Atheists are no worse off

[CmJour]

Many religious people claim that if atheism is true, moral relativism would be a necessary consequence. The purpose of this thread is to shatter what I think is a silly myth. I won't be arguing for objective moral values, that is for another discussion. What I'll be arguing is that if there are objective moral values, they are independent of religion. And therefore if there are no objective moral values atheists are no worse off because religion cannot provide objective moral values.

To demonstrate my point I will ask a famous philosophical question.

Is something good because God commands it, or does God command something because it is good?

Let's say we take the option that something is good because God commands it. What this implies is that whatever God commands is good by the mere fact that God commanded it. In other words, God invents morality. Another further implication of this is that anything whatsoever is potentially good because God could command it. This means that if God commanded you to kill your family this would be good. Many religious people would stop me right here and say, "No, God would not command us do someting so evil" But what is evil? Evil according to the definition of good that we are working with at the moment is that which goes against God's commands because something is good because God commands it. Such an objection misses the point. There is no stable nonarbitrary definition of good if we define good as that which God commands. "God is good" is an empty description because all you are saying is that God is what he commands, and that could be anything.

So if this option is unsatisfactory, we should explore the second one which is that God commands something because it is good. What this means is that God has to determine if something is good, and then command it. God doesn't invent morality on this view. But if God doesn't invent morality he is judging his commands based on a standard of good that exists independent of him. But this means that if God didn't exist, it doesn't necessarily follow that this standard would cease to exist as well because it exists independent of God.

So what are we now faced with? Either morality is arbitrary, or it doesn't require God's existence. Either God invents morality and it doesn't mean anything to say God is good, or morality makes sense but only independent of God.

Neither option seems satisfactory for the conservative religious person who wishes to ground morality in his religion.

[katar]

This is a straightforward treatment that has a definite charm in its directness and simplicity.

But therein lies the flaw. I think there are multiple false dilemmas at work here. These come to light when one considers the baseline religious proposition (in Christianity anyway) that God is perfect, incapable of less than perfection. If God must be perfect, by definition, then the hypotheticals about God telling one to commit an immorality are superfluous.

If your issue is whether God exists at all, then you have a myriad of decent arguments to argue against God's existence. However, if we take as a given that a wholly (holy) perfect God exists, then God's actions inform our perception of what is moral and what is not. If God's command appears immoral, then that is only because we do not view it with a divine perspective.

Consequently, your argument does not apply to the perfect/omniscient/omnipresent God that is contemplated by religions such as Christianity. Saying that a perfect God 'invents morality as he goes' is a mischaracterization. Such a God would necessarily be bound with morality for eternity.

Your argument is compelling when applied to a non-perfect being though. It's just the perfection of God-- part of the definition in many religions-- that gives your straightforward analysis trouble.

*IF* we take a perfect God's existence as a given (a big 'if' of course), then the idea of separating God from morality entails a false dilemma.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Usual BS religion thinks the world will collaspe without it, as if they invented philosophy. IMO philosohpy invented God, and it was the biggest goof philosophy ever got us into. Not that it is bad, just human.

[CmJour]

If God must be perfect, by definition, then the hypotheticals about God telling one to commit an immorality are superfluous.

Is God perfect by definition because he always without fail follows the standard independent of him? Or is he perfect by definition because he does whatever he wants, and whatever he wants is the definition of moral perfection? I don't think you understood my argument. Part of the dilemma is defining moral perfection.

If your issue is whether God exists at all,

It is not

Consequently, your argument does not apply to the perfect/omniscient/omnipresent God that is contemplated by religions such as Christianity. Saying that a perfect God 'invents morality as he goes' is a mischaracterization. Such a God would necessarily be bound with morality for eternity.

How do you know that God being bound to eternally follow the moral code that morality should be invented as he goes along is not the definition of moral perfection? God told you? Isn't that circular? And if you just know that inventing morality is not the definition of moral perfection, aren't you appealing to an independent standard to define a "perfect" God?

[katar]

Originally posted by CmJour,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CmJour,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Is God perfect by definition because he always without fail follows the standard independent of him? Or is he perfect by definition because he does whatever he wants, and whatever he wants is the definition of moral perfection? I don't think you understood my argument. Part of the dilemma is defining moral perfection. [/b]

God is perfect by definition because he does what he wants, and what he wants is necessarily moral. The first option is internally contradictory; God cannot be held to a higher standard (independent of him) because at that point he would cease to be God, thereby creating a paradox of terms. This is an impossibility in the same way that a negative square root is an impossible number.

