Spirituality FAQ

Originally posted by Suzianne
But atheists here call God a 'monster' for doing so.

Oh dear. I can't believe you said this.

No atheist (as far as I am aware) on this forum has called (the Christian) God a monster simply for enforcing a moral code.

If, hypothetically, God's moral code (as evidenced in the Bible) was perfect, and perfectly enforced, then no-one could have any grounds for calling God a monster.

Some might still argue about whether God has a right to stand in judgement of everyone on a moral code that they have no say in, complain about the lack of due process etc, but if they couldn't find any flaw in it, that would essentially be a moot point.

However, a God which condemns anyone to an eternity in hell simply for not believing him (whilst simultaneously failing to provide any evidence for his existence), a God which orders the execution of someone simply for being gay, collecting sticks on a Sabbath etc, a God who orders the execution of babies in a revenge attack is manifestly not enforcing a moral code worthy of the name in a fair way.

That is why we can call a God (as evidenced in the Bible) a 'monster', because these are the kind of things 'monsters' do. And, if they were not done by God in the Bible, every Christian on earth would think these acts were monstrous too.

So it's not about enforcing a moral code, it's about what morals and how.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Oh dear. I can't believe you said this.

No atheist (as far as I am aware) on this forum has called (the Christian) God a monster simply for enforcing a moral code.

If, hypothetically, God's moral code (as evidenced in the Bible) was perfect, and perfectly enforced, then no-one could have any grounds for calling God a monster.

Some might still ...[text shortened]... were monstrous too.

So it's not about enforcing a moral code, it's about what morals and how.

We also tend to call God a monster due to his propensity for mass killing, i.e. Noah's Flood, Israel's conquest of Caanan (which he ordered and aided), and the frequent times he got disgusted with his own people and offed several thousand of them because one of them screwed up. But you're right: his worst atrocity is hell.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, LJ, I do not have an actual argument which purports that thing you just said.

I'm asking the folks why they think morality is something that is needed at all: what does morality advance or keep at bay?

No, what you asked the folks here was:

Q: If there is no God, how is it that morality is needed at all?

But, we have no reasons in the first place to think that the subject of God's existence has anything much to do with the practical necessity of morality (let alone that the practical necessity of morality hinges completely on this subject). So, I think this question does not merit any sort of response; excepting if you were able to present some considered argument that purports to show that in the absence of God the practical necessity of morality somehow dissolves. Alas, you admittedly have none.

As to the practical necessity of morality (sans any unrelated baggage regarding God-talk), there is a sense in which your question is a very good one. The question could be prefaced as follows (some of this text is my work from an earlier thread I participated in**). You could imagine two different groups of people. In group A, you have persons who display certain prosocial behaviors because they are simply naturally disposed as such; they simply have strong desire to behave as such or they are just emotionally inclined to behave as such (whatever exactly that would mean, but which nevertheless wouldn't seem to require moralized thinking, so suppose people in A don't think morally at all). In group B, you have persons who display the same certain social behaviors through a regulating mechanism that tends to encourage such behaviors, such as the propensity to engage in moralized thinking through a moral faculty. We, of course, seem to largely resemble B --not A -- in our deeply infixed propensity to think in moral terms. But, in both cases, you would get the same prosocial and helping behaviors. So, is morality "necessary" in the sense you mean? No it is not. Why then do we have the moral faculty? Well, the reason has nothing to do with the subject of God 🙄. It's because we evolved that way. If you want to understand why, then I would recommend reading Richard Joyce's The Evolution of Morality. I think it is a great read and it is directly relevant to your question. Seriously, check it out...I highly recommend it.

-------
**Thread 115690, page 12.

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, what you asked the folks here was:

Q: If there is no God, how is it that morality is needed at all?

But, we have no reasons in the first place to think that the subject of God's existence has anything much to do with the practical necessity of morality (let alone that the practical necessity of morality hinges completely on this s ...[text shortened]... ously, check it out...I highly recommend it.

-------
**Thread 115690, page 12.

The quote is accurate, however: I was merely using the form provided by the person to whom I was responding, not necessarily forming that specific question. In other words, I could have asked the question in a much better, more precise manner. The essence of my question is as follows.

Assuming God does not exist (and therefore, the most likely position tends toward moral nihilism, as Joyce depicts himself), why is morality an issue at all? Not how did it come to be, but why does it exist, or why is it necessary.

We can launch into all kinds of supposed and alleged evolutionary advantages, but none of them are without a buttload of exceptions and caveats. The real issue is why--- if man is genetically inclined to think about morality--- would overt morality be a requirement?

Morality addresses acceptable and unacceptable behavior simply because there is a need to do so. There is something more prevalent than morality which makes it a requirement.

We don't tend toward destruction; we lean toward self-preservation. Yet there are no required addendum to human nature which address self-preservation. It simply is, and it works rather well.

Yet with morality we are essentially saying 'I see the benefits of existing with others in a cooperative and symbiotic way... but I can be a real sonofabitch, so I better come up with something to keep me in check.'

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The quote is accurate, however: I was merely using the form provided by the person to whom I was responding, not necessarily forming that specific question. In other words, I could have asked the question in a much better, more precise manner. The essence of my question is as follows.

Assuming God does not exist (and therefore, the most likely positio ...[text shortened]... way... but I can be a real sonofabitch, so I better come up with something to keep me in check.'

Assuming God does not exist (and therefore, the most likely position tends toward moral nihilism, as Joyce depicts himself), why is morality an issue at all?

Ah, so this is you're question...sorry I bothered, then. This one is clearly not worth a response. The other one I outlined is interesting, though.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Assuming God does not exist (and therefore, the most likely position tends toward moral nihilism, as Joyce depicts himself), why is morality an issue at all?

