Answering the God is Evil argument

[Htom Sirveaux]

I like nihilism's starkly (if unintentionally) cynical perspective. There's a whole lot of what we make to be important issues out there that, in the grand scheme of things, really don't count for squat. Where it goes wrong (besides the denial of God's existence) is in taking a valid point to a ridiculous extreme. What started as a good idea becomes a life of careless apathy and self-indulgence.

I put it to you that there is a form of nihilism done right: The belief that nothing matters but God. Where do we find this philosophy put into action? The Amish. The Amish are Christian nihilists.

Pfft, and I've been called a nihilist for not getting into pointless relationships.

Buh?:eyebrow:

[ShiroiHikari]

I put it to you that there is a form of nihilism done right: The belief that nothing matters but God. Where do we find this philosophy put into action? The Amish. The Amish are Christian nihilists.

I don't agree with this but I am not eloquent enough to adequately explain why.

[Htom Sirveaux]

Well, maybe I'm oversimplifying the Amish ideals (though I do have in mind their strong work ethic). My point is, they have a lot less distractions than we do.

[Cognitive Gear]

This thread is fairly confusing for me. I've yet to have met an atheist who ever claimed that morals were not societal, evolutionary, and subjective. (Outside of Buddhists, who have other things to base morality on.) As such, I'm not sure what the discussion is getting at. This argument isn't going to convince an educated atheist, and it's certainly not going to change hearts.

To many atheists, morality is an important survival trait of mankind (and even of animals). Without it, mankind, and possibly all complex life on earth, would not survive. This is unacceptable, because we are living things. Each one of us is lucky to have even existed, so we should all make the best of it. Morality helps to facilitate that survival.

Essentially, atheists (and I would be prone to agree) would argue that you don't need the threat of eternal or divine punishment to make morality important. That's basically it in a nutshell.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

I put it to you that there is a form of nihilism done right: The belief that nothing matters but God. Where do we find this philosophy put into action? The Amish. The Amish are Christian nihilists.

A friendly corrective:

The term "Christian nihilist" is essentially a logical contradiction. The Christian God imbues life, the world and the universe with layer upon layer of rich, non-relative meaning/significance. Nihilism is just the denial that any such inherent meaning exists for life, events, the universe, etc. Basically, the nihilist thesis is a lot stronger than, "I don't care about anything." It's more like: "Even if I wanted my life/the world to have meaning, it doesn't regardless of how anyone feels about it. Period."

Now, as we have alluded to on this thread, there are those who hold "no inherent meaning" as a trusim and go about creating their own meaning within the blank, valueless slate that is the world. However, this is not the same thing as life/the universe essentially possessing meaning, having significance at the very core of what it is. Rather, we put it on things from without, or so the existentialist/nihilist would claim.

[Davidizer13]

Well, maybe I'm oversimplifying the Amish ideals (though I do have in mind their strong work ethic). My point is, they have a lot less distractions than we do.

I'd agree with you that they live a simpler life; maybe a better word than nihilism for that lifestyle would be minimalism, or even a form of hermeticism? Nihilism implies that absolutely nothing has meaning, but the Amish center their lives around God and their community, so they do have this core system that they value.

[Shao Feng-Li]

I like nihilism's starkly (if unintentionally) cynical perspective. There's a whole lot of what we make to be important issues out there that, in the grand scheme of things, really don't count for squat. Where it goes wrong (besides the denial of God's existence) is in taking a valid point to a ridiculous extreme. What started as a good idea becomes a life of careless apathy and self-indulgence.

I put it to you that there is a form of nihilism done right: The belief that nothing matters but God. Where do we find this philosophy put into action? The Amish. The Amish are Christian nihilists.



Buh?:eyebrow:

Oh one of my coworkers asked why I don't have a boyfriend. I d there wasn't much of a point in having one. He seriously asked if I was a nihilist XD anyway... with the discussion here I realized how stupid his question was.

[Nate]

This thread is fairly confusing for me. I've yet to have met an atheist who ever claimed that morals were not societal, evolutionary, and subjective.

This, also, is true. In fact, in reading Dawkins' work, you will see that he, like many others, have said that morality evolved along with human conscience.

To many atheists, morality is an important survival trait of mankind (and even of animals). Without it, mankind, and possibly all complex life on earth, would not survive. This is unacceptable, because we are living things. Each one of us is lucky to have even existed, so we should all make the best of it. Morality helps to facilitate that survival.

Yep, this is why I brought up the point that a single ant wouldn't last very long, but when they come together as a colony, their survivability is greater. Chimpanzees have been noted to be able to experience shame if they "misbehave." You know the saying "No man is an island?" That's the whole point, is that teamwork, society, helps to ensure survivability.

Essentially, atheists (and I would be prone to agree) would argue that you don't need the threat of eternal or divine punishment to make morality important. That's basically it in a nutshell.

This also. I find it interesting to note that if you tell an atheist there's no objective morality, they'll go "So?" The response to this is "But then you can do anything you want!" An atheist will respond "Maybe, but I have empathy for my fellow human beings and can extend respect to them."

I'm not sure why Christians make this argument. Are we saying if it isn't for Christianity, we'd all be psychopaths incapable of empathy? Why are atheists seemingly capable of it without religion, but we're not? That's a frightening thought that all Christians would become amoral serial killers and rapists if we didn't have religion.

"Live life to the fullest." Still, I ask you, "Why?"

Because it's there.

Those famous words were spoken by British climber George Mallory in 1924 when he was asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest.

Would human knowledge be increased if he climbed it? Would he find gold at the top? Would he become rich? Would he get famous? Would he discover a cure for disease?

Nope. So why did he climb the mountain?

Because it's there.

An atheist seeks to give his/her own life meaning because they exist. The existence justifies itself. If you think life is meaningless without religion, that is sad because you can't see the inherent wonder and beauty in life existing solely for its own sake. You'll never look at a tree and say "I think I'll climb that tree...just because it's there." Not because God commanded you to climb that tree. Not because you feel "God is calling me to climb that tree." Not because you feel "God gave me a gift of climbing trees and I am using that gift." You are climbing it because you, of your own free will, without any external influence, want to. And because you feel that nothing will happen if you climb that tree. Maybe you'll even fall out and get hurt. But still, you want to climb it. Just because it exists, and you exist.

I really don't see how the argument "Life is meaningless without God!" works. The only way it works is if you assume that there HAS to be an objective meaning to existing. If you assume that, then yes, perhaps life is meaningless without God. But you are making an assumption you cannot prove. Prove that there is an objective meaning to life first, then you can use that to prove God exists.

I balk at the suggestion that this life is meaningless to the Christian. It is this life into which we are born, in which we grow, physically, mentally, spiritually. It is this life which nurtures who we are and we choose to be. Accountability and personal choice, which Christianity holds so close, so crucial, can only be realized in a world such as this. Calling this world meaningless simply because there is another one cheapens the importance of transition.

Without getting too deep in theology, I don't buy this because of one important thing: children who die at young ages, including infants. Though we cannot ever know in this life what happens to these children (the Bible doesn't say), we like to assume that they go to Heaven automatically. I think this is probably true, though again, I can't prove it. So then, what about the child who is stillborn? They never lived in the first place, but they will experience eternal life in Heaven. They in fact will receive the same reward we do, who live on this earth and suffer and hurt. They just get to it sooner.