<!--QuoteBegin-CmJour,

How do you know that God being bound to eternally follow the moral code that morality should be invented as he goes along is not the definition of moral perfection? God told you? Isn't that circular? And if you just know that inventing morality is not the definition of moral perfection, aren't you appealing to an independent standard to define a "perfect" God?[/quote]
Honestly I can't make sense of that first sentence. But I will clarify one point: I mean that God is intrinsically wrapped up with ("bound with") morality- not that God is compelled or dictated to act a certain way.

Anyway, I agree that you don't need a religion to argue for absolute morality-- I just don't think this arg gets you there. As I have nothing at stake in this debate besides inadvertently annoying you, I won't reply further.

[CmJour]

God is perfect by definition because he does what he wants, and what he wants is necessarily moral. The first option is internally contradictory; God cannot be held to a higher standard (independent of him) because at that point he would cease to be God, thereby creating a paradox of terms. This is an impossibility in the same way that a negative square root is an impossible number.

Then morality is arbitrary if it is based in God. If God is good by definition, "God is good" is a tautology which makes it uninformative and meaningless.

Anyway, I agree that you don't need a religion to argue for absolute morality-- I just don't think this arg gets you there. As I have nothing at stake in this debate besides inadvertently annoying you, I won't reply further.

Your not annoying me. I just don't think you understand the Euthyphro dilemma completely.

[Suburbanite]

If you're trying to prove that atheism does not produce moral relativism you took this the wrong direction. You might be better suited explaining that objectivity exists though is "unattainable" (disputable) because humans are socialites and thus see things subjectively. Or you can explain how without freewill how we see things can not be relatively correct or incorrect just a simple result of an emerged pattern and that right and wrong are just the catch phrase of the day to explain people's actions. For me personally, I don't usually do anything based on weather I think it is good or bad by any moral standards, I don't believe morals exist. While an atheist or many others might try and reclaim morals from the religious world, I see it as a dead issue. Morals are morals, no matter who commands them and no matter how objective your opinions of them could possibly be. I am an extremely amoral person because of this. I'm not saying I actively pursue sinning against the already established moral system, I am simply unconcerned with it when determining my actions. But then again, I'm not an atheist so I guess that doesn't really apply. It seems atheists, many, are a bit too consumed with replacing God than removing him.

[CmJour]

If you're trying to prove that atheism does not produce moral relativism you took this the wrong direction

I am not trying to prove that in an atheistic universe moral relativism won't be the case. It may very well be the case. I am trying to prove that even if relativism is the case with atheism this still doesn't mean that religion is in a better position because the standard of morality cannot be based in God by definition without it being arbitrary.

While an atheist or many others might try and reclaim morals from the religious world, I see it as a dead issue.

It has tremendous practical consequences. Many religious conservatives try to get their religion to influence the government because all governments have to be based on some principles, but they think that the principles necessarily are bound up with religion. But as a result you get less religious freedom. To demonstrate that if there are morals they are not necessarily connected with religion serves a good purpose.

It is also not a dead issue because it is good to find out what morals exist if there are any because if you don't know what they are and it turns out they exist, you won't be able to insure you won't do something immoral even if you aren't actively trying to be immoral.

[Ken Carman]

How do we know God is perfect? Because God says he is? Is God actually perfect or just more like GW Bush who can't think of any mistakes he's made? If a deity creates Adam and Eve, and a tree of knowledge, and insists they don't eat from it; isn't he in denial a little bit? Most people KNOW what they would do, is God less intelligent than his creations? Is God the Homer Simpson of the deity realm and all the other deities are laughing at him? ("Hey Zeus, look what the moron did THIS time!") Of course many would argue that this was all by design and what was supposed to happen, but that sounds a lot like rationalization after the fact to me. Was "The Garden" the universe's first sting operation? Talking abouting setting up things for your children to fail... ("But they had free will!" Not if it was by design they didn't... Ah, the paradox.)

Of course the bible really isn't written in the first person, so we have believers telling us they think he is perfect, or that he told them to tell us he thinks he is perfect. Doesn't sound all that reliable to me.

The Koran, from what I understand, was supposedly written by Allah. But, once again, someone or something, supposedly, telling me they are so superior to the rest of us seems self-serving. Plus superior does not mean benevolent.

And, has the original meaning of the thread been shoved aside? I've known many atheists. I've found them to be quite moral people, even judging by what some consider "Christian" standards (All the "thou shalt nots" that have existed long before even Judaism, unless you accept Creationism and only a few thousand years of human existence.) There are almost no atheists in jails, according to most studies I've read; far less statistically than the amount in the population as a whole.

