Religion is a poor source of morality

[robvalue]

No, I'm not. Social Darwinism is insane, and anyone who thinks it's a good idea is insane. That's a value judgement by me, of course. I'm not the arbiter of who is and isn't sane, or what value system is "the best".

How could anyone get social Darwinism from my arguments? I'm explicitly saying no value system is objectively correct. So how can I be arguing for an individual one? I've even said my own value system isn't objectively better than anyone elses.

Wow, I am exhausted after writing all that shit. I gotta go kill some weak and diseased people, laters!

PS: Wait, now I get it. Because I'm describing scientifically how morality came about in the first place, that means I'm saying that I advocate trying to "help evolution" as a value system. Of course not. It's just the facts of the matter. It's no use pretending it's not.

PPS: I'm getting way too obsessed with this forum again! I'm gonna take a break for a few days, anyone else is welcome to pick up this debate for me If not I'll see where it's at when I get back. Peace out Roadrunner

[Mudhammam]

Just to clarify what the theists in this thread are suggesting: morality cannot be objective unless we imagine a God who, for some nations at some epochs, endorses the beating of slaves and stoning of fornicators, but at other times does not. In other words, their source for what they want to call objective morality is actually depressingly relative; depressing because it appears to trick some minds into defending barbarism as very good.

Well, to hell with that. The very notion that God cannot lie suggests that God as he exists in his actions can be abstracted from the nature of the Good, i.e. the standard, which you unjustifiably assert as being synonymous with his "nature" - a standard (or nature), by the way, which he apparently lacks the free will to oppose.

Objective morality doesn't require God as a source. It requires inquiring minds who experience different states of being in their struggle to attain what every person desires: happiness.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Robvalue, why do you privilege empathy in your just-so story about natural selection. What about disgust, contempt, and fear. No doubt our capacity for those also evolved to confer some reproductive advantage. Using your logic I could rationalize moral sentiments I'm sure you would find disturbing. For example, disgust prompts us to avoid behaviors that led to injury and disease. Therefore it is moral to shun the sick and refrain from formication. Members of the tribe that are not inclined by normative desires to reproduce should be held in contempt. Or fear of outsiders protects the gene pool of the tribe therefore strangers, particularly those that appear different should be destroyed.

My point is not that any of the above examples are true but rather that contrary to common AF opinion the pressures of natural selection are at best neutral with respect to the origin of moral values.

We definitely have a strong feeling of "in-group" versus "out-group" (xenophobia, or fear of those who are different), but there are many examples of tribal peoples who're (or usually, were, since we've wiped so many out) still living in a way similar to that of our ancestors who had no problem with "non-reproductive" behaviors of that sort. It is quite possible for a non-reproductive member of a tribe to find a role that is helpful to the overall success of the tribe. Rather than listing examples, I will point you to a term to Google: "third gender".

Our concepts of fear and disgust for those who are radically outside the tribal norm is certainly a competitive advantage, and thus evoluationarily favored, but it is a non-sequitur to suspect that the tribe is automatically going to pick sexual preferences as one of those things to consider as a factor for in-vs-out-group identification.

However, we do tend to find that in a particular set of conditions, homophobia tends to emerge. Warrior-tribe people, especially in harsh environments with few resources and much competition, tend to push for a "breeder" mindset that encourages very particular patterns of family identity (including Patriarchy) which encourage large numbers of children for the next generation of spear-carriers. In places where tribes are not so dense and resources are more plentiful (e.g. rainforests), you tend to see more egalitarian societies and less issue with the idea of sexual identity. Of course, the three major religions on earth (Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) all evolved out of warrior societies, and tend to promote a strong line of definition for gender roles as inherent in the "in-group" definition.

It's important to realize this for what it is, and not confuse it with an instinctive disgust for homosexuality or other "deviance". We are taught to think of those things the way we do, whether we realize how much influence those teachings have on our instincts toward xenophobia. There are many factors which limit our capacity for empathy, and I think a mark of civilized (or "evolved", if you prefer) intelligence in humanity is the capacity to recognize those limits and the source of those xenophobic ideas, and to choose to overlook them and "learn better". 