I'm not trying to say "Oh it'd be better if I was never born!" or anything like that. What I'm saying is, you say "Who can walk without first crawling?" but if we assume children get an automatic ticket into Heaven without ever having really lived, it is pretty clear that this life IS particularly meaningless, does it not? I mean sure, we have experiences and joy and all that stuff, but will we even remember that when we go to Heaven? I've never been, so I don't know what we'll remember or even IF we will. Will we even care, being in God's fully glory for eternity? Will we even want to remember? What does it matter? Mortal life is, truly, meaningless for the Christian, only our eternal life is important. That's why you see those signs that are all "Eternity is long, don't be wrong!" Our life is so meaningless that it merely serves as a true/false question on God's test.

This raises the peculiarity as to why humans are aware of our condition when other animals are not - as under atheism man is just another animal, fortunate in his heightened, adaptable intelligence. Furthermore, from where does the drive to exist come from? What is the origin point of the desire to remain alive in a random system?

I'm not a biologist, so I can't say. However, I'm sure there are many biologists who have written books on evolutionary theory on self-awareness, so you might want to start there as to answers to those questions, since I'm not educated in that area. You can even ask biology professors you know in real life these questions.

As I've stated already, however glorious or inglorious you think mere survival is on any level, instinctual or acknowledged, that still doesn't instill it with any value in purposeless universe. You have to remove your ego from the equation to think about these things.

Why do I have to remove my ego? You haven't proven that no God existing (or indeed, even no objective meaning existing) makes life valueless. You're assuming your premise is already true without proving it. You can't do that. It's like if I said "Plants are obviously not alive because all living things can produce sounds." I'm assuming my premise (all living things can produce sounds) is true without proving it. I'm merely using it to further assert that under my premise, trees cannot possibly be living things. And if I assume my premise is true without proof, then what I said is logically correct. But if my premise is WRONG, then it undermines my whole statement.

You say we should extend that respect to others.

Why?

Because I'm not a psychopath who is incapable of empathy for other living things and requires an invisible man up in the sky to keep me from becoming an antisocial monster.

Again, Dawkins has written about the evolution of empathy, so you can read that if you'd like more information about how empathy works.

In a universe without purpose, yes (doing anything is meaningless).

Again, only if you assume an OBJECTIVE purpose, which I already stated the problem with assuming your premise is true without having proven it. If the universe has a SUBJECTIVE purpose, then no, doing things is not meaningless.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

I'm not sure why Christians make this argument. Are we saying if it isn't for Christianity, we'd all be psychopaths incapable of empathy? Why are atheists seemingly capable of it without religion, but we're not? That's a frightening thought that all Christians would become amoral serial killers and rapists if we didn't have religion.

There are a lot of intriguing points to respond to that I simply don't have time to do at the moment. But I want to address the above.

The "life w/o God is absurd/meaningless" argument does not claim that w/o God we all would definitely be psychopaths incapable of empathy but that there is no logical reason to either be or not be a psychopath without empathy. Certainly one could choose to be a morally good, empathetic person, but that would be a mere preference based on certain biases rather than something all people ought to aspire to be (that notion requires moral objectivity). According to the argument, the atheist can certainly recognize meaning in the universe and the objective, intrinsic value of other human beings, but he fails to recognize that the only source for the kind of value he believes in is God (unless he just disregards the notion of intrinsic value altogether...which has scary consequences for morality).

Anywho, I'm sure others will argue more eloquently and thoroughly and also pick up on different points later on.

[Nate]

the atheist can certainly recognize meaning in the universe and the objective, intrinsic value of other human beings, but he fails to recognize that the only source for the kind of value he believes in is God

That isn't true at all, as I said before, since human beings are capable of empathy, empathy of course being an evolutionary consequence of "strength in numbers."

Besides, you haven't proven yet that the source of morality or value is attributable only to God, which again, is a requirement...indeed, you haven't even proven that a single "correct" morality even exists. You are merely assuming "Since there is objective morality, that means it has to come from somewhere, therefore God." You haven't proven objective morality exists. If it doesn't, there's no need for God.

[Wind]

Question? When does Rape become socially acceptable... If it is... Doesn't that mean that the society which finds it acceptable is becoming morally bankrupt??

[Htom Sirveaux]

A friendly corrective:

The term "Christian nihilist" is essentially a logical contradiction . . .

Yeah, that was kinda the point. Razzing the nihilistic extreme by comparing it to another extreme that it ordinarily wouldn't go anywhere near. I get what you're saying, though.

[Fish and Chips]

I can't help but feel you're misunderstanding the purpose of my posts, Nate. You are correct in that I have yet to offer any proof towards establishing an objective order or meaning to the universe, because that's not what I'm writing about. What this is is a series of If Then statements along a logical string of thought. Simply put:

1. If there is innate value, then there must be an objective standard to determine it by.
2. If you acknowledge an objective standard, then you acknowledge innate value.
3. If you deny an objective standard, then you deny innate value.
4. If this universe is random, then this universe is relative.
5. If this universe is relative, then it cannot be objective.
6. If there is no objectivity, then everything is subjective.
7. If everything is subjective, then any universal application of value is completely pointless.

I cannot argue empirically whether or not there is or isn't meaning in the universe, nor have I tried to. The only thing I have done is draw attention to the ultimate triviality of a universe without meaning. It is up to you whether you accept purpose in the universe, but if you deny it I expect you to do the logically consistent thing and follow through to the "Rational" outcome, especially considering how many atheists I've met who consider themselves rational.

Which, interestingly enough, perfectly justifies this as a motivation:

Because it's there.

But vindicates absolutely nothing else.

I really don't see how the argument "Life is meaningless without God!" works. The only way it works is if you assume that there HAS to be an objective meaning to existing. If you assume that, then yes, perhaps life is meaningless without God. But you are making an assumption you cannot prove. Prove that there is an objective meaning to life first, then you can use that to prove God exists.

*Snip.*

You haven't proven that no God existing (or indeed, even no objective meaning existing) makes life valueless. You're assuming your premise is already true without proving it. You can't do that. It's like if I said "Plants are obviously not alive because all living things can produce sounds." I'm assuming my premise (all living things can produce sounds) is true without proving it. I'm merely using it to further assert that under my premise, trees cannot possibly be living things. And if I assume my premise is true without proof, then what I said is logically correct. But if my premise is WRONG, then it undermines my whole statement.

You're putting words in my mouth.

I have never mentioned God or gods in this thread outside of this single sentence.

The argument you should be addressing is my belief that subjective meaning is manufactured and insubstantial.

Without getting too deep in theology, I don't buy this because of one important thing: children who die at young ages, including infants. Though we cannot ever know in this life what happens to these children (the Bible doesn't say), we like to assume that they go to Heaven automatically. I think this is probably true, though again, I can't prove it. So then, what about the child who is stillborn? They never lived in the first place, but they will experience eternal life in Heaven. They in fact will receive the same reward we do, who live on this earth and suffer and hurt. They just get to it sooner.

I'm not trying to say "Oh it'd be better if I was never born!" or anything like that. What I'm saying is, you say "Who can walk without first crawling?" but if we assume children get an automatic ticket into Heaven without ever having really lived, it is pretty clear that this life IS particularly meaningless, does it not? I mean sure, we have experiences and joy and all that stuff, but will we even remember that when we go to Heaven? I've never been, so I don't know what we'll remember or even IF we will. Will we even care, being in God's fully glory for eternity? Will we even want to remember? What does it matter? Mortal life is, truly, meaningless for the Christian, only our eternal life is important. That's why you see those signs that are all "Eternity is long, don't be wrong!" Our life is so meaningless that it merely serves as a true/false question on God's test.

