|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Morality of atheists: where does it come from?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Those with religious beliefs get their morality from their religion. Follow the direction, the example, the advice. Where does atheist morality come from?
If atheists can be moral without religious belief, does it mean necessarily that morality, knowledge of right/wrong, good/evil is innate? That we know by the virtue of being human these things?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Where does atheist morality come from?
From giving a shit about other people?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
There are options. I don't think any of them are fully satisfactory, but there are options.
Option one: enlightened self-interest / game theory / contractarianism. If everybody agrees to follow some code even when it's not in their immediate interest everybody will be happier overall.
Option two: Reason (with a capital R). Rationality turns out to require that I treat all human beings with equal respect, including myself.
Option three: Natural sympathy / innate benevolence: humans just do care enough for family / friends / other members of their species to act from that emotion, and to disapprove of and censure other humans who don't.
Option four: Secular eudaimonia / flourishing: the most admirable and fulfilling life for human beings requires them to cultivate justice and benevolence as virtues.
Most of the above options are incompatible with the other options to a greater or lesser extent. I wouldn't say religious sources of morality are inherently more questionable than any of them.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
According to a number of scientists, altruism has been selected for during evolution. Whether that has been through nature or nurture I have not seen discussed. It can be observed in other animals in some behaviours at times. (I recall the male gorilla in Jersey Zoo who protected the boy who fell into the enclosure.)
Today's news about the freed slaves in Lambeth, London, is a reminder that it is not universal among humans. In various historical contexts it's possible to point the finger and ask what has religion got to do with what most people think of as morality? (Monty Python today posed the question about the Spanish Inquisition again.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
If atheists can be moral without religious belief, does it mean necessarily that morality, knowledge of right/wrong, good/evil is innate? That we know by the virtue of being human these things?
I believe this is so , which rather begs the question -- What is the point of religion ?
As a Church-goer who came to it in mid-life, I can't really answer that question . Personally I've found the Love of God to be the crux of religion as opposed to viewing it as a vehicle dispensing morality .
If morality already exists in each and everyone of us , and that probably includes animals too , then what religious practice can do is help hone it, help train it .
Foisting a *thing* called morality on to people, or trying to shoe-horn it into a box seems to cause more problems than it solves . Whatsmore it's a strategy that has been rejected by the majority in free democracies .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Those with religious beliefs get their morality from their religion.
I'm not sure that's true. It could be argued the other way around; that the religious pick their religion because it offers the moral teachings they prefer.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
There are two questions relating to this topic which can easily be confused:
1. Where we, as individuals, get our personal morality from.
2. How we explain our moral sense.
It is possible for someone with a strong moral sense to hold a view of reality which cannot adequately explain it. I don't think that the philosophy of naturalism can adequately explain morality, but that is not equivalent to saying that those who subscribe to that paradigm cannot be moral.
In fact, it could be argued that people who just follow their sense of right and wrong, which is shared by the bulk of humanity, are morally more authentic than those who need to have their morality dictated to them by an absolute authority, who relates to them by a system of rewards and punishments. That is actually quite a good argument as far as it goes. However, it's a straw man argument when it is applied to all Christians, because it is certainly not the case that we only do good out of fear of punishment or in hope of reward (I can only speak for myself, of course).
There is an innate sense of right and wrong. That, I think, cannot really be disputed. The debate concerns how this phenomenon (or, more accurately, noumenon) can be explained.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
The psychological take on the issue....
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development]Moral development...[/url]
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Those with religious beliefs get their morality from their religion.
I'm not sure that's true. It could be argued the other way around; that the religious pick their religion because it offers the moral teachings they prefer.
Except I got mine, or at least the start of mine, by being born where and to whom I was.
The altrusim idea, that it is selected for via evolution is interesting. But I'm not sure about it, within my understanding of evolution being "adaptation to local conditions" and "ensuring genes get passed along to subsequent generations". How does this occur if I am kind to a stranger? Or even save the life of one.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
How does this occur if I am kind to a stranger? Or even save the life of one.
It is a fallacy to evaluate an evolutionary tendency with an isolated example.* And you are viewing this backwards. It is because altruism is part of our social and genetic makeup that you might help this stranger.
*Works for most things.
ETA:This question, when posed by a theist, is odd to me. I would think a theist would suppose an atheist receives their moral compass from a divine source, even though they do not recognise this.
[ 21. November 2013, 22:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Those with religious beliefs get their morality from their religion.
I'm not sure that's true. It could be argued the other way around; that the religious pick their religion because it offers the moral teachings they prefer.
Except I got mine, or at least the start of mine, by being born where and to whom I was.
