Morality Without Deity (page 20)

John_Mann

Well I think we reached a dead-end and my conclusion is:

# By analyzing our morality systems we're able to spot just one dilemma (human embryos in scientific research).

# And the bases of our morality systems are different. What you defined as absolute vs objective (which I disagree) and I define as Catholic vs atheist.

You say embryonic research can bring a lot of good. But China is doing this kind of research since it was possible because they don't have this moral dilemma. I don't know nothing about what China discovered in this specific research, do you know about some panacea invented based on this research?

Also I repeat you have a very Sola Scriptura influence in your atheism.

And your position about "there's no absolute(s) in the universe" is a contradiction by itself.

The reason of why our morality seems to be very similar is because I believe everyone has a soul created with absolute moral commands. Even if you deny the existence of the Law-giver you can't deny the law written inside you.

cofty

Hi John. I am out at the moment and typing on my phone is difficult. I look forward to posting a detailed reply to your post later.

Spoiler alert - I disagree with every sentence!

Ruby456

it a hard task to set out an objective morality. But still cofty, if what you are arguing for is a realist morality and if this is what you mean by objective morality then I think it can be defended although as I have said I prefer to think in terms of ethics - what is good for us and for the larger than human world and what is bad for us and for the larger than human world. this would make sense.

plato's good is different as here I think he was talking about ideals and this is a different animal. the good thing about Plato's line and about arguing from ethics is that at least this gives us an evolutionary platform from which to argue. on the other hand religionists can also argue from the pov of aiming for ideals and from what is good for us and what is bad for use etc - as a route to the development of morals.

philosophical reasoning tends to argue for the welfare of sentient beings. for me this is a little narrow because sentient beings sooner or later have to acknowledge that their long term well being also depends on what condition nature is in

cofty

By analyzing our morality systems we're able to spot just one dilemma (human embryos in scientific research). - John_Mann

That could not be further from the facts. I could list plenty more examples. We are discussing stem-cell research as a sample of conflict between secular objective ethics and those based on religious dogma. We could debate homosexuality, abortion, fertility treatment, contraception, the role of women, premarital sex and many more issues.

In every case your position would be based on unproven assertions about supernatural events. I would advocate a position based on a rational investigation about the consequences of actions and how they affect the well-being of conscious creatures.

Your approach would be based on an imaginary perfect being - absolute morality. Your views would be intransigent and impervious to reason since they are prefaced by an implied "Thus sayeth the almighty..."

My moral choices would be open to new information.

The gulf is very large.

And the bases of our morality systems are different. What you defined as absolute vs objective (which I disagree) and I define as Catholic vs atheist.

You keep saying you disagree but you never give a reason. Your moral judgements have no connection with objective facts. You admit they are a matter of "faith" which is a gift of your god to those whom he chooses. What could possibly be less objective?

You say embryonic research can bring a lot of good. But China is doing this kind of research since it was possible because they don't have this moral dilemma. I don't know nothing about what China discovered in this specific research, do you know about some panacea invented based on this research?

It is totally irrelevant to the conversation. Your objection is not practical but ideological. No matter how much benefit ever comes of human stem-cell research, no matter how much suffering is alleviated your objection will not - cannot - weaken one iota. It is based on an absolute standard rooted in the character of your deity. It is immune to facts.

Also I repeat you have a very Sola Scriptura influence in your atheism.

And yet I have not used scripture once in our entire conversation!

My strongest argument against the christian god does not depend on the bible at all...

If I am talking with Evangelical Protestants I will debate scripture, if I am talking to a Roman Catholic I will address your peculiar epistemology.

And your position about "there's no absolute(s) in the universe" is a contradiction by itself.

I have never said "there's no absolute(s) in the universe". Why did you put those words in quotation marks. They are not my words. You have repeatedly misrepresented my views in this conversation. I have tried very hard to present your position honestly. I said there is no such thing as an absolute standard of morality.