Ah, so this is you're question...sorry I bothered, then. This one is clearly not worth a response. The other one I outlined is interesting, though.

Not worth a response because

• you don't understand it?
• you don't have an answer to it?
• you don't like what the answer implies?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not worth a response because

• you don't understand it?
• you don't have an answer to it?
• you don't like what the answer implies?

Because in asking/clarifying the question, the questioner exudes such deep confusion as to make it obvious to the listener that entering into the conversation would prove pointless or painful. Sort of like going down on a girl...if you can smell it before you even reach the navel, then best to march right back on up from whence you came. Similarly, your question as you clarified it clearly ain't worth my time....

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sort of like going down on a girl...if you can smell it before you even reach the navel, then best to march right back on up from whence you came.

Maybe you just did a good job upstairs. 😛

Originally posted by LemonJello
Because in asking/clarifying the question, the questioner exudes such deep confusion as to make it obvious to the listener that entering into the conversation would prove pointless or painful. Sort of like going down on a girl...if you can smell it before you even reach the navel, then best to march right back on up from whence you came. Similarly, your question as you clarified it clearly ain't worth my time....

My preference is for women, but you do what you think is best.

That being said, I must be even more confused than even you have described, since I cannot detect a single statement which would give anyone the impression of said confusion.

The question couldn't be any more straightforward, really. If man has an inherent sense of morality from within--- and societal morality is specifically intended to direct behavior--- why is the overt necessary at all?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
My preference is for women, but you do what you think is best.

That being said, I must be even more confused than even you have described, since I cannot detect a single statement which would give anyone the impression of said confusion.

The question couldn't be any more straightforward, really. If man has an inherent sense of morality from within-- ...[text shortened]... ietal morality is specifically intended to direct behavior--- why is the overt necessary at all?

If man has an inherent sense of morality from within--- and societal morality is specifically intended to direct behavior--- why is the overt necessary at all?

Exactly how is this a restatement of your earlier question? Your earlier question was the following:

Assuming God does not exist (and therefore, the most likely position tends toward moral nihilism, as Joyce depicts himself), why is morality an issue at all?

How are these two the same questions? Do you even know what you are asking? Perhaps you want to step back and figure out what, exactly, you intend to ask and argue, etc.

This new question of yours signals (somewhat) less confusion than the earlier one. There are a number of very obvious responses. One is that even things that are deeply evolutionarily infixed within a population will of course not be manifested equally everywhere globally throughout the population. Such things often take on some Bell-curve-like
distribution. So, even if it makes sense to say that in general "man has an inherent sense of morality", that is not to say that you will not still have your fill of sociopaths. Second, another very obvious response is that even if one has an inherent sense of morality, that doesn't mean one always follows the deliverances of one's conscience or better common sense. Moreover, you can surely expect some manner of healthy paranoia that others will fail to follow their consciences, given one's knowledge that he himself is at liberty to fail in this regard. Another obvious point here is that you seem a bit confused on how this all works: you act like there is some endogenous, inherent moral faculty and that on top of this humans feel the "need" to impose further intentional exogenous constraints. No, it is all endogenous. This confusion is common: god botherers are constantly pretending like morality is something exogenously imposed on us (through some revelation of extra-human origin or whatnot), whereas they fail to see that these are all just endogenous features of shifting anthropologic climate. (SwissGambit had a nice thread recently that discussed this very confusion through discussion of the Bible's versatility.)

Oops...

Originally posted by LemonJello

If man has an inherent sense of morality from within--- and societal morality is specifically intended to direct behavior--- why is the overt necessary at all?

Exactly how is this a restatement of your earlier question? Your earlier question was the following:

[quote]Assuming God does not exist (and therefore, the most likely positio ...[text shortened]... read recently that discussed this very confusion through discussion of the Bible's versatility.)

Given that sociopaths are such an exceedingly small sub-set of people in general, and given that violent sociopaths constitute an even smaller sub-set, you cannot seriously be suggesting that the codes of conduct applied by all groups of people are initiated for the sake of these people.

I do not subscribe to the idea that we must be pressed into moral behavior exclusively, so no such confusion exists.

I believe that man has an inherent understanding that he shouldn't treat others poorly, since he wouldn't want to be treated poorly.

But I also believe that overt morality is required on the basis of man's oft-repeated failure to constrain himself. Even that overt morality is ineffectual for the highly motivated person, however. We don't build fences on the basis of their appearance alone: they are reminders that we are flawed moral beings.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Oops...

Indeed.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Given that sociopaths are such an exceedingly small sub-set of people in general, and given that violent sociopaths constitute an even smaller sub-set, you cannot seriously be suggesting that the codes of conduct applied by all groups of people are initiated for the sake of these people.

I do not subscribe to the idea that we must be pressed into ...[text shortened]... nces on the basis of their appearance alone: they are reminders that we are flawed moral beings.

you cannot seriously be suggesting that the codes of conduct applied by all groups of people are initiated for the sake of these people.

Did I suggest that? Oh that's right: no. In fact, I already made it explicitly clear that I think the "codes of conduct" you are talking about (in the vein of descriptive ethics or, basically, anthropology) are not intentionally "initiated" in any substantial way. They all arise endogenously. This continues to be the obvious source of your confusion.

Again, if you want to learn more in these areas, I would look to some literature, like the Joyce book. (Contrary to what you implied, he doesn't promote your ridiculous claim that God's nonexistence points to nihilism -- only someone who has no education with secular ethics would make such a daft claim. Joyce is a moral fictionalist of some sort, but that has pretty much nothing to do with the book I mentioned or any of his main theses or arguments thereof; and has nothing to do with the topic at issue.)

Q: Do people choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians?

A: Yes. Human Volition won't be denied (by place of birth, social or economic status).