Originally posted by LemonJelloI do not profess to know the answer to that question, and I withhold judgment on the topic pending what I would take to be sufficient evidence to warrant a particular judgment this way or that.
I was being sincere. You stated you contend that "an idea of origin exists". I have no idea what you mean.
Regarding your question, I do not endorse any of a) through d). I do not profess to know the answer to that question, and I withhold judgment on the topic pending what I would take to be sufficient evidence to warrant a particular judgment this ...[text shortened]... the idea that the laws of physics/chemistry explain everything was an absurd one?
I have not attributed you with a claim to know; I have insisted that you have an idea about how existence came to be. What you are essentially saying (in contrast) is that you cannot answer the OP, since you--- unlike virtually every other conscious and self-aware person on the planet--- have no idea regarding existence's origins, nor have you ever considered the topic long enough to arrive at even a working hypothesis.
I think we both know that is a load of crap, but have it your way. The OP asks the moral atheist who has considered the origins of existence and concluded their strictly naturalistic cause how they in turn account for morals. Your avoidance of the first part excludes you from the conversation, it appears.
Second, when are you going to explain why you think it is requisite that one have some account of cosmological origins in order to provide description of, say, what a moral value is; when are you going to provide actual reasons in support of this idea?
There are basically two camps in this world, relative to existence. One camp claims a supernatural cause, the other camp says it all has a naturalistic explanation. There are gads of varying accounts from within each camp, but their basic tenets shoot off from these two foundations. Since I am of the opinion that folks fall into either on or the other camp of thought, the question posed here is how the latter camp accounts for morals from a strictly materialistic starting point. You are the rare (otherwise non-existent) person I've ever encountered who has miraculously kept their consciousness from making a decision about the topic. I honestly don't know what to make of you, really.
But, in fact, your own view is guilty of this, since you give credit for existence unto the fact that there is a God; and you also maintain that the fact that there is a God is brute.
I know this is going to sound like a broken record, but I'll say it anyway. This is exactly what I have been saying--- repeatedly--- the entire time! The atheist requires either an always-existent universe or one which created itself (you being the notable lone exception, who doesn't even give such things any thought whatsoever). The theist requires an always-existent Creator. When the atheist rejects the supernatural explanation, saying 'you cannot explain God,' as though such an impossibility were a weakness to the claim, he is nonetheless perfectly content with an inexplicable always-existent/self-created universe... despite its possession at least several qualities attributed to God.
Can we at least agree that your earlier implication that atheists are committed to the idea that the laws of physics/chemistry explain everything was an absurd one?
Only in your case. You have demonstrated that you won't be nailed down to either camp--- or any other camp--- but you have not shown there to be a school of thought (with actual card-carrying, dues-paying members) which espouses such silliness. And even if you were able to show such a group, the OP couldn't possibly be construed to be directed at these blissfully ignorant people. The OP asks the moral atheist who explains everything "by the laws of physics and chemistry." For someone such as yourself, this whole exercise is a non sequitur.
Originally posted by SoothfastThis is how I size up Freaky's argument:
This is how I size up Freaky's argument:
He posits that there exists an Objective Morality, though he, like most theists, will (or at least should) admit that this is taken on faith. Faith in the Bible as dictated by God's mortal secretaries. Freaky has not proven, nor can he find proof, that morals are not a function of culture, environment and oth ...[text shortened]... hat God is not subject to a causal chain and therefore need not have his origins elucidated.
You're not so hot as a tailor, sir.
He posits that there exists an Objective Morality, though he, like most theists, will (or at least should) admit that this is taken on faith.
Whether or not an objective morality exists, what cannot be denied is that man has historically held himself to such a standard. If you wish to relegate morals to faith, you'll have a tough road to hoe with the atheists.
Freaky has not proven, nor can he find proof, that morals are not a function of culture, environment and other sociological factors, and therefore fluid in both time and space.
You're putting the cart before the horse. The OP is asking something far more basic and primary. Get back to that and read it without prejudice.
So in effect atheists must take responsibility to explain, not their cosmology, but actually his cosmology. That is, atheists are assigned the impossible task of explaining how their godless universe could produce his divine universe.
