?

  The real problems started when some charismatic people thought they heard 'voices' of these 'gods' they invented...and thought they were 'special'. The normal people thought they were 'less special', because they didn't hear the disembodied 'voices in their heads'. They were called ---> .

  So, "...what is the real source of human ethics ?" Our very own grey matter between our ears. And, I don't hear disembodied voices or believe the folks who say they do...anymore, that is.

  Rabbit
• 

  hillary_step

  Burn,

  I didn't know that pigs cows and sheep could think in those terms. Fascinating.

  Try another example.

  Julius Ceaser cut off his opponents right hand in Northern Africa so that they would no longer be able to kill Romans. For Rome, this was a good thing, for the Nubians it was evil.

  Cultural pressures and the process of social evolution are what dictates whether something is good or evil, not an inbuilt Divine process. Paul was a twit. ;)

  HS
• 

  dorayakii

  I don't believe in "moral progress", I support the idea that ethics have a solid basis apart from religious belief, (a stand which is proved true in many non-religious societies today), and I think that if we investigate ethics as a science we're unlikely to end up awarding "Petrous Rights" to rocks.

  I didn't know that pigs cows and sheep could think in those terms. Fascinating.

  Well of course they don't think in these terms, it was a figure of speech. Yet do you think that animals enjoy being killed? That they willingly offer themselves up as human food in a manner similar to Douglas Adams' cow at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe? - "The rump is good, I've been exercising it, so there's plenty of good meat there... I'll just nip off and shoot myself, don't worry I'll be very humane."

  I personally think it feeds it's vanity. So much the better, pride being before the fall and all of that.

  Randomly labelling people you don't personally like as vain or proud is risible. People only call him proud because they cannot refute what he has to say. Instead they resort to character defamation. Dawkins may be very confident in his belief that religion is dangerous, and may even take joy in proving how ridiculous religious arguments can be, but to call it vanity is just emotive talk. Only children who don't get their own way say "I'm not playing anymore" and resort to calling names.

  Take what he says and argue against his theories, don't resort to attacking his character. Dawkins has been writing for 32 years and as a scientist he takes things with evidence, he doesn't just state something dogmatically without proof as do religious people. The proof?: Many times he has stated that in reality he is an agnostic because he cannot prove that God doesn't exist, but for practical purposes he is an atheist in the same way that we are all Thor-athists or Ra-atheists.

  Science is based on the premise that we do not know, so let's test and find out. Religion is based on the premise that we know because this book told us, so let's not bother test it.

  Apparently in an atheist worldview anything can be "moral", if any act or attitude can be subjectively and arbitrarily decreed moral.

  ...

  If moralilty has evolved blindly then then it is changeable.
  
  If it is changeable then it is optional.

  If it is optional then it is not an obligation any longer but merely a recommendation.

  All the atheist has left to ameliorate the practical effects of this is an anemic apologia using some idea of a social contract.

  Thank you, for this observation. I feel like we're finally moving in an intelligent direction.

  1. Does the fact that morality may not be an absolute universal principle take away its value to human society?

  For example clothes and houses are man-made, no higher being told us to make them, yet it is beneficial for humans not to walk around naked or live in the street... Morals may be beneficial in a similar way. Without them we are savages and society falls apart. Is this not a good enough reason to have them, despite their being counter-intuitive to the expectations of natural selection?

  2. The "social contract" idea is not as amaemic as you think. What are our national laws but an elaborate system of social contracts?

  3. Does not the doctrine of free-will negate your argument that morality is an obligation?

  If we truly have free-will, then there may be an absolute morality in the form of God, but morality itself is not an obligation, it is merely a suggestion or recommendation. Do you see how viewing morality as optional or recommended in no way increases or decreases its value? Just as living in "unnatural homes" doesn't negate the fact that houses keep us warm and protect us.

  Lastly, many people seem to have an inaccurate picture of what Dawkinsian-style evolution is about and at what level it works. Strictly, the body itself is only useful in that it propagates its DNA. In a way DNA controls the environment through its "body". The DNA controls embryonic development of the brain and body, which then control the environment. However, the DNA's control breaks down after a certain point. In a biological game of Chinese-Whispers (aka. Telephone in the USA), the DNA loses control of such a large system and ultimately the brain, which the DNA itself developed, takes over the running of the body. In beavers the DNA has a strong hold. In humans, the brain has won most of the battles (eg. contraception, altruism and other things which counter the supremacy of our DNA).