Atheism and morality

[The Grand Nudger]

You can't show father Christmas to exist by showing that beliefs in father Christmas exist, can you?

Yeah...actually, you can......morality is in a similar position, imho.

What is "father christmas" -if not- the belief?

[paulpablo]

Moral values are shaped through time and have evolved out of 2000 years of human civilisation and learning.
So the agent that gave humanity it`s moral values is humanity itself and it is wrong to thing of moral values and codes of social conduct as something unshakeable and strickt.
They evolve and change and are the result of human learning.

So there is no god needed.

Actualy, arguing that a god gave us our moral values is somewhat insulting because it demands the precondition that mankind is to incompetent to create his own moral set of rules.
Other than that, if you look arround the globe you will see that what is moraly correct is perceived differently in different cultures - which means that there is no such thing as a international code of morals - hence making devine creation of such even more impossible.

Well done for totally ignoring the arguments. I keep doing this, but I'll do it again in the vain hope that someone might be capable of grasping the point.

MOral sensations and beliefs are not morality. They are moral sensations and beliefs. Belief in father Christmas isn't father Christmas. Belief in god isn't god. You can't show father Christmas to exist by showing that beliefs in father Christmas exist, can you?
Similarly, you can't show god to exist by showing beliefs in god to exist. Why? Because father Christmas is not a belief. He's a fat guy who delivers presents on Christmas eve. He doesn't exist. Beliefs in him do. He doesn't. So father Christmas phenomena exists. Father Christmas doesn't. This is painfully simple stuff. Try and grasp it.(you won't, of course, because it doesn't serve your interests to).

Now moral beliefs and sensations definitely exsit and they exist even if there isn't a god. But morality isn't a sensation or a belief. It is the thing sensed, the thing believed. That doesn't mean it exists, but to exist it is not enough that moral sensations and beliefs exist. Indeed morality could exist without those things.

Morality is something that instructs and those instructions are instructions that confer reason for compliance. Those are conceptual claims about morality. Not mine, widely attested to. By all means dispute them if you wish. You can block my argument by doing so. But if it is true that morality has - and must have - those features, then there is only one thing morality can be, and that is the instructions of a god. Or so I am arguing. That doesn't mean such a god exists. It means one would need to if our moral sensations and beleifs are to have something answering to them. Why can't you grasp this painfully simple point?

So why would these instructions need to come from a god, if you want to call them instructions.

[Inigo]

So why would these instructions need to come from a god, if you want to call them instructions.

Because it is a conceptual truth about moral instructions that if one exists and applies to you, you thereby have reason to do as it instructs. My instructions are not like this, nor are yours, nor is some collection of them. The only way that I can see that an agent's instructions to us would be ones we'd always have reason to comply with is if the instructor in question has control over our interests in an afterlife. So long as that person is vengeful and will harm the interests of those who do not do as she instructs, her instructions will be ones that everyone has reason to comply with, whatever their interests.

This is a conceptual claim. It is a claim about what it would take for morality to exist. The existence of moral sensations and beliefs is not in quetsion. They don't require a god. What requires a god is the actual existence of external instructions that confer resaons to comply to all. .

[The Grand Nudger]

The only way that I can see that an agent's instructions to us would be ones we'd always have reason to comply with is if the instructor in question has control over our interests in an afterlife.

-Or- maybe theyr'e just a normal Joe with a really good argument and no control over an afterlife you cannot demonstrate...eh? In fact, I could have just said "-or-" and left it at that...because there's no shortage of alternatives (nor is anything that proceeded this hypothetical remotely close to being well thought out). Which god would you like the earnest listener to lean towards, just blow your load..cut to the chase, etc.

[Inigo]

Try and put it simply why you believe morality comes from god, maybe by showing the differences in your argument and say other arguments that say god must exist because of instincts, or god must exist because some people have a morality, or maybe that last one is your argument, it's still unclear to me.
Your argument does sound a lot like one I saw on here not long ago saying god must exist because cats avoid scorpion tails without being taught how.

What do you mean 'try and put it simply'? I've laid it out in a series of syllogisms. It doesn't get simpler than that. It isn't my fault if nobody can be bothered to address those arguments. And why do you keep saying 'come from god'? My claim is that morality requires a god to exist. Water requires H20 in ordre to exist, becuaes water IS h20. But water doesn't 'come from' H20 does it?