I knew you'd comment on this. Unfortunately, it leaves our discussion at a dead end, since the Bible remains largely silent on the subject of child mortality. There is too large a gap here for either of us to assume anything.

That said, however, I disagree that it renders life meaningless to the Christian. The chance itself is still meaningful, even should we lose sight of it. However, it is only meaningful if there is an established meaning behind it.

Because I'm not a psychopath who is incapable of empathy for other living things and requires an invisible man up in the sky to keep me from becoming an antisocial monster.

Nate doesn't always completely miss the entire point, but when he does, he does it all the way.

[Peanut]

That isn't true at all, as I said before, since human beings are capable of empathy, empathy of course being an evolutionary consequence of "strength in numbers."

Besides, you haven't proven yet that the source of morality or value is attributable only to God, which again, is a requirement...indeed, you haven't even proven that a single "correct" morality even exists. You are merely assuming "Since there is objective morality, that means it has to come from somewhere, therefore God." You haven't proven objective morality exists. If it doesn't, there's no need for God.

To your first point, you have actually just asserted the foundation for Utilitarian ethics, granted with an evolutionary bent, but still, morality in what you just posited is based on the majority. This fails as a morality system since the minority gets the shaft. Hot Fuzz actually is a very good critique of this system.

Your second point doesn't really undermine what I was arguing. In fact, it seems like you missed the point. The argument is positing another system of ethics and meaning, namely egoism. Morality and meaning can come from the self and be consistent. It just can't be extended to any other individual. The argument is really giving the atheist a choice, they can either embrace Nihilistic thought (in which case they can live how they want, including living a moral life as long as you don't force it on others) or they can recognize that something (not necessarily God, but some sort of higher power which is like God) is the source of meaning and value. The problem is, there are a good number of atheists who live with a moral system taken from religion/theism and try and advance it as an overarching theory of ethics that everyone is under.

To use an example from a atheistic thinker I actually like, Bertrand Russell has this to say about the good life:

The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.

I think everyone, with some thought, would probably agree that, by itself, this is a very good and true statement. I find nothing wrong with it and would actually argue that it's Biblical. However, coming from Russell, there is a glaring problem. Namely, what is love (don't make that joke...)? Knowledge can be defined pretty easily however there are millions of definitions for love ranging from a choice to a reaction to pheromones. Russell doesn't really define it (though, admittedly, I haven't read all of his work so he might of elsewhere) instead writing as if the reader understands what it is. But, as I've just pointed out, there are many definitions for what love is and many of them are pretty good and probably have some truth to them. You also have people who have very twisted definitions of love that are almost obsessive. You can't argue that because the majority disagrees with them they are wrong because I can find plenty of examples where the majority has disagreed with a minority about a specific ethical issue and been wrong (Nazi Germany and, depending on your beliefs, the historical stance on homosexuality in certain areas comes to mind). The definition for love has to come from another source that is unchanging and consistent. The answer from Christianity is God because one of the moral characteristics of God is love. It's part of who he is and, by because of the Imagio Dei, part of who we are. If you push that other religions have something like this (or might have something like this) explanation as well, then I'll tell you that that misses the point. The point is, atheism (which is the only thought system I would use this argument against) does not have a good answer for what "Love," "good," or any other similar word, is. They just assume you know what it is and go from there.

Question? When does Rape become socially acceptable... If it is... Doesn't that mean that the society which finds it acceptable is becoming morally bankrupt??

Since I used that example I'll make a stab at these questions. Hopefully it will clear somethings up and make people realize that I am not pushing for any society to embrace rape as a socially acceptable thing. I used rape as an example because it was the easiest, accepted immoral act to counter what Nate was advocating as the devil's advocate. In what Nate was advocating, morality was a result of the naturalistic evolution of our species including the very societies we live in. Morality gets lumped in with this because it tells us how a society should be run. However, in this system, morality does change and therefore, saying rape is immoral is really inaccurate. The more accurate statement is rape is immoral in this location at this time. To put it in more technical terms, morality is relative, therefore rape is not always immoral and a society which embraces it has not slipped morally. The example I used was Ancient Sparta however, I could have changed rape into murder and used Nazi Germany or any modern country using genocide as an example. What I've been getting at is that without an unchanging source of morality (like God) you cannot say that anything "moral" is just a matter of opinion (like your favorite color) or (if we want to go the Biological determinist route which I've avoided until now) the result of biochemical pathways in your brain in which case morality doesn't really exist. Hope that cleared things up for anyone who thought I was calling for serial rape in our societies.

[Atria35]

Question? When does Rape become socially acceptable... If it is... Doesn't that mean that the society which finds it acceptable is becoming morally bankrupt??

There's no hard numbers or anything that can say for sure when something is or isn't socially acceptable. You can only go by whether the majority of people think it's normal.

And whether that society has become morally bankrupt depends. If you're in that society, then you probably won't think you're morally bankrupt- after all, it would be normal. If you're outside of it, then you might, since it would not be normal for you.

We've mostly moved away from rape being socially acceptable- after all, the Spartans lost out before Christ was born. Rape was outlawed within marriage about 50 years ago. Rape being a part of war.... well, that still happens. But it's not looked upon favorably, unlike it would have been four or three hundred years ago in Western society.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

You haven't proven this...or that...or the other thing

Indeed. I was not attempting to establish anything. I was responding to this:

I really don't see how the argument "Life is meaningless without God!" works.

I was merely trying to give a sketch of the argument as it is generally given in Christian analytic philosophy. Proving each and every facet of the argument would take far more time and energy than I have. Go to William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga's websites. They > me.

[Nate]

You are correct in that I have yet to offer any proof towards establishing an objective order or meaning to the universe, because that's not what I'm writing about.

I thought the argument was that without God life is meaningless.

That kind of requires you to prove that life has an objective meaning. If you're just going to assume your premise is automatically true, you're not going to convince anyone who disagrees with your premise, making whatever you were writing about pointless.

That's why I made my plant statement. I could easily respond, "I'm not writing about how things have to produce sounds to be alive, I'm just saying plants aren't alive because of it." You're writing about the wrong thing. First you have to convince an atheist that there is an objective meaning to life.

1. If there is innate value, then there must be an objective standard to determine it by.

Your argument falls apart at the very first point. Why must there be an objective standard to determine innate value? You're assuming that there is and going from there. You haven't proved that innate value requires an objective standard. Without that, every other point you made ceases to be a compelling argument because you're just going off an unproven premise. That's not going to convince anyone. This is why I said Christians are excellent at making themselves feel good, but the worst at being able to logically argue with atheists. Because we accept things as true that aren't proven true (faith).

The only thing I have done is draw attention to the ultimate triviality of a universe without meaning.

Without objective meaning, you mean. You have yet to make a compelling argument for how the universe can be trivial if it has a subjective meaning.

It is up to you whether you accept purpose in the universe, but if you deny it I expect you to do the logically consistent thing and follow through to the "Rational" outcome, especially considering how many atheists I've met who consider themselves rational.

Your rational outcome isn't rational at all though, any more than most of the faulty logic puzzles I like to make, like things like "Girls say I am a great guy. If I am a great guy, they would want to date me. However, since I have no girlfriend, they are lying when they say I'm a great guy."

That SEEMS logical but it leaves out all sorts of nuances and therefore isn't a very logical or rational conclusion, despite how it appears.