Right. And it just happens to be coincidence that, to pick an historical example, the Segregationist South just happened to adopt religious teachings that supported White Supremacy. Religious morality is just a way to say that your own moral code is designed by a superior being and to dodge responsibility for otherwise unjustifiable acts.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The altrusim idea, that it is selected for via evolution is interesting. But I'm not sure about it, within my understanding of evolution being "adaptation to local conditions" and "ensuring genes get passed along to subsequent generations". How does this occur if I am kind to a stranger? Or even save the life of one.
Cooperation for mutual benefit is a fairly common adaptive strategy, both within species (herd or pack animals) and between species (symbionts). It should be noted that within humans altruism is more strongly felt along kinship lines. In other words, towards those most likely carrying at least some of the genes as the hypothetical altruist. As far as helping a stranger (someone with only a slight chance of possessing some of the same genes as the altruist), evolution works by kludges. It may be that there's no easy way for humans to tell kin from non-kin through sensory input alone. I believe the most hated man in Britain wrote extensively on the hypothesis.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I don't think the philosophy of naturalism can adequately explain morality, but that is not equivalent to saying that those who subscribe to that paradigm cannot be moral.
Well no, but the question is where their morality comes from. What makes it anything other than arbitrary, apart from a historical link to a Christianity they don't believe anymore?
quote:
In fact, it could be argued that people who just follow their sense of right and wrong, which is shared by the bulk of humanity, are morally more authentic than those who need to have their morality dictated to them by an absolute authority, who relates to them by a system of rewards and punishments. That is actually quite a good argument as far as it goes.
I think it's a pretty rubbish argument tbh, even when you acknowledge that it's a straw man. One group has a coherent explanation for their morality, the other group has apparently plucked theirs out of thin air but are apparently more 'authentic'.
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I suppose one could argue that a question like "Where do atheists get their morality from?" is at least a step forward from the somewhat more usual query (among religious persons, anyway, at least IME) of whether atheists actually have any morality to start with. Nevertheless, I feel bound to ask, "Where do religious people get their morality from?"
That said, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that even religious people "get" their morality from religion. We start learning "morality" the minute a parent requires us to wait for something, to share with a playmate or sibling, to not bite Mommy when she feeds us, to not smack the puppy or the baby with a block, and so on. These initial, very basic, lessons -- "Don't hurt others. Be kind to others. You're not the center of the universe, etc." -- are a roadmap for fitting into one's family, one's school (once one arrives there), and one's society. That large swathes of so-called Western society are, or at least once were, informed by a set of Judeao-Christian principles is probably an accident, and those "religious" principles are the result of acculturation (and innate tendencies to value those closest to us), not the cause.
[ 21. November 2013, 23:42: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Judging by the number of times that questionable moral positions have been taken by religionists, ISTM the "atheist" and "theist" could be put in either clause of "One group has a coherent explanation for their morality, the other group has apparently plucked theirs out of thin air but are apparently more 'authentic'."
Many, if not most, atheists*, work on the practical basis of the Golden Rule, for arguable reasons about functioning in the group or in society in general.
Religionists have been told by their religious teachings to follow the Golden Rule, and then have this explained by the same reasoning about groups/society.
And there is little evidence to show that the religionists necessarily get it better.
Any surveys I have seen (e.g. Barna in the US) show that the behaviour of Christians is rarely distinguishable from the behaviour of those who do not claim religious belief. The implication is that moral codes come from society, not religion per se.
*adding the proviso that NO group that can be named is actually uniform in behaviour.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I suppose one could argue that a question like "Where do atheists get their morality from?" is at least a step forward from the somewhat more usual query (among religious persons, anyway, at least IME) of whether atheists actually have any morality to start with. to value those closest to us), not the cause.
More usual? IME it's much less usual, though some atheists like to paint Christians as asking this question, in order to get out of the need to answer the much harder question of where their morality comes from.
A morality is adopted to further society? So what? Why is that good? Is there such a thing as 'good' anyway, and what logical basis separates good from bad? If I don't feel your pain, why should I care about it at all? A Christian or other theist can explain all that in terms of God creating the world after His own character, and the world therefore being meant to operate according to the characteristics of God. An atheist has no such recourse - and none yet has been able to give me a satisfactory answer as to how their morals are justified.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Those with religious beliefs get their morality from their religion.
I'm not sure that's true. It could be argued the other way around; that the religious pick their religion because it offers the moral teachings they prefer.
I agree with that. I also think morality is often over-simplified, and is very complex. It might be affected by various intellectual and emotional factors, and also stuff such as loyalty, guilt, kinship, tiredness, and so on.
There is also the idea of something contradictory often going on - maybe I am good sometimes, but there is a little darkness as well, which comes out. It's not monolithic.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
How does this occur if I am kind to a stranger? Or even save the life of one.