So, if I'm reading you right, morals don't exist? Then explain, if you will--- if you can--- how a thread which is directed at the moral atheist wasn't denounced immediately by every single atheist with an emphatic similar proclamation? We could have put this thing to bed eons ago!
Hearing no satisfactory answer to his challenge, he then concludes that atheism is "rotten to the core" and believes he has made his argument for a God.
The circulatory self-imploding nature of atheism is what led to my previous (prior to this thread) conclusion of its insupportable core. I've not made a single argument for God, but instead have been attempting to force the atheist's hand in explaining his position.
Originally posted by shahenshahIt may be a mistake to exclude from consideration a moral principle or law simply because it is currently found in a religious scripture or tradition. An origins theory of morality, backed by archeological evidence, may find that the rules of a small society (tribe) of hunter gatherers arose by practical trial and error, with the leadership of the tribe proclaiming which rules are to be followed. All sorts of motivations would be used, including emotional responses of shame and guilt, reward and punishment, etc. In some societies (e.g., Egypt) the leaders were eventually deified and worshiped. As I have repeatedly suggested, religion is a natural place to enshrine a society's morality.
What makes you think modern man has a more developed intellect?
Good point... but after a few thousands of years shouldn't there be some improvement?
I would say that the atheist thinker 'invents' his or her morals all the time..shortened... For example, I'm sure we can all come up with an example of a situation where some form of theft can be cons ...[text shortened]... s; is there any other moral / ethic, newly invented, especially by an atheist philosopher.
Any new situation that calls for a new moral principle or law would be better served (with more weight and authority) by reference to and application of an existing scripture. But one could say that the principles behind the rise of democratic government in general have been largely developed outside religion, based on the "Rights of Man" writings of enlightenment authors and thinkers who were considerably less theistic than the establishment. Of course where religion can be used to advantage to advance these principles, it will be, so we have references to "God-given rights" by thinkers who were some of them, hardly deists, much less, theists. In fact, organized religion was not the birthplace of democracy.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLJ is entirely capable of standing up for himself I know, but I felt compelled to stand up for his position regarding origins. I also have no idea how the universe started and am quite happy to hold both possibilities (an original creator or spontaneous generation from nothing) as having equal likelihood as far as I am able to discern.
[b]I do not profess to know the answer to that question, and I withhold judgment on the topic pending what I would take to be sufficient evidence to warrant a particular judgment this way or that.
I have not attributed you with a claim to know; I have insisted that you have an idea about how existence came to be. What you are essentially saying (in c ...[text shortened]... mistry." For someone such as yourself, this whole exercise is a non sequitur.[/b]
Originally posted by bbarrI was agreeing that the theist has several compelling reasons to honor the morality which he sees as an expression of God's goodness--- even the religious one who is obeying strictly on the basis of avoiding punishment, or in warranting his admission to heaven. Clearly, I do not hold the religious position as legitimate, but in his mind, the legalistic person is acquiescing to his perception of the source of morality.
I'm not sure with what, precisely, you're agreeing. Different theists, just like different atheists, have different accounts of the content and justification of morality. These accounts still need to argued for, and simply tokening God doesn't suffice as an argument for why morality makes sense. Further, no serious ethicist I've read conceives of morality a ...[text shortened]... ce is meaningless, then morality is unimportant. I just don't see how any of that follows.
To whom, or to what is the atheist attributing morals and further, if it all burps into nothingness in the end/next beginning what possible difference does it make if he follows morals or not?
I realize that no ethicist currently being read portrays morals as attachments. My contention, however, is that the atheist ethicist doesn't appear to have a lot of options in explaining what they are from a materialistic standpoint.
I just don't see how any of that follows.
Without an ultimate source of good, something concrete in which to ground our meaning, its all arbitrary. Anything with an arbitrary foundation is ultimately as meaningless as its base. One of my sons mindlessly plays HALO for hours at a time (when he can get away with it). Besides wasting time, what are his results? Where is the good of intrinsic value?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think it's about mental health. Everyone wants to be calm, content and as happy as possible, don't they? In my view this is achieved by placating the conscience, at least in a sane individual.
