Questions for atheists

[BlackSheep]

I can't help but see aggressiveness and conservatism connected. Without naming a specific society, I think people aggressively defend tradition (what is comfortable and "normal") for fear and/or hatred of the unknown.

I agree. The problem is that human history is very long and everything is is transition. Nothing we know now was there in the beginning and people have a difficult time imagining something beyond what they know now.

[Peter]

Ironically Christianity does just that!

Really? Christianity encourages questions about itself??

That might be true at the upper apologist level but in the trenches it's all about reinforcing faith not questioning it.
Raising questions gets you thrown out on your ear.

[spinel]

REALLY? Do you have documentation of this? You know, there may be some churches who can't "open their churches for them to have a place to sleep at night" because of liberal bureaucrats who for bid it. Honestly though, I don't know ANY that are as callus toward human suffering as you suggest.

Sure. The pseudo christians vote republicans who vote against the poor to make the rich richer. Have you failed to miss that point?

And churches don't open their doors to the poor because they love "stuff" that is in there more than life. There's no democrat laws involved in their decision. Or haven't you seen the new SCOTUS ruling.

[Whiskey1428]

By: Blacksheep
To a degree this becomes a chicken and egg question.

It most certainly does. So let us brake it down a step further.

By: Blacksheep
Humans are animals and animals have instincts.

If morals come from instincts than I think it is proper to ask where did instincts originate from?

By: Blacksheep
As species move towards being social these instincts change.

Whoa! Slow down! Where's the fire? What caused species to suddenly want to become social?

By: Blacksheep
In fact it is these instincts that make them social. The need to be with others, to be loved etc.

Now you are just reaching... any evidence?

I understand that this is quickly becoming grossly off topic and would be better suited for another thread, so maybe we should do just that.

Anyway, origins people, origins.

Josh

[BlackSheep]

It most certainly does. So let us brake it down a step further.

If morals come from instincts than I think it is proper to ask where did instincts originate from?

All morals do do not come from instincts, just the basics that allowed the initial social structures. Instincts evolved over time as behaviors that allowed a creatures to survive better.

Whoa! Slow down! Where's the fire? What caused species to suddenly want to become social?

Evolution is not driven by wants. Species that evolved successful strategies survived to pass on their genes. Social behavior would under certain circumstances be beneficial.

Now you are just reaching... any evidence?

I don't think I am reaching at all. Why do humans seek other humans?

I understand that this is quickly becoming grossly off topic and would be better suited for another thread, so maybe we should do just that.

Sounds good.

Anyway, origins people, origins.

Origins of what?

[finder]

It is evident to me that the consensus of atheists responses is that "good" in the form of morality comes from some kind of naturalistic group selection and preservation via the evolutionary process. And "evil" is the result when immoral traits are not discarded by natural selection. And societal compulsion is what determines morality. Is this essentially correct?

If so, then what we have is a Pandora's box where at the end of the day anything can be "moral" as long as the timing matches the whims of society. If you disagree with my conclusion the you must explain some things. Like since evolution has no goal or purpose as atheists often claim, then why the group effort in societies to strive for the good of society via the Darwinian explanation referred above?

Some other considerations...Lions kill for dominance within the pride, spiders eat their mates, chimpanzees kill those in their society as well as wondering nomads who approach the existing societal unit. Do these and the plethora of other species commit evil, immoral acts or do these acts only constitute immorality and evil if the perpetrators are aware of such a thing as "moral decree?" If it is agreed that moral "laws" are a necessity then wouldn't it be pertinent for them to be consistent for all time as opposed to changing do to culture? How can it be moral to desire a change in the standard so that newly arising desires wouldn't be breaking that standard? I submit we need absolution for morality to exist and that must come from outside of ourselves. Otherwise it's just a free for all.

[Jack]

It is evident to me that the consensus of atheists responses is that "good" in the form of morality comes from some kind of naturalistic group selection and preservation via the evolutionary process.

Evolution doesn't have a direct role in the development and implementation of morality. Moral codes are created by social groups in order to make their society more cohesive and to increase harmony among their members. Morality isn't encoded genetically, it's preserved by tradition and incorporation into laws and customs. Taboos are the incorporation of moralities into a group's mythology.

And "evil" is the result when immoral traits are not discarded by natural selection.

No. Evil is a religious term. It has no meaning in a biological context. Natural selection doesn't favor either "good" or "bad" behaviors.

And societal compulsion is what determines morality.

Pretty much, though I'd say social priorities determine morality for that society.

...we have is a Pandora's box where at the end of the day anything can be "moral" as long as the timing matches the whims of society.

Correct. At one time it was considered not just moral but encouraged by god to burn "witches" at the stake. We no longer consider burning witches socially acceptable. Society determines morality based on what behaviors are beneficial to the group in general and which are detrimental. As groups grow and expand what's considered beneficial and detrimental will surely change.