To your first point, you have actually just asserted the foundation for Utilitarian ethics, granted with an evolutionary bent, but still, morality in what you just posited is based on the majority. This fails as a morality system since the minority gets the shaft.

Except that empathy with fellow human beings ensures you don't.

The problem with assuming that everyone will be an evil jerk under subjective morality is that it doesn't work. The only reason it works under objective morality is because you can assume God exists and that we're sinful. If morality is subjective, then that falls apart. Empathy for the minority and saying "Hey, we should treat these people better" can work in such a system. If you assume objective morality, you can say "But they probably wouldn't because why should they?" But again, you're assuming an unproven premise, which gets you nowhere.

Morality and meaning can come from the self and be consistent. It just can't be extended to any other individual. The argument is really giving the atheist a choice, they can either embrace Nihilistic thought (in which case they can live how they want, including living a moral life as long as you don't force it on others) or they can recognize that something (not necessarily God, but some sort of higher power which is like God) is the source of meaning and value.

Again, not necessarily. Morality and meaning can come from "Treat others with the respect you wish to be treated." You may ask "Why?" and the answer is "Empathy, because empathy means we're not sociopaths." This is why it would be wrong, for example, to steal or murder or rape, because it would be causing harm to people, and you wouldn't want them to harm you in the same way. If a person is harming people, then it's best to exclude them from society (jail/execution).

Again, it would come from the development of the necessity of a functional society to increase survivability.

The problem is, there are a good number of atheists who live with a moral system taken from religion/theism and try and advance it as an overarching theory of ethics that everyone is under.

I don't see this. Most atheists live under a theory of ethics that says "Hey, don't hurt other people." This would eliminate murder, rape, and theft. There's a lot of things we consider bad that would be permissible under that theory, but that's beside the point, as even religion has had lapses in judgment on certain topics...American slavery, for example, which held that since blacks weren't REALLY human beings, that we weren't required to treat them as our fellow (white) men.

And that happened even WITH objective morality!

The problem here is assuming everyone will (or should) act like mass murderers/rapists if there is no objective morality. This isn't true, and isn't even a "logical" or "rational" consequence, any more than "Hey, one time a person survived falling thousands of feet so logically that means I will too." Again, human beings are capable of empathy. Those that aren't are usually mentally ill somehow, and again, would (under societal norms) be excluded or punished for not conforming to society.

The problem is that most of the proponents of "objective morality" can't fail to understand how empathy works, I think. Either they have none, or think it only works if there is an objective morality (which has to be proven first). They can't grasp that people can and would be nice to each other and pleasant even without a source of objective morality. It's kind of like the old hypothetical situation, if murder was made legal tomorrow. Most people in our society would not suddenly become mass murderers. Most people would still treat each other nicely and with respect. There would be a few imbalanced people who would embrace it, but they would be a minority, and would probably be swiftly taken out by vigilantes (this happens even with murder being illegal sometimes).

This is why Christians can't logically convince atheists of a need for God. You assume objective morality HAS to exist; they don't. Christians will argue that being a horrific demon is the consequence of not having objective morality; they don't accept that. Likewise, the atheist will argue subjective morality works; you don't. Atheists will argue that you can still have empathy and treat your fellow man with mutual respect even with subjective morality; you don't accept that.

This is ultimately one of the reasons why atheists and Christians can't convince each other. Lots of things have been written on both sides on the issue, but that doesn't matter. An atheist will read arguments for objective morality and say "Clearly that isn't true, so religion/theism is still illogical." A Christian will read arguments for subjective morality and say "Clearly that isn't true, so atheism is still illogical."

It doesn't help that they're going off of (to them) proven theories, which is that subjective morality works because there isn't a God and human society isn't "Fight for your life or die," whereas you're going off unproven theories that humanity will revert to a bestial state with subjective morality (because that doesn't exist).

Again, like I said, Christians love preaching to the choir, but little else, since any argument Christians can make requires going on assumed premises.

[Midori]

Moderator Notice

This is beginning to turn into debate rather than discussion here. I don't mean that you shouldn't express your viewpoints, but be careful. It looks like this topic may not resolve with an understanding; and furthermore it's not exactly on topic with the original purpose of this thread. If this becomes a two-man debate, you'd be better off moving it to PMs, to avoid overflowing this thread. The discussion seems to have been quite fruitful so far, so it'd suck for it to end up locked. Keep it flexible people.

[Peanut]

A couple things and pardon me for not quoting like I normally do but its late and I feel like being lazy.

1). Every atheist I've read goes beyond "don't hurt people" and includes "achieve happiness" with it. Sam Harris, for instant, reduces morality down to seeking happiness and getting rid of suffering. In other words Nate, your wrong unless you can find more examples then I can of atheists who just have an ethical system based just around not causing people suffering (or empathy as you like to call it). If they push happiness then my point stands, if they pull the empathy card I'm going to ask them to define what empathy is. From what you've written, it just sounds like another word for good which I'm going to say they can't have. Again, where is this definition for empathy coming from? If its from the self (like you just suggested) then you can't have it as an overarching system that everyone should follow. It must remain with the self. If you read what I had to say about Bertrand Russell's view on the good life, you'd understand why I'm saying that can't work.

2). If you read my post, I didn't say everyone had to act like mass murderers and rapists if they accepted a Nihilistic framework. Really the only requirement would be not pushing your morals on others and recognizing that they only affect you and no one else. This is not what any new atheist I've read says. They all push an overarching system of ethics namely through secular humanism.

[Fish and Chips]

I thought the argument was that without God life is meaningless.

My argument is that inventing meaning in a vacuum is futile self-deception.

I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat this, but apparently it's "More."

This universe could very well be completely meaningless, totally devoid of intended order, design or purpose]Your argument falls apart at the very first point. Why must there be an objective standard to determine innate value?[/QUOTE]Wait, what.

Innate value. Intrinsic value. Inherent value. That something can be essentially good or bad. An atheist can claim that which benefits humanity is good and that which hinders humanity is bad, but that necessarily presumes a standard for determining what is good and bad. How can we know hindering humanity is bad? What if the reverse is true, and that which benefits humanity is bad while that which hinders humanity is good? You can say that's ridiculous, but on what grounds can you justify its ridiculousness? To think of anything as good or bad demands a standard of comparison, something a random system cannot provide.

[Godwin]

Under such a system it is inconvenient for Hitler to go out of his way to exterminate the Jews, but it cannot be defined as bad, wrong, or evil; it is convenient to stop such a man as Hitler, but that cannot be defined as good, correct, or moral.

[/Godwin]

Without objective meaning, you mean. You have yet to make a compelling argument for how the universe can be trivial if it has a subjective meaning.

Because I don't have to.

Let me rephrase this.

"Truth is relative" is an oxymoron. Truth, by virtue of its nature, is inflexible and set. When I tell you I am holding up three fingers, I either am or I am not. The truth does not change based on your opinion or perception. I am not holding up three fingers because you say I am holding up three fingers, nor am I not holding up three fingers because you say I am not holding up three fingers. I am holding up three fingers and you either see that I am or you don't; regardless, I am still holding up three fingers. Even if you can't see it, I am still holding up three fingers. Perception of truth may be relative, but that does not make truth itself relative. At the end of the day, someone is still "Correct," and someone else is still "Incorrect."

Admittedly that's an extremely stripped down, over-simplified example, but I'd hope it would illustrate my point nonetheless.