I was agreeing that the theist has several compelling reasons to honor the morality which he sees as an expression of God's goodness--- even the religious one who is obeying strictly on the basis of avoiding punishment, or in warranting his admission to heaven. Clearly, I do not hold the religious position as legitimate, but in his mind, the legalistic pe ...[text shortened]... ith it). Besides wasting time, what are his results? Where is the good of intrinsic value?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAre there distinguishing marks of a morality by which is can be known to be non-arbitrary? What are they? Having a priest announce it?
I was agreeing that the theist has several compelling reasons to honor the morality which he sees as an expression of God's goodness--- even the religious one who is obeying strictly on the basis of avoiding punishment, or in warranting his admission to heaven. Clearly, I do not hold the religious position as legitimate, but in his mind, the legalistic pe ...[text shortened]... ith it). Besides wasting time, what are his results? Where is the good of intrinsic value?
Since when does the source being "ultimate" entail non-arbitrariness?
You may ask what's the point of morality, but the fact is, people seek to thrive. To thrive best, they join into groups. Social groups of intelligent language users discover rules. Connect the dots.
At this point it is as though you have our fingers in your ears and are saying 'I can't hear you.' Get over it. There is a non-theistic explanation for morality. That doesn't mean it's true, or even complete. But it's there.
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello=========================
Quit being so daft and silly. Nobody I know claims that "everything can be explained on the sole basis of the laws of physics and chemistry". (And within such a view, what exactly would explain such laws to begin with?) For instance, I think it is almost unavoidable (and I am not really alone here within my atheist circles) that there exist at least so ...[text shortened]... rk first.
Beyond that, you still have not really addressed Conrau K's apt question.
Nobody I know claims that "everything can be explained on the sole basis of the laws of physics and chemistry".
=================================
Listen to the quotation about one minute into this lecture.
A professor of biological science at Cornell University:
The lecture -
Has Science Made Belief in God Obsolete? J.P. Moreland
&feature=related
(no, I don't care if you saw it before, whoever you are )
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat don't you understand about regresses? Here is a set of assumptions that generates a regress (a very famous epistemic regress on justification):
What do you mean by 'not generating regresses'? Also, is morality a distinct separate study in philosophy or is it part and parcel?
1) At least some of our beliefs are justified.
2) Only a belief can justify another belief.
3) No belief can justify itself.
Do you see how, starting from some putatively justified belief, these assumptions seem to force on us a regress? If you jettison (1), you're a skeptic. If you jettison (2), you're a foundationalist. If you jettison (3), you typically end up a coherentist. These are all positions in epistemology.
So, what I'm saying above is that Euthyphro-type dliemmas do not, by themselves generate regresses. You need sets of assumptions like 1-3 in order to find yourself in trouble. For instance, if you thought that the only thing that could justify a moral belief was some more general moral belief or principle, then you may be in for a regress. You could attempt to trace back the reasons for which you hold some moral belief, getting more and more general, until you reach some point; some general principle perhaps, that just seems clearly right to you, but that doesn't admit to being itself justified by reference to some other moral belief you have. You will have reached theoretical bedrock. Much of the debate here seems to assume that moral epistemology is foundationalist in structure (see the mention of the 'supreme moral principle', in Epiphineas' post above). But this isn't the only position available with regard to the justification of moral beliefs.
Anyway, ethics or moral philosophy is one major branch of philosophy, along with metaphysics and epistemology (and sometimes logic is included in the list). Then there are the sub-sub-disciplines (e.g., philosophy of science, political philosophy, philosophy of mind, etc.).
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo. You can always ask the question, "But why is X good?", so it may seem like there is a threat of a regress. And in some cases it may seem totally legitimate to ask that question, like when somebody identifies the good with some natural property like pleasure, or conduciveness to the survival of the species. This is the basis of G.E. Moore's 'Open Question' argument from Principia Ethica. But the hedonist, for instance, is just going to respond "There is no regress, the good is simply the pleasurable." Some stopping points may seem arbitrary (I think stopping with God is totally unsatisfactory). Some may seem reasonable (stopping with a well-worked out conception of a flourishing human life seems pretty good to me). Season to taste, and let the arguments win out.