It is a fallacy to evaluate an evolutionary tendency with an isolated example.* And you are viewing this backwards. It is because altruism is part of our social and genetic makeup that you might help this stranger.
*Works for most things.
ETA:This question, when posed by a theist, is odd to me. I would think a theist would suppose an atheist receives their moral compass from a divine source, even though they do not recognise this.
Evolution is obviously true. Theism is obviously true.
But I don't get your 'we do it because it's in our genes'. It sounds circular.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's interesting to note recent research shows Infant morality can be detected in six month old children as well as monkeys show a sense of fairness It's also notable that in game theory such as the iterated prisoners dilemma tit for tat is a robust strategy.
Full fledged morality clearly is culturally dependent. See attitudes about the rights of women and children or murdering strangers which vary by culture.
So morality drifts into another murky nature versus nurture.
If there is an underlying morality in social organisms, perhaps the question runs in the other direction. Is theism created to make "fairness" balance in the real world?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Theism is obviously true.
Theism is not obviously true. Certainly not in the way evolution is. But this is a discussion for a different thread.
My reasoning is not circular. Evolution has selected for altruism since it is a species survival mechanism. Society trains us for this further, as it is also one mechanism for a society to thrive. It starts at the family level, moves on to tribe. But what is tribe to us modern humans? Who do we associate as us? That stranger is typically perceived as still one of us. How is this circular?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
]Theism is not obviously true. Certainly not in the way evolution is. But this is a discussion for a different thread.
My reasoning is not circular. Evolution has selected for altruism since it is a species survival mechanism. Society trains us for this further, as it is also one mechanism for a society to thrive. It starts at the family level, moves on to tribe. But what is tribe to us modern humans? Who do we associate as us? That stranger is typically perceived as still one of us. How is this circular?
Except that species only evolve when they accumulate variation sufficient among the individuals that they can't or won't interbreed with other groups, which then serves to accumulate additional variation among the groups and to differentiate them further. But consider that the variation arises within the individual first so that it can be passed along. Thus, the first altruistic individual toward strangers is specifically not passing on altruism genetically. Because the behaviour does not enhance the passing on of that trait. If if could be shown that humans are altruistic first to those with genetic similarity then I suppose that could be evidence. Except that we live in families and groups, as you note, and only as a function of that does the altruism possibly get passed along. I think altruism then is a cultural, non-adaptive trait insofar as biological evolution is concerned. Or merely an epiphenomena, co-occurring for situational reasons.
Thus I think the second part of what you post is about culture, not about biology. Or as was debated when I read regularly in the areas: "sociobiology". For a very brief summary, the SJ Gould article in Wikipedia has some things about it, from which I quote "...many higher functions of the human brain [are] the unintended side consequence or by-product of natural selection, rather than direct adaptations." I don't think the argument that altruism is an adaptive trait stands up. We cannot explain much about human behaviour with appeals to biological evolution.
As for the obviousness of theism, it is not about scientific evidence. It is at least partly about fundamental aesthetics and the truth-beauty equation. Which has been discussed variously as "if God did not exist, we would have to invent [God]". Which is the problem the atheists want us to face when they successfully knock down the God they learned about at age 10 or 12 in volunteer-taught Sunday school or catechism. They give us trouble when we discuss and they believe they are arguing successfully because they aren't talking about what we're talking about.
I suppose we could argue that some group behaviour in biological cousins, the primates shows altruism (like eating each other's parasites as they pick nits), but it also shows a lot of other things, and the results of our human perception and assumptions that this is what they are expressing. I do not see any sign of altruism in my dog when she eats the cat's food or steals the bacon from the counter (the little dickens!).
[ 22. November 2013, 02:54: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
A morality is adopted to further society? So what?
Well, I'm not sure what you're asking here; but, as lilBuddha points out, societies that adopt some set of principles to govern individual human behavior are apt to endure longer than a society which operates on "Every man for himself." Societies which endure are more apt to produce individuals willing to put themselves out for one another, benefiting the species.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Why is that good?
I don't know that I claimed it was good; in many ways, the ability of humankind to make their own paths smoother, to improve living standards, to develop more longevity and greater fertility & survival rates is arguably NOT good. Other creatures go extinct as we put pressure on them and their habitats with increased human population and manipulation(s) of our environment.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Is there such a thing as 'good' anyway, and what logical basis separates good from bad?