To put it another way, while xenophobia is a natural instinct that evolved, the fact that people here in SE Missouri tend to hate black people is not based on a natural revulsion to dark skin, but to social training that they absorb from a very young age, here in Klan country.

[Neo-Scholastic]

But again that is all speculation on your part. I could also say that empathy is a reproductive disadvantage leaving compassionate people vulnerable to hostile groups. It is premature to say with any confidence that any particular evolved trait is primary for moral behavior and I believe there is good reason not to consider natural instinct a reliable moral guide. Virtuous action is often contrary to our natural instinct, like showing courage in the face of danger. You seemed to dismiss revulsion of deviate behavior as socially constructed problems. Could we not also say that social constructs like a sense of duty and honor contribute positively. Again socialization is neutral without reference to a higher standard of value that instinct or cultural norms.

[Edwardo Piet]

Objective morality doesn't require God as a source. It requires inquiring minds who experience different states of being in their struggle to attain what every person desires: happiness.

I wonder if you like Sam Harris as much as I do. He's awesome.

[Mudhammam]

Objective morality doesn't require God as a source. It requires inquiring minds who experience different states of being in their struggle to attain what every person desires: happiness.

I wonder if you like Sam Harris as much as I do. He's awesome.

Haha, I do like Sam... so long as he isn't talking about U.S. foreign policy or Israel/Palestine though. ;-)

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[Neo-Scholastic]

I say this with all the respect I can muster: You appear to have completely missed the point of what I was saying.

I appreciate your goodwill. I like you. You raise good points and seem pretty thoughtful overall. If I misunderstood then the fault is all mine for not reading carefully enough. You’ve made a couple statements about me here and elsewhere that I truly believe were unwarranted. For quite some time, I’ve been very careful to qualify all my statements about atheism and atheists numerically with “a few” or “some” or many. I have also been very careful for well over a year to not equate atheism per se with ontological naturalism, physical monism, materialism, etc. And despite all this you seem to think I am making wide sweeping generalizations from “the hate in my heart.” As for this thread, I guess I could go point by point, but in this case I don’t believe it would be necessary or productive.

Put simply, your naturalistic position makes a circular argument. You cannot evaluate the efficacy with which moral reasoning makes correct value judgments without first assuming the efficacy of moral reasoning. That’s what I mean when I say that naturalist theories of morality unjustifiably ‘privilege’ some instincts (empathy, disgust, altruism, group cohesion, etc.) over others.

The research you cite insightfully identifies external influences (culture and experience) and innate processes that contribute to the process of moral reasoning. I do not dispute any of their conclusions. But, and it is a critical ‘but’, empirical data alone cannot show that the results of moral reasoning are in fact moral. For example, scientific research can show that sociopaths reason differently from regular folks. Scientific research apart from a pre-determined measurable moral standard cannot show that the value judgments of a sociopath are morally inferior, equal, or superior to those of regular folks. From a naturalistic perspective, the best anyone can do is say that the behavior of a sociopath deviates from the cultural norm.

Secondly, it is premature to say that specific social systems are more fit than others. As for now, scientific research is too incomplete to say if the moral framework of one culture is superior to another in terms of ‘fitness’. It’s all speculation. Human societies have been organized under tribal elders and warlords, dynasties, dictators, empires, communes, and nation states. Western constitutional republics and liberal democracies have only been around for a tiny sliver of human history. There is insufficient data to suppose that Western-style approaches to governance are any more likely to insure the long-term survival of humanity than Islamic Caliphates or stone-age tribalism.

[houseofcantor]

I say this with all the respect I can muster: You appear to have completely  missed the point of what I was saying.

I appreciate your goodwill. I like you.

I think both of you are pretty cool.


I had a point but it's tear stained. OK, I'm better now, continue.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I know what you think you mean, when you say "higher standard of value", but I think it's clear that even those holy books are based on the cultures that spawned them, as a way of legitimizing a particular set of values.

I was not thinking of holy books or any other form of special revelation. As a professing Christian I understand why you would make that assumption, so I forgive you. The higher standard of value of which I was thinking has something to do with recognizing the degree to which a thing conforms to its essential nature. This approach at least has the promise of achieving a measure of objectivity.