The reason of why our morality seems to be very similar is because I believe everyone has a soul created with absolute moral commands.

And yet you have still presented no evidence to support this assertion. Genuine and sincere christians can be found on both sides of every moral dilemma. Your "absolute moral commands" are not so absolute are they?

Even if you deny the existence of the Law-giver you can't deny the law written inside you.

We have the capacity for making moral judgements. We have evolved a capacity for justice, reciprocity, empathy, as well as disgust, anger and shame. All of this can easily be accounted for by evolution - there is no ghost in the machine.

cofty

Ruby - I am using the words morality and ethics interchangeably. Both words are simply shorthand for how we worry about the way our actions impact of the well-being of conscious creatures.

the good thing about Plato's line and about arguing from ethics is that at least this gives us an evolutionary platform from which to argue.

I think it does the opposite. Theists like John_Mann and William Lane Craig see morality in Platonic terms. To them god is the absolute standard of perfection against which everything is measured. It is like Plato's essential triangle.

Evolutionary psychology and biology shows us how morality developed from the bottom-up without reference to perfect ideals.

Belief in perfect gods and eternal judgements after physical death was an effective way to convince people to be good when nobody was watching. It is a persistent meme.

philosophical reasoning tends to argue for the welfare of sentient beings. for me this is a little narrow because sentient beings sooner or later have to acknowledge that their long term well being also depends on what condition nature is in

But that is the same thing. We worry about the ethics of caring for the environment because of the effect our actions will have on the well-being of its inhabitants.

The Rebel

On my first contribution to this thread I commented " Many who attach themselfs to a religious organisation do not have the freedom to think nor their own personality on views on right and wrong?"

I refer back to that comment, because I don't want double standards. Therefore I must also ask the question is it possible " Many who attach themselfs to scientific study do not have the freedom to think nor their own personality on views on right and wrong?"

Anyway my conclusion having read the thread is that we are all skeletons, what ever we believe we die and become skeletons, the ants turn in to skeletons and so does the human. Until a person becomes a skeleton some learn to believe in God and believe in " Morality WITH diety". And in my opinion the only way they can do this is because they must " feel God" and believe. But a self professed athiest simply can't feel like that, they can't learn to believe based on emotion no matter how appealing the emotion in words that can't be supported by fact.

Anyway from an emotional perspective I believe for a former believer, not to believe requires strength of character, to fight religious fairy tales and demand facts. If there is a God the God I want to feel with the mysterious power over life and death ( the resurrection of skeletons) then the argument we are having on this thread would not exist. My verdict on the thread is that God is a skeleton and we are living in a world without his existence and diety.

As for the deeper questions raised on the thread, I am now rushed for time (translation not qualified to answer) but will compete in the debate if challenged.

Ruby456

thanks for the discussion cofty

cofty

" Many who attach themselfs to scientific study do not have the freedom to think nor their own personality on views on right and wrong?" - Rebel

Science doesn't dictate how anybody should think or what they must believe. It is a method for discovering what is objectively true about the world. Some of the things that have been learned through the scientific method are more certain than other things.

When faced with moral questions we need information on which to base our decisions. Why should we abandon the method that has served us so well? If our desire is to enhance the wellbeing of conscious creatures then start with as much information as you can get about the likely consequences of our proposed actions. Maybe we can't "get an ought from an is" but we can get some of the way there.

That means we don't get to trump the conversation with evidence-free dogmatic statements that end with "...thus sayeth the lord"

The Rebel

Ruby456 " thanks for the discussion cofty"

and let's also thank John-Mann and others that contributed to a great thread. Because sometimes in life the things we don't think we can believe can be discussed.

The Rebel

Cofty " Many who attach themselfs to scientific study do not have the freedom to think nor their own personality on views on right and wrong"- REBEL

I would find it regrettable if I should be held to account, with the above statement, without the reader reading my complete post and the context I made that statement. Otherwise I am in complete ageeance with Coftys post.

Morality Without Deity

Share this