To take it upon ourselves to invent truth to fill a gap wherein we claim truth does not exist should be self-demonstrating in its meaninglessness. I shouldn't even have to say anything here. Creating subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless universe is on the level of playing make believe. If there is no meaning inherent in life, there is no meaning we conjure up that will suddenly make our lives truly meaningful. Instead we are lying to ourselves so we can sleep better at night.

And in the end we will still die, as will everyone we've come across and affected, as will inevitably the whole of the human race when we destroy ourselves or die out gradually or suddenly because of some freak cosmic accident. Applying subjective meaning to an objectively meaningless universe is the equivalent of a man who is happy because he is drinking to forget his problems.

[Nate]

Every atheist I've read goes beyond "don't hurt people" and includes "achieve happiness" with it. Sam Harris, for instant, reduces morality down to seeking happiness and getting rid of suffering.

I thought "and be happy" was implied, I was simplifying since I don't think anyone has a problem with "achieve happiness." *shrug*

if they pull the empathy card I'm going to ask them to define what empathy is. From what you've written, it just sounds like another word for good

Empathy isn't another word for good.

Defining it is simple: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Nothing about "good" or "nice" in there. Empathy is merely being able to identify with/experience how someone else thinks or feels. This is why empathy is sufficient to disallow murder or rape in society. Because you identify with another person and think "I would not like it if I was that person and someone did that to me. Therefore, since I empathize with him, I will not harm him."

It's basically the golden rule.

If its from the self (like you just suggested)

Actually, no, I just suggested it was from the need of living things to form into societies and groups to increase overall survival.

If you read what I had to say about Bertrand Russell's view on the good life, you'd understand why I'm saying that can't work.

I did read it which is why I specifically avoided the words "good" and "love." I'm speaking purely from an evolutionary standpoint of "Organisms that do not work together in a functional society usually do not live very long." I did use the word "wrong" to refer to a sociopath, though I take that back. I don't even have to use the word "wrong," I can use the word "harmful to a functional society."

Really the only requirement would be not pushing your morals on others and recognizing that they only affect you and no one else.

The point is they DO affect everyone else, that's why human beings are capable of shame, guilt, and fear. Society with those things would not be a very good society, and suffering would be increased. By laying down necessary groundwork to reduce overall suffering (suffering being harmful to society because of empathy), you have created a morality system that is beneficial to all, except perhaps the mentally ill.

However, if life is truly meaningless, it is an action of idiocy or drunken desperation to attempt to instill it with meaning.

Yes, I agree. If life truly is meaningless, it would be idiotic to instill it with meaning. However, you haven't proven it is meaningless, so why even mention it?

In atheism is a line of thinking which fundamentally renounces order in the universe, whose adherents then attempt to justify creating order around themselves. I consider this inconsistent.

I haven't heard any atheists renounce order in the universe. I only hear them say "I do not believe that gods as defined by theistic religions exist." This does not renounce order in the universe in the slightest.

An atheist can claim that which benefits humanity is good and that which hinders humanity is bad, but that necessarily presumes a standard for determining what is good and bad. How can we know hindering humanity is bad?

Because we have empathy. I hate to keep harping on it but I sense a disturbing lack of understanding what empathy is from many people in this thread. Empathy is identifying with another human being and saying "I would not want to be harmed if I was that person]Under such a system it is inconvenient for Hitler to go out of his way to exterminate the Jews, but it cannot be defined as bad, wrong, or evil; it is convenient to stop such a man as Hitler, but that cannot be defined as good, correct, or moral.[/QUOTE]
Actually, that is completely true. However, we can say that Hitler was causing a great amount of human suffering because of our empathy. Therefore, in order to reduce the amount of suffering humans experience (again, due to empathy), it is useful to society to stop Hitler since that would reduce the overall amount of human suffering.

Since it is a bit tiring to type that, I would like to state that in future posts, I will use "good" as shorthand for "beneficial to human society" or "useful due to the concept of empathy" and "bad" as shorthand for "harmful to human society" or "unsuitable due to the concept of empathy." This way, I don't have to keep saying "empathy" repeatedly, and I cannot get called for using "good" or "bad" to imply that objective standards of morality exist.

To take it upon ourselves to invent truth to fill a gap wherein we claim truth does not exist should be self-demonstrating in its meaninglessness.

If life has a subjective meaning, then no, it isn't meaningless.

Creating subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless universe is on the level of playing make believe.

Yes, it would be, if this was an objectively meaningless universe. Which you are automatically assuming is true without having proven it. Again, when you prove that the universe has objective meaning, THEN you can rightly claim it's folly to try and create subjective meaning. But again, that hinges on you proving it has objective meaning, which...well, still waiting.

[Peanut]

Empathy isn't another word for good.

Defining it is simple: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Nothing about "good" or "nice" in there. Empathy is merely being able to identify with/experience how someone else thinks or feels. This is why empathy is sufficient to disallow murder or rape in society. Because you identify with another person and think "I would not like it if I was that person and someone did that to me. Therefore, since I empathize with him, I will not harm him."

It's basically the golden rule.

Nate, I'm really beginning to wonder if you are actually reading what I'm posting. I compared your use of the word empathy to Russell's use of the word love. Neither literally mean good however in this context, they are replacing the word "good" in an attempt to get around the religious implications of that word. When you put a word like "empathy" or "love" into a moral system, no matter how hard you try it really is just another word for "good" since "good" is usually viewed in this context as any action which is commendable. Nietzsche actually criticized Kant for his categorical imperative, which pretty much is the golden rule (no matter what Kant says).

Actually, no, I just suggested it was from the need of living things to form into societies and groups to increase overall survival.

Again, you haven't gotten around morality coming from the self. Society is comprised of many selves so what you are positing is that morality comes from the consensus agreement of these selves. People who are not in agreement are then picked off via natural selection. This is utilitarian ethics, you can't get around it.

[/QUOTE=Nate]I did read it which is why I specifically avoided the words "good" and "love." I'm speaking purely from an evolutionary standpoint of "Organisms that do not work together in a functional society usually do not live very long." I did use the word "wrong" to refer to a sociopath, though I take that back. I don't even have to use the word "wrong," I can use the word "harmful to a functional society."[/QUOTE]

Claim its functional doesn't help either since again, you need to define what a functional society is and prove that that society is functional. However since society changes and in an evolutionary standpoint improves, it really is in a perpetual state of being non-functional. Furthermore, the entire phrase "harmful to a functional society" does fall to my ancient Sparta critique. Just because we do not have cultures that hold rape to be socially acceptable does not mean that there won't be a society that finds it to be socially acceptable down the line. Genocide has managed to survive perfectly well all these years despite the so called improvement of society. Besides that, not everything we consider to be immoral is "harmful to a functional society." For instance, the moral outrage you experience about people's opinions on homosexuality. Those people with those opinions are not necessarily being harmful to a functional society (the Westboro Baptist Church excluded).

The point is they DO affect everyone else, that's why human beings are capable of shame, guilt, and fear. Society with those things would not be a very good society, and suffering would be increased. By laying down necessary groundwork to reduce overall suffering (suffering being harmful to society because of empathy), you have created a morality system that is beneficial to all, except perhaps the mentally ill.

Let's try a different approach. Is morality a result of what the majority agrees on? Or, to put it another way, is immorality being weeded out via natural selection?

I haven't heard any atheists renounce order in the universe. I only hear them say "I do not believe that gods as defined by theistic religions exist." This does not renounce order in the universe in the slightest.