If you're asking about some objective or absolute "good," I have no idea, though I rather doubt it. I personally don't buy the notion that there is some extant universal standard for "good." I don't think I can even understand what that means. I'm also not at all sure that such a "good" (if it is one, and if it exists) is necessarily the product of "logic," though I suppose it might be. I definitely doubt it's "logic" which propels Person A, at risk to his own safety, to drag Person B from a burning wreck out of an urgent desire to save Person B from a horrible death.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If I don't feel your pain, why should I care about it at all?
Who says you should? I'm acquainted with people who genuinely seem unable to empathize or identify with others' pain, or to give two hoots about it; they're on my case load. Yet the fact is, these individuals are identified in this society as abnormal due to this very lack of feeling for fellow-beings. "Nomality," then, in this society, includes the ability to imagine and/or to care about what happens to others.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
A Christian or other theist can explain all that in terms of God creating the world after His own character, and the world therefore being meant to operate according to the characteristics of God.
Not sure about other theists, but Christians also usually understand that creation as fallen or broken, a failure caused by the disobedience of the beings created in God's own image, which certainly raises the question of whether disobedience is one of the many attributes of God's character. I mean, before the official Fall, how and where could these God-reflections have obtained the idea of disobeying? Who or what created the very unGodly Thing that tempted humanity and ultimately was doomed to legless snakehood, slithering off as the serpent?
TBH, I don't think the Judaeo-Christian mythology offers much by way of answers, here; in fact I think it only deepens the mystery, even on a symbolic rather than literal level. To the extent that "good" might be roughly synonymous with "not evil," in turn roughly coincident with "moral,"(and I'm not sure I buy that either), I don't know where this gets us.
This damage having happened pretty early on in the relationship between the Divine and the now-mortal, and having pretty much put "Paid" to the image-of-God idea (we seem to have forfeited that status), where does this leave us?
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
An atheist has no such recourse - and none yet has been able to give me a satisfactory answer as to how their morals are justified.
An atheist may have other recourses, such as learning morality from parents or teachers. An atheist may, like many theists, have recourse to whatever "innate" qualities leads one baby to cry upon hearing another do so.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I do not intend this as an insult, but ISTM your post displays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary mechanics.
We evolved from social creatures. Social cooperation is a feature which enabled our relatively helpless ancestors survive. Individuals who were not social were less likely to pass on their genes. There was no "first altruist" who then passed his/her genes. It is unlikely our earliest ancestors actually did care for strangers. But the trait of caring for others within our group passed on. Yes, how we define "our group" is partly defined by society.
Observing our near relatives, such as chimps and bonobos, can teach us some things. Yes, we must be careful to not project. And also realise that they are closely related, but they are not us.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
As for the obviousness of theism, it is not about scientific evidence.
It is not about objective evidence, but subjective interpretation. To paint all atheists as addressing a childish version of god is a disingenuous straw-man.
[ 22. November 2013, 03:15: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
CS Lewis in The Abolition of Man not only takes it for granted that we're all born with a moral sense, but he goes out of his way through a lengthy appendix to find similarities between disparate ethical systems around the planet. If I recall his argument was that God planted these moral impulses in us. But he would think the title of this thread was trivial. Where does the morality of atheists come from? Same place all our morality comes from. We're born with it. It's part of the human inheritance.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Sorry, my last post was a reply to no prophet, not Porridge.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Those with religious beliefs get their morality from their religion.
I'm not sure that's true.
I'm not sure it's true either. My religion certainly affects my morality, in that there are moral rules which I accept that I don't think I would have arrived at without religious teaching ('don't have sex before marriage') and moral rules which make sense only on the factual premise that my religion is true ('you should go to church'). And my religion is a reinforcer of moral rules generally, since my beliefs about the approval or disapproval of God for my actions gives me an additional motive for obeying my moral rules*. But the vast majority of my ethics would be unchanged if I changed or lost my faith. I would want to be a nice person rather than a nasty one whether or not I believed in God.
Also, while this isn't true of every believer, I don't tend to accept moral rules from my religion which my conscience can't approve. Even when I was much more certain than I am now that passages in Leviticus and Romans were equivocally opposed to a particular Dead Horse issue, I did not feel any personal disapproval for those on the other side. My religion (which was an remains important to me) didn't shape my thinking on that issue, because what I then saw as religious teaching was not something I was able to accept.
(*it is also possible that my belief in God's forgiveness might sometimes weaken my moral obedience. It shouldn't, of course, and if it did it would be a misuse of my religion, but I have to concede it is a possible effect of my religion).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Evolution has selected for altruism since it is a species survival mechanism. Society trains us for this further, as it is also one mechanism for a society to thrive.
As a general rule, evolution cannot select for species survival.(*) A species cannot pass on its genes to the next generation except via individuals. So where long-term species survival and short-term individual survival come into conflict, short-term individual survival will almost always win out.
