Religion is a poor source of morality

[robvalue]

As a quick comment, I'd like to say thanks Roadrunner for the interesting debate You've remained civil through it, which is relatively rare on here. I'm not trying to be confrontational, so sorry if any of my words come over cold. I'm just very logical and matter of fact, and want to address the issues directly. I'll have to take a break after these big two messages as they've whacked me out

Roadrunner: The fact that people tend to generally share the same sense of morality is a direct result of evolution and is easily explainable. There's no need to resort to any outside influence.

I would challenge you to show that morality is a result of evolution, I don't think that you can do so,  easily or otherwise.  Not just to tell a story of evolution magic, but to show that it is the cause.  I admit, that we cannot test that morality is objective.  However I would maintain that the majority of people have an innate sense that morality is objective and unchanging.  The majority of philosophers believe in moral realism.  And while some such as Sam Harris admit to objective morality, I find that most who talk of subjective morals, still behave as if morals are objective.  

Covered in previous post. An "innate sense" is an appeal to emotion. It's not evidence. I am still waiting for examples of objective morality at work, what it means and how it's in any way useful.

Something being objective means you can somehow measure it using a certain method, and everyone would get the same results in any particular example, such as measuring mass or velocity. (Let's not cloud the issue with advanced science. Of course there will be user error to some degree as we're not infallible.) To say morality is objective, you need to give a method for measuring it. You also have to explain why that particular way of measuring it is meaningful or useful.

If this is true, then wouldn't logic/reason fall under the same restriction?  You cannot test logic or reason using the scientific method.  Science presupposes logic/reason.  Do you think that there is an objective logic; or is it based on the subject, and someone else's logic which opposes your own is equally valid? 

This is the roadrunner tactic. Yes, science and logic make some presuppositions, the minimum requires in order to be able to make any progress. We can either:

(1) Agree on some basic rules of logic/reason, as we appear to, for the sake of the argument or

(2) Discount everything either of us says because it might be a load of hogwash.

It's true, this might all be hogwash. But that is not a positive argument for anything. We lose nothing by making minimum assumptions, because if those are wrong and the very building blocks of logic make no sense, all we've done is talked a bit more drivel. So we agree to assume and move on, or we have nothing to discuss with anyone, ever and no progress can be made. Making assumptions which include the very conclusion you want to draw is circular logic/begging the question however. That is why we try to keep the assumptions down to as few as we can.

You seem to be uncomfortable with consequences. If there is only subjective morality, then no one can objectively say they are more moral than anyone else. Correct. That doesn't stop it being true. Simply announcing that there must be a "correct" subjective morality and calling that objective morality is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

Yes to an extent, I think it is a correct assessment to say I'm uncomfortable with moral anti-realism.  I don't think morality is just an opinion, but something real, something to discover, and something to aspire to.  But more so; I don't think that you and others behave as if is subjective.  Which should I believe.... what you say, or what you do?

How is morality something "real"? Where is it? What is it? I say it exists only as a value judgement made by intelligent beings, or else it is an observation of how people/society act as a whole. These are two very different things and shouldn't be confused. You can objectively study a society and get concrete data from their behavior, but you can't actually measure their value judgements in an objective way. Everyone has slightly different standards, so you can't compare one persons directly with another. You'd have to compare their value systems/morality goals. And until you've agreed these, you've nothing to rate them with and it's begging the question.

I behave very much like morality is subjective. I consider many things grossly immoral that society says is absolutely fine. I try to avoid these as much as possible, and I hope that in the future the rest of society will follow suit. My morality is very different, in some respects, to the norm. I don't claim I'm objectively right; I simply have different goals and values.

What we can do, and what we do do is to agree between us in a society on general goals for morality such as maximising life, health, happiness, opportunity, equality, freedom and so on while minimising death, harm, suffering, etc. Once we have agreed those things are important, a sensible framework can be built. It's then possible to compare one set of morals to another, to see which best serves the goals. What we consider important goals is something that evolves over time, as certain things seem more important and others less important.

You say that morality changes over time, and is a result of societal consensus.  So then a moral framework which is the antithesis of what you posted here would be equally valid then correct (it would be equally moral)?  You claimed that evolution is the source of morality (although un-supported).  So wouldn't then wouldn't morality be what best advances the species?

Yes. Morality means nothing until you have defined what "good" or "bad" mean. That is why they are subjective. Two completely different set of definitions are not objectively better or worse than each other. You must first assume what the goal is, which is begging the question. We can sit here and tell ISIS their morality is inferior because it involved killing people, and that's really bad. We say we're objectively right. But we're judging our system by our own goals, so of course it would seem "right" to us. They look at us and say we're not respecting Allah, we're no killing enough people for him. That's what is important. We're not doing it, so they think they are objectively better. But again, they use their own standard. So of course they will think they are right too. Who gets the final say in who is right? All we can do is try and agree between ourselves how we want to live. Just announcing one society is "better" than another, without first setting up the criteria, is meaningless.

If morality is based on god's nature, it's still subjective to god's nature. It's not objective. We can study the evolution of a particular society's morality, or we can study individuals to see how their own ideas compare to the general consensus. Objective morality is akin to saying, "Look, this is all too complicated. People sort of agree, and I want there to be a best way to behave. Therefor there is a magic standard." Even if there was one, no two people can agree what it is so it would be utterly pointless. What use to anyone is millions of theists all announcing their own interpretation of objective morality? If we're simply going to discuss them and find out what we think is right, then we're dealing with subjective morality again.

In your first sentence here I think you are equivocating the term "subjective".  I could equally say that the property of hardness is subject to an objects composition or any other number of physical laws, but it would be incorrect to say that it is not objective.  I also think that you are confusing epistemology (how we know what is moral) with ontology (what makes it moral) which is what I am discussing.

I don't know what you mean. You're saying god just happened to be a certain way, and that way just happens to be the best morality? How does that even make sense? Doesn't he choose how he is? Or did something else choose it for him? If you're saying god is as restricted by the laws of the universe as everything else, then there's a problem. He's no longer the controller of it, he's part of it. Can god not change his nature? And if not, why should I care at all what his nature is, if it was arbitrary and not chosen by him or anyone else in the first place? You're right to say things are ultimately dependent on the laws of the universe, and so on. That's a given. If you include that, nothing is objective ever, including the morality you are asking for. Is god subject to the same rules?

Plus, you really don't want morality based on god's nature if that God is Yahweh. I assume you've read the bible, the only apparent source we have. By today's civilised standards and goals, he is a psychopathic monster. To say otherwise is to discount the bible, at which point you're just completely making stuff up.

Well that is your subjective opinion, and I suspect is a result of prooftexting and lack of knowledge of scripture.   However you are again not basing your judgement on the subjective standard which you propose.

I'm reading the words in the bible. I've read plenty of them, in context. The whole of the OT displays a horrific character, for which Christians are constantly making excuses for his behavour. You assume again I don't know my stuff here. I could write a massive list, with references, as to the atrocities Yahweh causes, sanctions or devises. But if you simply say Yahweh is good and whatever he does is good, then it's nothing to do with morality, it's bowing down to a dictator.