Except for Nietzsche...and Camus...and any other Nihilist. I'll say this, and this is a question I would have for atheists. How can we get order out of chaos? You can't assert natural selection, the anthropic principle, or just claim "well the universe is ordered so clearly it must of happened somehow." All of them really dance around the question and don't answer it (I could explain how but that would take more effort then I'm willing to put in right now).

[quote="Nate"]Because we have empathy. I hate to keep harping on it but I sense a disturbing lack of understanding what empathy is from many people in this thread. Empathy is identifying with another human being and saying "I would not want to be harmed if I was that person]

Ok, reading this I'm going to change my critique a little. Why should I be empathetic towards others? It's not like anyone follows this principle every single moment of the day and I don't think we can. Plus, is suffering always bad? Hitler has already been mentioned, so if we could go back in time and kill Hitler before the holocaust with no negative results (in a quantum sense) should we do it? Are we to say that the suffering of many outweighs the suffering his family and friends would have experienced by his death? If that's the case, then, once again, why should I be empathetic towards people when they are probably going to hurt me down the line?

[Cognitive Gear]

I just want to make a quick note that I am trying to bring in the arguments from the other side's perspective, since I really don't think that these debates will be useful unless we are understanding and sympathetic to the perfectly reasonable ways that they view the universe.

Again, you haven't gotten around morality coming from the self. Society is comprised of many selves so what you are positing is that morality comes from the consensus agreement of these selves. People who are not in agreement are then picked off via natural selection. This is utilitarian ethics, you can't get around it.

Morality would be coming from that which enables any given society to best survive. This is much like government: it comes to exist because it leads to the best overall rate of survival for a society. This will shift and change over time, and will slightly vary given environmental factors.

Which is pretty accurate, if you look at the history of humanity. Slavery and rape were both permissible in most societies in the world, and even early on in the Bible. (I don't want to get into the theology of that, but I think that if we are going to look at this issue honestly we need to have all of the facts on the table, even the ugly ones, and especially the ones that will get brought to the table.)

Let's try a different approach. Is morality a result of what the majority agrees on? Or, to put it another way, is immorality being weeded out via natural selection?

Immorality would be weeded out via cultural evolution. Modern evolutionary theory often encompasses social evolution as well, as the adaptability of the human mind prevents a lot of natural selection's normal means. Morality (and religion, actually) comes about from the same process that brought humor and intelligence to mankind. (according to evolutionary theory)

Except for Nietzsche...and Camus...and any other Nihilist. I'll say this, and this is a question I would have for atheists. How can we get order out of chaos? You can't assert natural selection, the anthropic principle, or just claim "well the universe is ordered so clearly it must of happened somehow." All of them really dance around the question and don't answer it (I could explain how but that would take more effort then I'm willing to put in right now).

How do you think that atheists feel about our answers to "Where did God come from?" Most of us dance around it, giving unsatisfactory answers such as "He has always been." To many atheists, the idea of order eventually arising out of chaos given enough time is a much more satisfying and comprehensive answer than that. The latter is mathematically calculable.

Why should I be empathetic towards others?

We do because humans (and some animals, actually) are genetically predisposed towards empathy. It's a survival trait.

[Peanut]

Morality would be coming from that which enables any given society to best survive. This is much like government: it comes to exist because it leads to the best overall rate of survival for a society. This will shift and change over time, and will slightly vary given environmental factors.

Which is pretty accurate, if you look at the history of humanity. Slavery and rape were both permissible in most societies in the world, and even early on in the Bible. (I don't want to get into the theology of that, but I think that if we are going to look at this issue honestly we need to have all of the facts on the table, even the ugly ones, and especially the ones that will get brought to the table.)

This still doesn't prove that morality doesn't come from the self since again. What is the building block of a society? Individual people. Goverments are made by people agreeing on certain standards and beliefs, morality being one of them. Evolutionarily, this is the idea that the majority of a population will usually be comprised of the ones fittest to survive. In this case, those who conform to the society. The problem as I've mentioned again and again is that this doesn't provide a solid system of ethics since it's changing and also gives the minority the shaft. Homosexuality is another great example. For a time, people Plus, I would say nobody (or very few people) actually believe this since their actions prove otherwise. Proof for this can be found by how many times people drive over the speed limit willingly. As soon as you've done that, you've violated a law meant to reduce suffering caused by automobile accidents and are therefore performing an immoral action. It still hasn't stopped people anyway.

Immorality would be weeded out via cultural evolution. Modern evolutionary theory often encompasses social evolution as well, as the adaptability of the human mind prevents a lot of natural selection's normal means. Morality (and religion, actually) comes about from the same process that brought humor and intelligence to mankind. (according to evolutionary theory)

Yes, that is what the theory says. The first problem is that I don't think there is any good evidence for this. Namely, any evidence that can be brought forward to support is built off of pre-existing presuppositions. Every time you bring forth evidence that we've changed I'm going to bring forth evidence that shows we haven't changed and then lean on Hume's idea that without comprehensive knowledge you can't know anything and point out that you can't say that, in the future, rape/murder/theft won't be consider moral. So, once again, ethics becomes relative and therefore meaningless. Second, by using evolutionary theory for ethics you really are pushing a utilitarian system of ethics. Utilitarian ethics is defined as an ethical system where the majority determines what is good and evil. How is this not what either you or Nate are pushing as the devil's advocates?

How do you think that atheists feel about our answers to "Where did God come from?" Most of us dance around it, giving unsatisfactory answers such as "He has always been." To many atheists, the idea of order eventually arising out of chaos given enough time is a much more satisfying and comprehensive answer than that. The latter is mathematically calculable.

Ok, quick theology rant/lesson. When you ask "Where did God come from?" you are presupposing that God is bound in time. Anything that claims the origin of a thing or the beginning of a thing is claiming that that thing is bound in time since time has a beginning. If you claim that time doesn't have a beginning then I'm going to say you are actually claiming time is God (but that's somewhat unrelated to this scenario). This is the problem with asking that question and why "He's always been there" isn't actually dancing around the question. Admittedly, it can seem that way because most people aren't familiar with the theological idea that God is outside of time and when you think about it makes sense. If it were me in that situation, I would ask them if they think infinity can have a beginning then emphasize that God is infinite. Order coming from Chaos is something that I've yet to hear an adequate answer to and that's why I'm raising it. I know Dawkin's tries but his answer is basically "Well we're here aren't we and we're in an ordered world. So clearly it must have happened." That's not answering the question at all while "He's always been there" really is answering that question. I included natural selection and the anthropic principle along with what Dawkin's seems to push because they are the only thing that I can think of that might be pushed as a way order can come from chaos. The problem is the presuppose a greater order (namely laws and numbers) that come from chaos so they go into an infinite regress. The anthropic principle specifically can fall to a critique of infinity (via Hilbert's Hotel). Also, by giving into statistical probability, you are claiming that order has come from chaos without actually explaining it.

Edit: In case anyone is wondering, the anthropic principle is the idea that with a big enough number, even the most statistically improbable event can occur.

We do because humans (and some animals, actually) are genetically predisposed towards empathy. It's a survival trait.

There are studies that show rapists and murderers as having higher levels of testosterone. So, if we are genetically predisposed towards empathy but these people are genetically predisposed towards actions which aren't empathetic, then how can we say we are more moral then them? You could easily make a case that their genetics is a survival trait as well. The problem with biological determinism (or our genes made us do these actions) is that morality is really just an illusion at that point. Meaning, no matter what you think morality is doesn't matter since you are going to act the way your genes have set you up to act. Inserting free will into this saves it only slightly because you haven't told me why I should obey my genes and be empathetic.