Wouldn't (in the case of X being good) either scenario be dependent upon a further definition of 'good,' and thus an infinite regress?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis above quote from you is the issue. The first sentence I think can be accurately cast thus:
Whether or not an objective morality exists, what cannot be denied is that man has historically held himself to such a standard. If you wish to relegate morals to faith, you'll have a tough road to hoe with the atheists.
"Whether X exists, it cannot be denied that Y has historically held itself to X."
I think we can faithfully alter this to read:
"Whether or not X exists, Y believes in X." . . . . . . (1)
Do you agree with that alteration? I think it's logically equivalent. The other alternative, which removes conscious belief in X but retains observance of X through praxis, is:
"Whether or not X exists, Y practices X." . . . . . . . (2)
The problem is that "man" is made up of different cultures, and different cultures do indeed have different moral standards even regarding things as basic as whether it's acceptable to marry your cousin. The differences may be small most of the time, but they nonetheless exist and sometimes are not trivial. What I'm trying to say is that while it may be true that man has historically held himself to moral standards, the standards themselves are not fixed from one society (or culture) to another; indeed, they're not even fixed within the confines of a single society over a span of just two generations; and moreover, it's rare to find a moral value that 100% of a society's members share. Statement (2) is demonstrably false, then.
As for statement (1), well, maybe you believe (1) is true, but I hold that it is false. And notice that, even if (1) and (2) are both true, that still does not confirm the existence of X, our "objective morality". So, I stand by what I said earlier in summing up your argument. If you don't believe X exists, then you are taking the position of most "moral atheists," which is that morality is not absolute across the universe; but I doubt that's the case, because to not believe X means to not believe in the God of the Bible. You have professed a belief in God, and therefore you do believe in X.
Now we come full circle, back to your original post.
If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?
This is the squishiest of your questions. A moral value is an idea about what is deemed "right" in a given situation by the preponderance of individuals involved in that situation. Keeping the situation fixed, the moral value can vary in quality as the number and nature of individuals involved changes in quantity and quality. From a practical standpoint it must be a mode, not a median or a mean (since the latter two averaging concepts can only be applied to strictly numerical data). But the mode must be preponderant to be called a "moral value," rather than an "opinion" or "individual attitude." That is my definition, or at least, one that I can come up with in a few minutes. You could counter by next asking what is an idea, but I'm assuming you're not interested in going that way.
How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of objective moral values? Did the Big Bang really spew forth “love your enemy?”
This one is easy to answer, for me. As a "moral atheist" I do not believe in a set of objective moral values. So no, the Big Bang did not spew forth "eat your veggies" and "comb your hair," much less "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not do the horizontal mambo with wiener dogs". Since I do not believe in X, I do not need to explain how the Big Bang gave rise to X.
What makes your moral standard more than a subjective opinion or personal preference?
Not much, though it was inevitable that my moral standards should largely agree with the preponderance of individuals in the society I live in. I was raised by society, after all.
What makes it truly binding or obligatory?
Social ostracism up to and including incarceration. But we all have a choice, at least in theory.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen you ask “to whom or to what is the atheist attributing morals…”, I’m not sure what you mean. If you are asking where ethicists reach theoretical bedrock; where they stake out that foundation upon which their moral framework rests, and against which it is ultimately justified, the answer is that it depends on the ethicist. I can discuss some alternatives, but first a couple caveats:
I was agreeing that the theist has several compelling reasons to honor the morality which he sees as an expression of God's goodness--- even the religious one who is obeying strictly on the basis of avoiding punishment, or in warranting his admission to heaven. Clearly, I do not hold the religious position as legitimate, but in his mind, the legalistic pe ...[text shortened]... ith it). Besides wasting time, what are his results? Where is the good of intrinsic value?