Now if we factor the "you must accept Jesus/Allah..." whomever into it; the fact that some more fundamentalistic approaches demand that to be moral you must accept the divinity of their deity, then all bets are off. Personally, I find that approach rather immoral. We have those delightful Crusades and the Inquisition to prove the kind of immorality that thinking can lead to.

[Autophage]

Now I tend to disagree with Mr. Vicchio... but in this case I do. It proves a point that many people try to but get tongue-tied because they are themselves atheists.

[InfuscoParvulus]

Either God invents morality and it doesn't mean anything to say God is good, or morality makes sense but only independent of God.

Good can be definded in more than one way. When people say that God is good it doesn't neccessarily mean the same thing as saying that abstinance is good. That would be like implying that a religous person that says running is good is implying that God states that running is morally correct.

The Koran, from what I understand, was supposedly written by Allah. But, once again, someone or something, supposedly, telling me they are so superior to the rest of us seems self-serving.

Ok, but if other's told you that Allah was perfect you would tell them that they wouldn't know, that it would be impossible to say such a thing. Why do you think they believe God/Allah is perfect/superior, it's something they see, something they apply.

[Ken Carman]

InfuscoParvulus, "Either God invents morality and it doesn't mean anything to say God is good, or morality makes sense but only independent of God."

The Koran, from what I understand, was supposedly written by Allah. But, once again, someone or something, supposedly, telling me they are so superior to the rest of us seems self-serving.

(Me)

Ok, but if other's told you that Allah was perfect you would tell them that they wouldn't know, that it would be impossible to say such a thing. Why do you think they believe God/Allah is perfect/superior, it's something they see, something they apply.

As far as the last comment, my reasoning was a little circular as a whole, and I didn't realize that until you pointed it out. I find theological discussions tend to be this way about 100% of the time because so much faith, or even lack of it, is required. That's fine, but it tends to make logical arguments tough if not impossible... no matter who is attempting to discuss the issue.

To the poster you quoted, ("Either God invents morality and it doesn't mean anything to say God is good, or morality makes sense but only independent of God.")

Why couldn't it be somewhere inbetween? Perhaps we do decide "morality" to a certain extent, but God, Allah, or the Holier Than Us Purple Pigeon attempts to steer the decision making? This would cover both "free will" and the "fact" that if God were to suggest some moral imperative to us that we're not ready to understand he would only he pissing himself off by his own stupidity. I'm sure God, or Allah, or (?), is smart enough to introduce moral concepts only when we are finally at the intellectual level to have a minimum of understand. Compliance and "enough of an understanding" are slightly different issues, of course. Perhaps, like any good parent, the Creator knows that you cannot learn lessons for your children.

[Paavo]

(Fixed your quote-tags, Ken)

[InfuscoParvulus]

To the poster you quoted, ("Either God invents morality and it doesn't mean anything to say God is good, or morality makes sense but only independent of God.")

I see it as God decided what morals we would have before he created us, and hasn't contradicted himself since. As for as free will goes, i believe the free will we have decides whether or not we want to follow the morals that we know are right, it doesn't invent the morals.

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by InfuscoParvulus, I see it as God decided what morals we would have before he created us, and hasn't contradicted himself since. As for as free will goes, i believe the free will we have decides whether or not we want to follow the morals that we know are right, it doesn't invent the morals.

I understand, but don't necessarily agree. I do believe this is a faith thing.

Paavo- Stll having problem with the quote button. Doesn't seem to work as described or as instructions read. Part of the problem is I'm spending too much damn time on this thing as it is and wife keeps sighing. When I have more time, I will experiment.

[CmJour]

InfuscoParvulus:

I see it as God decided what morals we would have before he created us, and hasn't contradicted himself since.

But how do we know what he decided was good? You can't say because the morals feel right to us because God could have made anything feel right to us. In order to determine if the morals God selected were good (assuming there is a God), we would have to judge God by a preexisting standard of good that he didn't decide on. Why do we have to do this? Because different incompatible religions say that their God is the standard of good and perfection, but the morals contradict the morals of the other religion. If we say our God is by definition perfect, we have to show why our God is "by definition perfect" as opposed to another God who is "by definition perfect".

How is the God of Islam better or worse because their God is "by definition perfect" as opposed to the God of Christianity whose God is also "by definition perfect?"

And you can't say that the morals of one religion feel more right than the morals of another religion because that just leads back to what I said about our feelings being incapable of identifying what is a "perfect" God.

[InfuscoParvulus]

It's just whatever the individual believes. How do they know the morals besides it feeling right? They read the Biblie/Koran, in these books it tells them what morals God has set