Lions kill for dominance within the pride, spiders eat their mates, chimpanzees kill those in their society as well as wondering nomads who approach the existing societal unit. Do these and the plethora of other species commit evil, immoral acts or do these acts only constitute immorality and evil if the perpetrators are aware of such a thing as "moral decree?

Nature has no truck with the religious concept of "evil". Each society will determine morality based on what benefits the group most. It seems most animal communities have developed some degree of morality, but it's going to be unique to the needs of each community. When lions kill the young of another male they aren't behaving immorally, it benefits their society to have the cubs be the offspring of the dominant male.

If it is agreed that moral "laws" are a necessity then wouldn't it be pertinent for them to be consistent for all time as opposed to changing do to culture?

Hey, it would be great if you got compensated every time you did a moral act, too, but that's not how it works. At best some people can pretend that what they consider morality has an objective source and has been handed down by a god, but they have no way to prove either. What we do have evidence of is that humans have been responsible for creating moral codes throughout history. No one has presented an irrefutably objective source for morality. Besides, an inflexible morality would actually not serve a society as well as a subject and flexible morality. "Absolute" conditions cannot adapt to new information or realities. They encourage stagnation and discourage growth and improvement. This is in part why some atheists consider themselves more anti-theist than atheist. They see the attempt to impose outdated and irrelevant morality from 2000 years ago on modern society (with technologies, social realities and scientific discoveries) an act of immorality itself. Since it's detrimental to the advancement and improvement of society it falls within a secular definition of immorality.

I submit we need absolution for morality to exist and that must come from outside of ourselves

Even if we did need one, which we don't, you have no way to establish that any morality you suggest comes from "outside of ourselves". It's both reasonable and logical to conclude that if humans conceived it and wrote it down, it's the product of humans. No reason to think it was handed down by any god.

Otherwise it's just a free for all.

Untrue. Moral codes work equally well for all societies because of what they are created to do, not because of the real or imagined origin of them.

Sure, I might be more impressed if you can convince me that doing something will result in god striking me dead than if I believe all that will happen is I'll be ostracized from society. The problem with that is that once I see someone do that action and not get struck dead I'm going to figure that either you're lying or just wrong about god's punishment. Now you've got to regroup and claim that I'll be punished after death so that I can't possibly observe that punishment not work.

[Sigma_Tau_Theta]

It is evident to me that the consensus of atheists responses is that "good" in the form of morality comes from some kind of naturalistic group selection and preservation via the evolutionary process. And "evil" is the result when immoral traits are not discarded by natural selection. And societal compulsion is what determines morality. Is this essentially correct?"

Good thing I'm not an atheist. I would disagree that morality comes via an evolutionary process. But I would agree to societal compulsion determines morality."

If so, then what we have is a Pandora's box where at the end of the day anything can be "moral" as long as the timing matches the whims of society.

Pretty much, then again you can apply the same to religions and substitute "society" with "God"

Some other considerations...Lions kill for dominance within the pride, spiders eat their mates, chimpanzees kill those in their society as well as wondering nomads who approach the existing societal unit. Do these and the plethora of other species commit evil, immoral acts or do these acts only constitute immorality and evil if the perpetrators are aware of such a thing as "moral decree?"

Acts are immoral if and only if there is a moral code to state they are in the first place."

If it is agreed that moral "laws" are a necessity then wouldn't it be pertinent for them to be consistent for all time as opposed to changing do to culture?

Moral codes aren't necessary, but they are convenient, and consistency is another plus, but a necessity.

How can it be moral to desire a change in the standard so that newly arising desires wouldn't be breaking that standard?

Is it against any moral code to change the code?

I submit we need absolution for morality to exist and that must come from outside of ourselves. Otherwise it's just a free for all.

And there's the biggest criticism of moral relativism. If morals are relative, everything's permitted. The point of moral codes, social norms, mores, etc is to create order. Point of origin is not particularly important. The point is to create a code of behavior that benefits the society and punishments when that code is broken. Codes evolve because certain behaviors are no longer seen as detrimental to society, like homosexuality, small populations, not beneficial, large ones who cares.

Even religious morals can be relative. Question, why is that which is called "good", "good"? Is it because "God" says so? Or is because there is an actual universal code that "God" is letting humans know the code? If homosexuality is an abomination to YHWH, then it's immoral in relation to YHWH. And last time I check, the OT was for the Jews, so as a Gentile, I don't have to worry about kosher. To Hindus, eating beef is a big no-no, as for the rest, who wants a Big-Mac?

Besides, religious morals conflict with free will. Acting a certain way to avoid threats of hell-fire and damnation, that's coercion. "I don't want you to act correctly, I want you to want to act correctly, and by the way, if don't act correctly, you get to go to Hell." And then there's giving man certain instincts and then setting the rules in opposition, not the most even-handed way to do things, imo.