[rocklobster]

If we are supposed to be predisposed to empathy, then why do we have an Adolf Hitler in our history?

[Nate]

If we are supposed to be predisposed to empathy, then why do we have an Adolf Hitler in our history?

Well, it helps to know the definition of predisposed first: to give an inclination or tendency to beforehand]Proof for this can be found by how many times people drive over the speed limit willingly. As soon as you've done that, you've violated a law meant to reduce suffering caused by automobile accidents and are therefore performing an immoral action.[/QUOTE]
But that's why we have laws against it, and you will get a ticket if you do it.

you can't say that, in the future, rape/murder/theft won't be consider moral

I can say that, due to humanity's evolutionary method of acquiring empathy, it is unlikely that in the future rape/murder/theft will be considered moral. You're right that I can't say it never will be.

I also can't say that tomorrow the earth's gravity won't suddenly reverse and fling everyone out into space. But I can say it's pretty unlikely.

Utilitarian ethics is defined as an ethical system where the majority determines what is good and evil. How is this not what either you or Nate are pushing as the devil's advocates?

Because the majority might decide "Rape is good" as in your earlier example of Sparta. However, we can still say that this is an evil act (remember what I said in my last post; my use of the word evil here does not mean I am advocating an objective morality) because it causes harm and suffering.

Just because the majority has decided it, does not make it good. This is why Phil and I are not pushing utilitarian ethics. We are saying what is good is what causes the least amount of harm and suffering.

I actually, to be honest here and not play devil's advocate, think that this makes a bit of sense as opposed to objective morality...in SOME circumstances (but not all). For example, objective morality would say "Lying is bad, always, you should never lie." However, then we have the hypothetical situation of you hiding Jews in your house in Nazi Germany, and the military stops by and asks if there are any Jews in your house. Should you lie and protect them, or should you be honest? According to objective morality (never lie), you should immediately turn them over to be murdered. However, I don't agree with that. I think in that situation it is better to lie, as it is a more moral action because you are protecting people's lives.

Back to devil's advocate now.

Admittedly, it can seem that way because most people aren't familiar with the theological idea that God is outside of time and when you think about it makes sense.

My answer to that would be "How did God become outside of time?" Your only answer to this is, "Because He is" or "Well, it's a mystery!" Which to an atheist is not a satisfying answer. Again, at some point you have to just take it on faith and you can't explain it or justify it. At the very least, most scientific theories on the origins of the universe are provable to an extent and able to be mathematically calculable as Phil said (which again, doesn't disprove God, but does allow for there to not be one).

I know Dawkin's tries but his answer is basically "Well we're here aren't we and we're in an ordered world. So clearly it must have happened." That's not answering the question at all

To be fair, Dawkins is a biologist, a field which is only concerned with living things. Since the universe formed ages before living things formed, the origins of the universe isn't exactly his speciality.

Also, by giving into statistical probability, you are claiming that order has come from chaos without actually explaining it.

Hmm. Fair enough. That's a pretty valid point, though it's really a matter of opinion whether you accept that or not. I mean statistically, you're more likely to be hit by lightning than win the lottery, but people win the lottery all the time without being struck by lightning first (though I don't know if more people win the lottery than get struck by lightning...that might be kind of interesting to look up).

So, if we are genetically predisposed towards empathy but these people are genetically predisposed towards actions which aren't empathetic, then how can we say we are more moral then them?

Because they're harmful to society and cause greater suffering? Honestly, I don't know how to answer that question, but that's because I haven't particularly studied these questions. I'm sure if I poked around online I could find some atheists who are educated in morality/philosophy who could answer this question, but I personally can't. So, I can't answer that without making crap up. XD

[Peanut]

But that's why we have laws against it, and you will get a ticket if you do it.

I can say that, due to humanity's evolutionary method of acquiring empathy, it is unlikely that in the future rape/murder/theft will be considered moral. You're right that I can't say it never will be.

Then morality changes and by its very definition is relative and--

Because the majority might decide "Rape is good" as in your earlier example of Sparta. However, we can still say that this is an evil act (remember what I said in my last post]

You can't say this. You're advocating an objective standard for morality by stating the Ancient Spartans were still immoral because they were causing harm and suffering by raping women (though I would argue that because their culture was different, this was not a harmful act causing any suffering, again asserting that morality is really relative). In fact, you kind of did lean on an objective source for your morality in playing the devil's advocate Nate. You quoted the dictionary to define empathy, presupposing that it is both accurate and unchanging. Of course, we know that the second part really isn't true since words do change. If you say for the moment empathy means this, then again, you are pushing a relative system of ethics.

I actually, to be honest here and not play devil's advocate, think that this makes a bit of sense as opposed to objective morality...in SOME circumstances (but not all). For example, objective morality would say "Lying is bad, always, you should never lie." However, then we have the hypothetical situation of you hiding Jews in your house in Nazi Germany, and the military stops by and asks if there are any Jews in your house. Should you lie and protect them, or should you be honest? According to objective morality (never lie), you should immediately turn them over to be murdered. However, I don't agree with that. I think in that situation it is better to lie, as it is a more moral action because you are protecting people's lives.

This is why I love Russell's "The good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge." In that hypothetical situation, even if you believe any lie is a sin,

Back to devil's advocate now.

My answer to that would be "How did God become outside of time?" Your only answer to this is, "Because He is" or "Well, it's a mystery!" Which to an atheist is not a satisfying answer. Again, at some point you have to just take it on faith and you can't explain it or justify it. At the very least, most scientific theories on the origins of the universe are provable to an extent and able to be mathematically calculable as Phil said (which again, doesn't disprove God, but does allow for there to not be one).

Actually, no, my answer would be God created time and that the creator of the box cannot be bound by the box unless he himself intends it (the incarnation being my example).

To be fair, Dawkins is a biologist, a field which is only concerned with living things. Since the universe formed ages before living things formed, the origins of the universe isn't exactly his speciality.

I do understand this and probably should have gone a little lighter on him. Because when he does talk about evolution he is very good.

Because they're harmful to society and cause greater suffering? Honestly, I don't know how to answer that question, but that's because I haven't particularly studied these questions. I'm sure if I poked around online I could find some atheists who are educated in morality/philosophy who could answer this question, but I personally can't. So, I can't answer that without making crap up. XD

Yeah, I think the only way you can get around it is to push that predisposition isn't biological determinism (which I would be willing to concede). However, then you can't say morality (or empathy) is genetic but is instead a created social system that's passed down by one generation to the next. Daniel Dennet (I think) does something like this in response to Plantiga's argument from evolution against naturalism and I do think it applies here. Still, my point about morality being relative would remain since it would be changing from one generation to the next.

[Nate]

I would argue that because their culture was different, this was not a harmful act causing any suffering

You don't think that women being raped was harmful or that they suffered? That's...kind of a disturbing position to take.

In fact, you kind of did lean on an objective source for your morality in playing the devil's advocate Nate.

Saying that there are objective things doesn't make everything in the universe objective. Food objectively exists, but a person's favorite food is subjective. Empathy objectively exists, but that doesn't make morality objective.

You quoted the dictionary to define empathy, presupposing that it is both accurate and unchanging. Of course, we know that the second part really isn't true since words do change.

Well yeah. But even if the word for empathy changes, or even the words defining it change, empathy still exists. Chairs exist, even if you don't call it a chair or even if the meaning of "chair" changes or even if every word that defines what a chair is changes. Chairs will still be chairs.