(*) There are special circumstances - such as populations of disease-causing organisms - under which this doesn't apply. Humanity might exist under those special circumstances should it manage to colonise other planets. It doesn't do so now.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As far as helping a stranger (someone with only a slight chance of possessing some of the same genes as the altruist), evolution works by kludges. It may be that there's no easy way for humans to tell kin from non-kin through sensory input alone. I believe the most hated man in Britain wrote extensively on the hypothesis.
Dawkins believes that reason allows humans to overcome the inevitable kludginess of evolution. Quite why this should lead us to downplay kin altruism rather than downplay stranger altruism is not clear.
Dawkins has endorsed Matt Ridley's arguments that understanding the evolutionary basis of morality should lead us to slash government spending, especially redistributive programs. I'm not sure whether Dawkins actually thought about what he was endorsing - he seems to be a centrist liberal type on most issues.
[ 22. November 2013, 11:10: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So where long-term species survival and short-term individual survival come into conflict, short-term individual survival will almost always win out.
I think not always. It is true within the model of a well-mixed breeding population. But in practice populations are always subdivided, and the unit of selection may operate at subdivisions.
If you have a hundred or so primitive societies, there may be some in which altruistic behaviour emerges. Those societies will flourish, while the other societies where a few individuals exhibit selfish behaviour win out may in the long-term not flourish. Therefore there is selection for societies with altruistic behaviour.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
An atheist has no such recourse - and none yet has been able to give me a satisfactory answer as to how their morals are justified.
As no Christian has ever given me a satisfactory justification for how Christian morals are justified, this just makes things symmetric. "God did it" is not a satisfactory explanation - it's simply passing off the explanation onto the ineffable.
A list of many of the ways have been given by others on this thread.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As far as helping a stranger (someone with only a slight chance of possessing some of the same genes as the altruist), evolution works by kludges. It may be that there's no easy way for humans to tell kin from non-kin through sensory input alone. I believe the most hated man in Britain wrote extensively on the hypothesis.
Dawkins believes that reason allows humans to overcome the inevitable kludginess of evolution. Quite why this should lead us to downplay kin altruism rather than downplay stranger altruism is not clear.
Dawkins has endorsed Matt Ridley's arguments that understanding the evolutionary basis of morality should lead us to slash government spending, especially redistributive programs. I'm not sure whether Dawkins actually thought about what he was endorsing - he seems to be a centrist liberal type on most issues.
I'm fairly sure I've heard and read Dawkins say evolutionary theory is not a good basis for finding your ethics.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor
I think it's a pretty rubbish argument tbh, even when you acknowledge that it's a straw man. One group has a coherent explanation for their morality, the other group has apparently plucked theirs out of thin air but are apparently more 'authentic'.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But I would have thought that someone who philosophically doesn't have to treat others kindly, but nevertheless chooses to do so, possesses a moral sense that is more genuinely volitional (therefore more authentic) than someone who only does what is right out of fear of punishment or hope of reward.
I am certainly no apologist for atheism (quite the opposite!), but I do think that many Christians who use this "where do you get your morality from?" argument often imply that atheists are somehow inherently immoral. We don't need to explain our morality in order to be moral, any more than we need to understand the workings of our pulmonary system in order to be able to breathe. And explaining our pulmonary system will not enable us to breathe. Likewise, explaining our morality does not make us moral.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm fairly sure I've heard and read Dawkins say evolutionary theory is not a good basis for finding your ethics.
I wish Stephen Jay Gould had not died in a untimely manner. He was a better and more conciliatory writer and speaker than the grandstander Dawkins. He agreed with Dawkins about this, but not at all about so much else. I can only recommend Gould's collected essays across many volumes. I prefer his view of evolution than Dawkins', who is more deterministic.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
It so happens that a friend sent me a link to AlterNet today with a set of questions not to ask atheists. The first one is on atheist morals. I think it fits quite well here.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am certainly no apologist for atheism (quite the opposite!), but I do think that many Christians who use this "where do you get your morality from?" argument often imply that atheists are somehow inherently immoral.
The idea that atheists are particularly immoral is one with a fairly lengthy history and was, for a while, the basis of some fairly lurid pulp fiction (or its slightly more upscale equivalent).
quote:
Historians did not try to be calm about it in the early, juicy days when atheism was first presented as having a history. In the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, pamphlets and books discussing famous atheists were a thriller genre, scandalous tales of tyrants and madmen which occupied largely the same niche as biographies of serial killers, or penny museums displaying the death masks of executed murderers. Treatises on “Infamous Atheists” served a slightly more learned audience than wax heads and the numerous early versions of the Sweeny Todd legend, but only slightly, and as they proliferated in printing shops tales of the scandalous excesses of Tiberius and Caligula under the label “atheist” were part morality play, part voyeurism, and part slander as each particular collection targeted its audience’s enemies. French collections accused Italians and Englishmen of atheism while Italian collections accused Frenchmen; Catholic collections accused Martin Luther and John Calvin of atheism, while Protestant collections accused popes and papists, and almost all European collections accused Muslims and Jews of atheism in a spirit of general racism and lack of accountability and lexical clarity.