1. Morality's instructions are instructions that confer reasons for compliance to any and all to whom they are addressed.
2. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife and wishes to harm those interests should we fail to do as she instructs/favours would be instructions that would confer a resaon to comply to all to whom they are addressed.
3. Morality is an agent of the kind outlined in 2 above.

An agent of that kind is, on common usage, 'a god'.

[Polaris]

No. I am saying that real moral instructions would have to be the instructions of a powerful supernatural agent of some kind.

Finally, I understand what you are stating. You would be wrong, of course. Morality, as FallentoReason has already stated, arose through evolution as a means of survival. It is anthropologically sound. There needs to be nothing divine behind anything in this world, for anything can be explained naturally. For those things we have yet to explain, however, claiming a higher power is behind it is mere intellectual laziness.

But it is believed religion was necessary in early cultures as a means of survival, so that people with self-interests would work towards the common goal...that worked well until they encountered cultures with different faiths.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. Morality's instructions are instructions that confer reasons for compliance to any and all to whom they are addressed.

They are not always good reasons, nor do all comply with them even if they are- depending on those reasons.

2. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife and wishes to harm those interests should we fail to do as she instructs/favours would be instructions that would confer a resaon to comply to all to whom they are addressed.

I don't, personally, have to be threatened to comply with good adivce.

3. Morality is an agent of the kind outlined in 2 above.

That agent can be your dad, or bugs bunny, or the gecko that tells you that it;s okay to rape that girl....

An agent of that kind is, on common usage, 'a god'.

See above.

[Inigo]

They are not always good reasons, nor do all comply with them even if they are- depending on those reasons.

It is never irrational to do what is right. That's the point. That's one of the features of morality that needs to be explained. Deny it and it is hard to see how you're any different to a moral nihiilist.

I don't, personally, have to be threatened to comply with good adivce.

Well, good. But if morality exists you have reason to do as morality bids even if you don't want to. So even if you really hate others and want to hurt them you have reason not to if morality says not to.

That agent can be your dad, or bugs bunny, or the gecko that tells you that it;s okay to rape that girl...

Well, no it can't and I've shown why umpteen times. But assert something enough and it'll become true.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is never irrational to do what is right. That's the point. That's one of the features of morality that needs to be explained. Deny it and it is hard to see how you're any different to a moral nihiilist.

Meh, it may be, that would depend on what you positively valued as "right" wouldn't it? Similarly, you may do something that is "wrong" but simultaneously logical. These terms, right, wrong, logical, illogical are not equivalent, and they would have to be for your pastors criticism to hold. Nihilism (and nihilists) need not apply.

Well, good. But if morality exists you have reason to do as morality bids even if you don't want to. So even if you really hate others and want to hurt them you have reason not to if morality says not to.

All of this is irrelevant, for your conjecture to hold -the reason- (not "a reason") has to be a threat/reward...some measure of control ...from a god. As I don't require this, the conjecture is DOA. Even if my waffle told me what was right or wrong and I was a nutball and did whatever my waffle said, your conjecture would be annihilated, understand? No matter what reason I have (even if it is illogical) that holds me to something even when I "don't want to" will satisfy this condition...and no gods need be invoked, eh?

Well, no it can't and I've shown why umpteen times. But assert something enough and it'll become true.

Of course it can, assert that it cannot umpteen times and that won't change the fact that no god handed me any morals, while my father did. The nutball in the top part of my response got his morality from some waffles. There's a bag of peanuts out there right now instructing someone on morality. Strange world, I;d say.

[max-greece]

So why would these instructions need to come from a god, if you want to call them instructions.

Because it is a conceptual truth about moral instructions that if one exists and applies to you, you thereby have reason to do as it instructs. My instructions are not like this, nor are yours, nor is some collection of them. The only way that I can see that an agent's instructions to us would be ones we'd always have reason to comply with is if the instructor in question has control over our interests in an afterlife. So long as that person is vengeful and will harm the interests of those who do not do as she instructs, her instructions will be ones that everyone has reason to comply with, whatever their interests.

This is a conceptual claim. It is a claim about what it would take for morality to exist. The existence of moral sensations and beliefs is not in quetsion. They don't require a god. What requires a god is the actual existence of external instructions that confer resaons to comply to all. .

Unless those instructions come to us through the evolutionary process. No external agent required.