If you say for the moment empathy means this, then again, you are pushing a relative system of ethics.

I...I thought we agreed that atheists had a relative system of ethics? I'm just saying it's unlikely that murder/rape/theft will be seen as awesome in society anytime soon, because of the concept of empathy. There may well come a time when these aren't seen as immoral because of a change in how society works...for example, overpopulation and there literally not being enough food to support all human life. In that situation, I can see empathy as not being evolutionarily necessary because the survival of the species (then again, perhaps it WOULD be empathy, just a different type...murdering someone to give them a quick, relatively painless death rather than the horrible suffering that starvation would be).

And of course, if there was some sort of weird situation where there was like a thousand females to every one male, it would probably be best evolutionarily at that point to abandon empathy as well (though one would hope that the men would at LEAST try to reproduce with the women civilly instead of resorting to rape, and that the women would at LEAST understand the problem facing the human race at that point so they would be more willing).

Actually, no, my answer would be God created time and that the creator of the box cannot be bound by the box unless he himself intends it (the incarnation being my example).

Okay, so then the question is "Where did God get the power to create time? Who gave it to Him?" And at that point your only answer is "He always had it" or a variation on that theme. Again, not very compelling.

Yeah, I think the only way you can get around it is to push that predisposition isn't biological determinism (which I would be willing to concede).

Well, yeah, as I said to rock's question about Hitler, predisposition isn't determinism. Steak is my favorite food and if I go to a restaurant that serves steak, I'm predisposed to ordering it. But that doesn't mean I have to or even that I will, I could order a pasta dish instead, or a sandwich.

However, then you can't say morality (or empathy) is genetic but is instead a created social system that's passed down by one generation to the next.

I think Dawkins says that empathy started out as genetic, but then it "evolved" into a social system. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant when he invented the term "meme" and provided the hypothesis for cultural evolution, though he didn't personally take it upon himself to research that further. I haven't read much of his work personally, though perhaps I should.

At least according to Wikipedia, meme means "a postulated unit of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena." It was created as "a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena."

Which includes beliefs, music, fashion, technology, etc., and presumably would also extend to law and morality.

[Peanut]

You don't think that women being raped was harmful or that they suffered? That's...kind of a disturbing position to take.

Your putting words in my mouth. If I was going to argue that in that situation, my point would be since rape was socially acceptable and a part of marriage in Ancient Sparta, the emotional damage that rape victims experience today would likely not be prevalent in that culture.

Saying that there are objective things doesn't make everything in the universe objective. Food objectively exists, but a person's favorite food is subjective. Empathy objectively exists, but that doesn't make morality objective.

Actually, no, empathy does not objectively exist. My point on the changing of words is one way it doesn't objectively exist. Plus where does empathy objectively exist? Within all of us? So are you telling me that we don't disagree on concepts like empathy, love, good, evil, etc? Is it in some sort of collective unconcious

Well yeah. But even if the word for empathy changes, or even the words defining it change, empathy still exists. Chairs exist, even if you don't call it a chair or even if the meaning of "chair" changes or even if every word that defines what a chair is changes. Chairs will still be chairs.

Ryan would have fun with this. Also, we can't be certain that chairs or anything for that matter actually exist. We just believe it is reasonable to believe so. So, from here on out let me show you how empathy can change based on the situation.

I...I thought we agreed that atheists had a relative system of ethics? I'm just saying it's unlikely that murder/rape/theft will be seen as awesome in society anytime soon, because of the concept of empathy. There may well come a time when these aren't seen as immoral because of a change in how society works...for example, overpopulation and there literally not being enough food to support all human life. In that situation, I can see empathy as not being evolutionarily necessary because the survival of the species (then again, perhaps it WOULD be empathy, just a different type...murdering someone to give them a quick, relatively painless death rather than the horrible suffering that starvation would be).

To clarify, I've been arguing as if you were an atheist. This means I'm trying to prove to you (or you as the devil's advocate) that your system of thought is inconsistent. When you push that morality is relative, then I'm going to go to the jugular and tell you can't have a universal system of ethics and must accept the nihilist position. Also, we know that even in some modern cultures (or sub-cultures), theft and murder are considered moral. It's not like genocide has gone away and I know from working briefly with people in less then stellar situations that theft is viewed as being ok since it aids in their survival. In this case you could even say they are operating out of empathy and, in extraordinary situations where society breaks down like Katrina, they appear to be.

And of course, if there was some sort of weird situation where there was like a thousand females to every one male, it would probably be best evolutionarily at that point to abandon empathy as well (though one would hope that the men would at LEAST try to reproduce with the women civilly instead of resorting to rape, and that the women would at LEAST understand the problem facing the human race at that point so they would be more willing).

It could still be seen as being done in empathy. After all, the death of a species is the ultimate suffering for that species so, therefore, perpetuating that species in this scenario could be called empathetic. Another way to put it would be the suffering of the few is less important then the suffering of the many.

Okay, so then the question is "Where did God get the power to create time? Who gave it to Him?" And at that point your only answer is "He always had it" or a variation on that theme. Again, not very compelling.

Those are all time locked questions implying that God had a beginning, in this case, to his power. By what I just pointed out, he can't, otherwise he is not God. So, if the atheist really wanted to win this debate, they would have to either prove that God had a beginning or that he had a beginning to his powers. I don't think it can be done.

Well, yeah, as I said to rock's question about Hitler, predisposition isn't determinism. Steak is my favorite food and if I go to a restaurant that serves steak, I'm predisposed to ordering it. But that doesn't mean I have to or even that I will, I could order a pasta dish instead, or a sandwich.

Yes, I was merely pointing out that it can be pushed that way. It really shouldn't be, but it can be.

I think Dawkins says that empathy started out as genetic, but then it "evolved" into a social system. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant when he invented the term "meme" and provided the hypothesis for cultural evolution, though he didn't personally take it upon himself to research that further. I haven't read much of his work personally, though perhaps I should.

At least according to Wikipedia, meme means "a postulated unit of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena." It was created as "a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena."

Which includes beliefs, music, fashion, technology, etc., and presumably would also extend to law and morality.

Yeah, after I posted I realized Dawkins and his memes would fit as well. I'm not as familiar with his theory as I should be, but I would probably disagree with him as it having its start in genetics. I think a better way to put it would be that as our brains evolved, we came to a point where we were able to develop the idea of empathy and moved from there. It wouldn't have to be instant either, it could work up the slope analogy that Dawkin's loves to use.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

[quote="Nate"]Because the majority might decide "Rape is good" as in your earlier example of Sparta. However, we can still say that this is an evil act (remember what I said in my last post]

Adding to John, this is the crux of the problem of your argument. You're trying to teleologically argue that rape is wrong because it causes harm and suffering to an individual. But these could simply be social phenomenas which are reinforced by an individual's environment. Given a hypothetical society where a woman is praised for being raped, and she actually acquired a positive social status from it. And as such, this society is bettered and expanded. While the immediate act of rape was unwanted, in the woman's mind, the cost-benefit analysis proved to be favorable both socially and individually.

I believe you're basically saying that the outcome decides whether or not the action is justified (hence, teleological). But you can't argue that the outcome will be universal or static. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it is not possible. And possibilities need to be accounted for if you are going to make universal statements of things like good and evil.

If there is no objective morality, there can be no other moral source outside your own opinion. I will take it to that extreme.