You may note that neither Martin Luther nor Caligula is on record as ever having philosophically attacked the existence of God, but the logic chain of these collections is, from our perspective, backwards: (1) Fear of Hell drives men to good behavior. (2) These men were bad. (3) These men did not fear Hell. (4) These men were atheists. In the Renaissance, sinful living in overt defiance of divine law was considered evidence of atheism, to the degree that we have records of many atheism trials from the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries in which the evidence brought by the prosecution involves no statement of unbelief on the part of the accused. Rather the evidence will be sinful living, promiscuity, homosexuality, gluttony, irreverence of civic and religious authority, anything from a monk taking in a mistress to a drunkard running around in public with no pants on (See Nicholas Davidson, “Atheism in Italy 1500-1700,” in Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, ed. Michael Hunter & David Wootton (Oxford, 1992), 55-86, esp. 56-7).
I'm actually somewhat amused that there existed atheist-themed equivalent of Penny Dreadfuls. Still, the backward logic enumerated above seems to still be with us, as this thread demonstrates. Not believing in (and therefore not fearing) Hell is seen as being a license for wickedness.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
An atheist has no such recourse - and none yet has been able to give me a satisfactory answer as to how their morals are justified.
As no Christian has ever given me a satisfactory justification for how Christian morals are justified, this just makes things symmetric. "God did it" is not a satisfactory explanation - it's simply passing off the explanation onto the ineffable.
A list of many of the ways have been given by others on this thread.
The existence of God is not a moral question, so relying on his existence in order to answer a moral question is well within the rules. God is the basis for my morality but I believed in God before I ever considered his existence as a moral question, so it is isn't special pleading to rely on him to give meaning to my moral universe.
The atheist explanations that have so far been given for morality are explanations of the how rather than the why. We got our morality from our parents, or found it innate within us? Great, but that doesn't make it mean anything. If morality is a byproduct of evolution, nothing can accurately be described as bad, only as abnormal. It might not be what most people would condone if I were to break into your house, torture you and steal your money, but there would be nothing objectively wrong about it - it would just be a minority preference.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Atheists in the UK get their morality from the Christian culture they have been born into.
Laws, culture, ethics, etc are all based on Christianity.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
The atheist explanations that have so far been given for morality are explanations of the how rather than the why. We got our morality from our parents, or found it innate within us? Great, but that doesn't make it mean anything. If morality is a byproduct of evolution, nothing can accurately be described as bad, only as abnormal. It might not be what most people would condone if I were to break into your house, torture you and steal your money, but there would be nothing objectively wrong about it - it would just be a minority preference.
Doesn't theistic morality fall down at the same point? For example, if someone claimed that God told him "to break into your house, torture you and steal your money" (either specifically or as a generically approved form of behavior), doesn't that make such actions "moral"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I'm not sure that's entirely fair, Croesos. No prophet at least starts, apparently, from the assumption that atheists have morals; otherwise the question of where we get these from would make no sense.
That said, why atheists are somehow required to justify their moral systems, a la dinghy sailor's post, is a mystery to me. And I agree with others here that blaming, er, justifying one's moral system by claiming it comes from some supernatural being is simply passing the buck. Nor do I believe this is the case. I think the basis for morality is innate; we're born with it. Those who achieve adulthood without some basic moral sense are, as noted above, usually considered impaired, deficient, or abnormal in some fashion.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
The above remark relates to Croesos's previous post, not the one just above.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
The atheist explanations that have so far been given for morality are explanations of the how rather than the why. We got our morality from our parents, or found it innate within us? Great, but that doesn't make it mean anything. If morality is a byproduct of evolution, nothing can accurately be described as bad, only as abnormal. It might not be what most people would condone if I were to break into your house, torture you and steal your money, but there would be nothing objectively wrong about it - it would just be a minority preference.
Doesn't theistic morality fall down at the same point? For example, if someone claimed that God told him "to break into your house, torture you and steal your money" (either specifically or as a generically approved form of behavior), doesn't that make such actions "moral"?
I doubt that personwill have much by way of logical reasoning behind his message from his god. If that god is supposedly my god, I can show the thief plenty of stuff from the bible about stealing being wrong - the ten commandments being a start. That's the point: we have a coherent logical system and a standard by which actions can be judged.