[Ken Carman]

Do you have "evil" thoughts?
Have you had one in the past?
Do you consider betrayal of trust "evil?"
Do you face temptation from that which you think you should resist?
Do you believe "evil" is a reality?

If your answer is "no" to any or all of the above for some generic reason like thoughts are just part of the experience of the human animal, then what stops you from acting on them since they can't be "wrong"? Being just chemical reactions in the brain and all?

I would think anyone would have "evil" thoughts, though definition of evil is dependent upon the individual: even a theist has to accept some definition, biblical, pastoral... whatever. Then we get into interpretation. No matter how clear each individual interprets such their own way... even if it mostly coincides with that of another.

Depends upon the betrayal, I suppose. Some are more understandable than others.

Sure: every day I think I should beat some arrogant know it all. Even though I'm not an Atheist, and not completely, or even mostly, an Agnostic, I'm guessing we all face that. Temptation is neither faith, or religion, reliant. Sometimes it's simple common sense that punching some know it all jerk in the face will only confirm what they think among others and have dire consequences. Besides: why encourage those type of converts to jerk-dom?

The last is a tough one. Evil, again, varies according to the definitions of the individual, so I would say one mutually accepted "evil?" Mostly... not. Something beyond personal definition: definitions maybe provided by the divine? Yes, I suspect so. But we are a noisy, self absorbed species who often can't tell the difference between what comes from outside and inside our own heads. I imagine God is smart enough to understand this, or I would hope so.

[Ken Carman]

STT

And there's the biggest criticism of moral relativism. If morals are relative, everything's permitted.

Eh, not so fast. One might claim that everything might be acceptable at some point, but as a relativist what I feel is relative at the moment is, well, relative. And as slippery as some may think we are, actually we're very thoughtful and consider what's moral, what's not... using many sources. So change doesn't come that fast. This is a cartoon version of a relativist, not one based in reality.

Hell, if everything was acceptable there would be no relativists debating here. Why would we care what anyone else thinks? We would just decide for the moment.

Do morals come from outside ourselves? Of course they do: from deities to parents, to what we read and absorb. But no matter what we believe, or not, we are the processor. We absorb. We interpret. (Yes, "we are the horizontal, the vertical..." I'm ahead of the Outer Limits humor curve here!)

Acts are immoral if and only if there is a moral code to state they are in the first place."

If that is what you wish to believe, fine. However there have been societies where immorality would be not pulling the beating heart out of the human sacrifice, not wasting a perfectly good lamb when folks are starving for a God that, as far as we know, does not eat. I would respond that simply because some "moral" code states it, doesn't necessarily make it so. For example: I'm sure Nazis said hiding Jews would be immoral To me: the height of morality in that situation.

Again we get back to "relative."

[finder]

By Jack No. Evil is a religious term. It has no meaning in a biological context. Natural selection doesn't favor either "good" or "bad" behaviors.

Evolution doesn't have a direct role in the development and implementation of morality. Moral codes are created by social groups in order to make their society more cohesive and to increase harmony among their members. Morality isn't encoded genetically, it's preserved by tradition and incorporation into laws and customs. Taboos are the incorporation of moralities into a group's mythology.

Jack, in #46 of this thread Night said the following...

That's simply not true. This is hard to explain but I'll try my best. In evolutionary biology, there is a phenomenon known as "group selection". It is the process where even though selfish activity may benefit a member of a group, it directly harms most other members of the group. You can't just consider one individual here, which is what you are doing. You are only considering the selfish individual. But other group members pass on their genes as well. And if any of their genes benefit the group, the group will tend to value these people more, and these "empathy" genes will spread among the group.

So, group selection causes "selfish" genes to be weeded out of the group, and "empathy" genes to become dominant in the group. This makes the group more successful, and is group will grow larger, and split into other groups with the empathy genes. Alleles for empathy would have quickly spread throughout the primate population. In fact, the genes regulating empathy have actually been identified.

Are you saying he is wrong and morality in no way is brought about by biological evolution? I thought our enlarged brain mass was part of our evolutionary advancement. You are saying that isn't so? Wouldn't logic then dictate that this advanced brain resulting from millions of years of evolution enabled us to conceive of moral codes if it is so?

By Jack Nature has no truck with the religious concept of "evil". Each society will determine morality based on what benefits the group most. It seems most animal communities have developed some degree of morality, but it's going to be unique to the needs of each community. When lions kill the young of another male they aren't behaving immorally, it benefits their society to have the cubs be the offspring of the dominant male.

Are these degrees of morality that are developed in the rest of the animal kingdom that you speak of a result of them also "creating moral codes" as you posit that's all we do? Separate from from the evolutionary process entirely like you posit about our morality?

[finder]

By Ken definitions maybe provided by the divine? Yes, I suspect so. But were are a noisy, self absorbed species who often can't tell the difference between what comes from outside and inside our own heads. I imagine God is smart enough to understand this, or I would hope so.

That is a very intuitive statement.