First, not all ethicists are naturalists, and not all naturalists are materialists. If you think that atheistic ethicists must, at the end of the day, justify their views in the language of empirical psychology (or particle physics, for that matter), you’ve got a fight on your hands. Because that means you are importing some pretty significant assumptions about how explanations work (in essence, that the only explanations are causal in nature), and you are failing to extend to your opponents the same courtesy you take for granted. Your own view does not rest on descriptive claims about God. Your view rests upon a normative claim about God; namely that his character is good by definition, or the standard of goodness, or whatever. You take, in effect, one free normative premise. And, of course, every ethicist must do this, because there are no valid arguments that proceed from purely descriptive premises to normative conclusions. There is no getting to ‘ought’ claims from ‘is’ claims. This is what I was alluding to previously. The question is where does the theory bottom out; what’s that free normative premise? Some will seem intuitive, and help make sense of the content of our first-order moral judgments, and provide guidance that seems right. Some will seem bizarre, yield contradictions when conjoined with our other beliefs, or lead us in directions that seem wrong.
Second, make sure you ask yourself the same questions about motivation and meaning that you urge on the atheistic ethicist. And once you’ve done that, think about what your answers indicate for the person who is wondering whether and why they should be moral. Your legalistic theist may recommend following God’s law for fear of punishment otherwise. But what is he thereby doing? He is saying, ultimately, that the reason one should be moral is that it is in one’s self-interest. A less childish theist may recommend emulating God’s character because it allows one to fully, truly love, or that it is the best way to ensure the welfare of others. But then he is saying, ultimately, that the reason one should be moral is that it conduces to love, or to the welfare of others. Another theist may say, simply, that one should be good because it is good, and that it is a mistake to look for some sort of other rationale for being good. Some moral philosophers have taken this tack, arguing that it is ultimately a mistake to even try to justify morality from some standpoint outside of a moral framework. Maybe these reasons will be convincing, and maybe they won’t. Someone may simply say “I don’t care about any of that” (just like one may say “I see no reason to believe in God&rdquo😉, and then what will you say? You may think it unfortunate, or you may try to keep giving reasons, or you may simply not invite the poor skeptic/knave to your parties. But there is no guarantee that you’ll be able to convince even a sincere inquirer, because these reasons will only effectively motivate if they can hook onto reasons that already motivate that inquirer. An inquirer who thinks that morality is a game, or that normativity has no place in the world, is ontologically queer or spooky (a deeper and more recalcitrant form of skepticism), may very well remain unmoved whatever reasons are given. And if that is not damning for your theory, then neither is it damning for the atheistic ethicist’s.
So, I can briefly describe some traditionally influential views, each of which attempts to ground morality in objective, though normative, facts about us. But remember the first caveat above. That each of these views ends up based on one or more normative premises is no more problematic than that your view is similarly based. These views are objective in the following sense: For each of the following views, facts about morality are not, ultimately, facts about what people happen to believe. Moral facts are not simply matters of individual opinion. They are not subjective in that sense. They are, however, based on facts about us as social creatures, as rational creatures, as creatures subject to certain ills, as creatures whose lives can go better or worse. These are objective facts about us, but, again, these are also normative facts. These are not the facts of physics, which are objective and also descriptive. In short, these views are based on objective ‘ought’ facts, not objective ‘is’ facts.
1)The Neo-Aristotelian option
2)The Neo-Kantian option
3)The Indirect Consequentialist option
4)The Contractualist option
But if you already find the set-up here objectionable or problematic, then that’s something I want to know. So?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't see why it's problematic. The same issues arise in epistemology, when we're confronted with what we ought to believe, or what is reasonable to believe, or the conditions under which we're justified in inferring something or other. And since you can't get to a description of the world without engaging in epistemology; an irreducibly normative enterprise, we're all in the same boat. Of course, I would love somebody to take issue with this, and attempt to argue for a different conclusion. I would love to ask that person whether he sincerely thought I should accept his conclusion...
Which is not to say it's not problematic, just no more than his own.
Quine wanted to naturalize epistemology. He failed. We are creatures that believe and act for reasons, and reasons are things that stand in favor, recommend, make reasonable or justify. You jettison the normative at the risk internal and external paralysis.