What worries me more than the odd lunatic nutjob is that by the reasoning of many on here, morality is a majority decision. Things are right because most people (excluding Hannibal Lecter) think they're right. That's not a situation I am comfortable with because it leaves no room for standing against the majority, speaking truth to power. If you have an unfashionable moral view, get with the program!
[ 22. November 2013, 20:14: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Atheists in the UK get their morality from the Christian culture they have been born into.
Laws, culture, ethics, etc are all based on Christianity.
If that were true, the civilizations of China, ancient Egypt, etc. would be inexplicable.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Doesn't theistic morality fall down at the same point? For example, if someone claimed that God told him "to break into your house, torture you and steal your money" (either specifically or as a generically approved form of behavior), doesn't that make such actions "moral"?
I doubt that person will have much by way of logical reasoning behind his message from his god.
He's decided you're an Amalekite. The rules are pretty clear on that. You got off easy just being tortured.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If that god is supposedly my god, . . .
And if his god isn't your god? There doesn't seem any way to resolve an impasse involving competing deities.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
. . . I can show the thief plenty of stuff from the bible about stealing being wrong - the ten commandments being a start. That's the point: we have a coherent logical system and a standard by which actions can be judged.
Really? Christians don't disagree on any kind of moral question? Or at least not the big ones, like slavery or whether women should have legal rights? That's truly remarkable and doesn't at all resemble the history of Christianity. If your system is truly "coherent" you'd expect a lot more unanimity over time.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
What worries me more than the odd lunatic nutjob is that by the reasoning of many on here, morality is a majority decision. Things are right because most people (excluding Hannibal Lecter) think they're right. That's not a situation I am comfortable with because it leaves no room for standing against the majority, speaking truth to power. If you have an unfashionable moral view, get with the program!
What disturbs me about theistic morality is the pretense that it's not the product of human invention; that it's an external system that's programmed into you rather than something you've made a conscious decision to adopt. It's the ultimate appeal to authority and rejection of accountability.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are options. I don't think any of them are fully satisfactory, but there are options.
Option one: enlightened self-interest / game theory / contractarianism. If everybody agrees to follow some code even when it's not in their immediate interest everybody will be happier overall.
Option two: Reason (with a capital R). Rationality turns out to require that I treat all human beings with equal respect, including myself.
Option three: Natural sympathy / innate benevolence: humans just do care enough for family / friends / other members of their species to act from that emotion, and to disapprove of and censure other humans who don't.
Option four: Secular eudaimonia / flourishing: the most admirable and fulfilling life for human beings requires them to cultivate justice and benevolence as virtues.
Most of the above options are incompatible with the other options to a greater or lesser extent. I wouldn't say religious sources of morality are inherently more questionable than any of them.
Starting with Option 2, one of the things that really puzzles me about non-theist morality, is that the rational position must be to persuade everyone else to treat one another with respect etc so as to provide oneself with the strategic opportunity to take advantage of their scruples when it suits one's own naked ambition to do so - provided one does't do it too often and that they don't notice.
Once one reaches that conclusion, it turns out to apply to Options 1, 3 and 4 as well.
There are plenty of Mr and Mrs Worldly Wisepersons who appear to follow that path.
Long ago, one of the things that drew me back to Christian faith wasn't just original sin. That fitted what one could observe, It was that one also found oneself spontaneously prompted by virtue and felt better for following those promptings. I admit that I'm biased by the choices I've made over my lifetime, but I really can't see any atheist explanation of that which makes sense, rather than is an excuse for not believing. Irrespective of theology, the traditional Christian understandings of human nature strike me as fitting the observable facts better than any of the other explanations.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So where long-term species survival and short-term individual survival come into conflict, short-term individual survival will almost always win out.
I think not always. It is true within the model of a well-mixed breeding population. But in practice populations are always subdivided, and the unit of selection may operate at subdivisions.
Humans have historically been about as well-mixed as any real-world breeding population gets. As I said, this might change if we ever set up colonies on other planets. In the here and now, I think population subdivisions among humans are negligible.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Option two: Reason (with a capital R). Rationality turns out to require that I treat all human beings with equal respect, including myself.
Starting with Option 2, one of the things that really puzzles me about non-theist morality, is that the rational position must be to persuade everyone else to treat one another with respect etc so as to provide oneself with the strategic opportunity to take advantage of their scruples when it suits one's own naked ambition to do so - provided one does't do it too often and that they don't notice.
It's not every day you get to see a self-described Christian denouncing the Golden Rule as immoral and manipulative.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Option one: enlightened self-interest / game theory / contractarianism. If everybody agrees to follow some code even when it's not in their immediate interest everybody will be happier overall.
Option two: Reason (with a capital R). Rationality turns out to require that I treat all human beings with equal respect, including myself.
Starting with Option 2, one of the things that really puzzles me about non-theist morality, is that the rational position must be to persuade everyone else to treat one another with respect etc so as to provide oneself with the strategic opportunity to take advantage of their scruples when it suits one's own naked ambition to do so - provided one does't do it too often and that they don't notice.
That's not option 2 you're reaction to but option 1. That's what I was trying to signal by giving Reason a capital R. Option 2 covers positions in the Kantian tradition (e.g. Rawls) - the idea that abstract logical considerations can mean I have obligations it would be irrational to ignore, regardless of my personal wants and desires. Reason for option 2 is its own separate faculty. It's a very different conception of what reason is and what rationality means from option 1. For option 1, reason is just effective implementation of my wants or desires. The conflict between option 1 conception of reasons and option 2 conception of reasons used to be a big controversy in moral philosophy and philosophy of mind twenty or so years ago - I'm not sure how the field has moved on.
[ 22. November 2013, 21:40: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Atheists in the UK get their morality from the Christian culture they have been born into.
Laws, culture, ethics, etc are all based on Christianity.
If that were true, the civilizations of China, ancient Egypt, etc. would be inexplicable.
Are you suggesting that those cultures have the same high morality as Christian laws and ethics? I wasn't aware that ancient Egypt had the 10 commandments.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's not every day you get to see a self-described Christian denouncing the Golden Rule as immoral and manipulative.
Croesus, you've completely misunderstood what I've just said.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd;
That's not option 2 you're reaction to but option 1. That's what I was trying to signal by giving Reason a capital R. Option 2 covers positions in the Kantian tradition (e.g. Rawls) - the idea that abstract logical considerations can mean I have obligations it would be irrational to ignore, regardless of my personal wants and desires. Reason for option 2 is its own separate faculty. It's a very different conception of what reason is and what rationality means from option 1. For option 1, reason is just effective implementation of my wants or desires. The conflict between option 1 conception of reasons and option 2 conception of reasons used to be a big controversy in moral philosophy and philosophy of mind twenty or so years ago - I'm not sure how the field has moved on.
I had not picked up that 'reason' and 'Reason' were intended to be different. However, to allow that they could be, I'd have to be persuaded first that it would actually be possible for Reason to have an objective existence in an atheistic universe.
To me, peoples' widespread hunger for there to be some sort of objective morality, and their determination to try and come up with unpersuasive arguments as to how or why this is somehow possible without there being God, are not a proof of his existence, but are a lot more persuasive of his existence than of his non-existence.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Atheists in the UK get their morality from the Christian culture they have been born into.
Laws, culture, ethics, etc are all based on Christianity.
If that were true, the civilizations of China, ancient Egypt, etc. would be inexplicable.
Are you suggesting that those cultures have the same high morality as Christian laws and ethics? I wasn't aware that ancient Egypt had the 10 commandments.
But Mesopotamia had Hammurabi's Laws which predate the 10 commandments and the others which accompany them. Which were not based on anything Christian, at the time, as I recall.
[ 22. November 2013, 22:30: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Atheists in the UK get their morality from the Christian culture they have been born into.
Laws, culture, ethics, etc are all based on Christianity.
If that were true, the civilizations of China, ancient Egypt, etc. would be inexplicable.
Are you suggesting that those cultures have the same high morality as Christian laws and ethics? I wasn't aware that ancient Egypt had the 10 commandments.
I see you're backing off your claim that law, culture and ethics are all based on Christianity. Thank you. To reiterate, you are now admitting:
- Laws are not based on Christianity. Pre- and extra-Christian cultures have laws.
- Culture is not based on Christianity. Pre- and extra-Christian cultures have culture.
- Ethics is not based on Christianity. Pre- and extra-Christian cultures have ethics.
- Etc. is not based on Christianity. Pre- and extra-Christian cultures have etc.
All you are claiming now is that their ethics aren't of the same high morality level as Christianity's.
When I look at what Christians have done in the name of Christianity, not in spite of but because of their "ethics," I have to say I'm not so impressed as to toss whatever China or Egypt had out the proverbial window. Christians created the auto-da-fey not in spite of but because of their Christian ethics. Christians created the Crusades not in spite of but because of their Christian ethics. Christians undertook pogroms against the Jews not in spite of but because of their Christian ethics.
What you seem to mean by "Christian ethics" is roughly "What I, now, in the 21st century, and those who agree with me, define as Christian ethics." The auto-da-fey, the Crusades, and the progroms are against this definition of "Christian ethics."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
