I don't have enough faith to be an atheist ch 2

[Atheist37]

[...] do atheist have an explanation which is rational for morals. There is no real grounding for morals in atheism. You can say you want your kids to prosper when you are gone and really mean it of course, but if you were simply tricked by DNA programming to provide that support for the survival of the species, and that is the limit of it, then there really is no real grounding.

It is perfectly rational that our DNA influences our desires and behavior. Our genetic drives are often in conflict, which is the reason we have the concept of morality. We are genetically programmed to weigh the needs of the many against the needs of the few.

[tonyenglish7]

[...] do atheist have an explanation which is rational for morals. There is no real grounding for morals in atheism. You can say you want your kids to prosper when you are gone and really mean it of course, but if you were simply tricked by DNA programming to provide that support for the survival of the species, and that is the limit of it, then there really is no real grounding.

It is perfectly rational that our DNA influences our desires and behavior. Our genetic drives are often in conflict, which is the reason we have the concept of morality. We are genetically programmed to weigh the needs of the many against the needs of the few.

And now that you "know" that programming, why follow it? Why are the needs of the many out weighed by the needs of the few objectively? Just for survival of the species? If you are going to be dead forever, and you know that genes are pushing you to be selfless, why fall for the trick?

[NH Baritone]

Tony, you are right.

There is no external grounding for morals ... which means that you and I both lack any external moral force.

BUT, we live out our lives within our own communities, and by extension within the entire community of humans on a (metaphorically) shrinking planet, and if we are to thrive (and perhaps survive), we all need to get along as best we can.

But even without an external grounding, we are not without resources. For example:

• We are a social species that has evolved the capacity to feel empathy and to cooperate together.
• We have recorded history that shows us how war, murder, theft, or chicanery lead to harmful outcomes.
• We have a growing knowledge about what helps us achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.
• We have a developing sense of individuality that shows that we learn more and have greater happiness if we are allowed to follow our own distinct interests (except where those interests interfere with others' well-being).
• And we have experience in watching other communities (and even non-human social creatures) who develop ways of resolving conflicts.

I don't believe that humans are growing toward some idealistic moral nirvana. Honestly, I find such proposals silly. However, as technology has expanded our possibilities for longer and more fulfilling life, we have grown in the capacity to act with greater moral acumen. Now someone who is shot down at 25 is not robbed simply of 5 years of life, but 55 years of life, and we are thus more horrified. Since Norman Borlag, we have seen out capacity to feed starving populations grow, making us able to prevent some famines. We now know within hours (or even minutes) when a tragedy is unfolding. And with that knowledge, we now know that we have the capacity to do something.

I find your efforts to scrounge out some external grounding for morality meaningless at a minimum, and frequently harmful. If there were a god who gave morality, then there's no reason to believe that morality can evolve with with our own development. But because we evolved into the creatures we are and because we share our lives interlaced with one another, we change ... i.e., continue to find better, more effective ways to behave morally ... which is exactly like one would expect evolution to proceed.

[StillSearching]

Furthermore, cooperation and mutual aid are exemplified in other species. I'm reading Jeremy Hayward's Letters To Vanessa right now and he writes about this...

This pernicious idea that there is something fundamentally bad about human nature was taken over from the church and perpetuated in our society through the misinformation about Darwin's theory of evolution. The belief that human nature, or all of nature, is based on aggression, violence, and the "shouldering aside of the weak by the strong" is simply wrong. And many biologists recognize now that the simpleminded idea that evolution comes about through competition and violent struggle of one against another is so simpleminded that it is embarrassing.
Cooperation, mutual aid, caring, kindness – we experience all of these daily in our own lives. Human society would be impossible without them. And more than that, the whole glorious romp of nature would be impossible without cooperation and a deep sense of harmony among organisms.

There are other, far more reasonable explanations for morals than Yahweh.

[Emery]

Okay folks, now this thread is official, chapter 2's podcast is in the can.

[Emery]

Emery, you are completely missing the point! Or you refuse to get it? I am not sure which.. It is not simply, do atheist act morally, or desire morals, but do atheist have an explanation which is rational for morals. There is no real grounding for morals in atheism. You can say you want your kids to prosper when you are gone and really mean it of course, but if you were simply tricked by DNA programming to provide that support for the survival of the species, and that is the limit of it, then there really is no real grounding. The issue isn't what works good enough, but is there a philosophical reality or not. In Theism, there is, in atheism, there is not.

And to evaluate a world view you look at which one is more rational. Are morals an illusion or a reality?

But since we have disucssed on and off this issue for about 15 years and made no progress, I think the hope of even just getting the point across is dimming....

Okay, Tony. I think we're at the heart of the issue now. So, I think this would make an interesting podcast, that will dovetail with what we talk about in ch. 2 of the book. I sent you an email about coming onto the show next week to discuss this and ch. 3. So if you're available to do that, I'll reserve further comments for then

[tonyenglish7]

Tony, you are right.

There is no external grounding for morals ... which means that you and I both lack any external moral force.

BUT, we live out our lives within our own communities, and by extension within the entire community of humans on a (metaphorically) shrinking planet, and if we are to thrive (and perhaps survive), we all need to get along as best we can.

But even without an external grounding, we are not without resources. For example:

• We are a social species that has evolved the capacity to feel empathy and to cooperate together.
• We have recorded history that shows us how war, murder, theft, or chicanery lead to harmful outcomes.
• We have a growing knowledge about what helps us achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.
• We have a developing sense of individuality that shows that we learn more and have greater happiness if we are allowed to follow our own distinct interests (except where those interests interfere with others' well-being).
• And we have experience in watching other communities (and even non-human social creatures) who develop ways of resolving conflicts.

I don't believe that humans are growing toward some idealistic moral nirvana. Honestly, I find such proposals silly. However, as technology has expanded our possibilities for longer and more fulfilling life, we have grown in the capacity to act with greater moral acumen. Now someone who is shot down at 25 is not robbed simply of 5 years of life, but 55 years of life, and we are thus more horrified. Since Norman Borlag, we have seen out capacity to feed starving populations grow, making us able to prevent some famines. We now know within hours (or even minutes) when a tragedy is unfolding. And with that knowledge, we now know that we have the capacity to do something.

I find your efforts to scrounge out some external grounding for morality meaningless at a minimum, and frequently harmful. If there were a god who gave morality, then there's no reason to believe that morality can evolve with with our own development. But because we evolved into the creatures we are and because we share our lives interlaced with one another, we change ... i.e., continue to find better, more effective ways to behave morally ... which is exactly like one would expect evolution to proceed.

What does morality evolving mean? How would we know that a society is getting more moral? Based upon what standard? Maybe evolving involves the extermination of one race over another? They only way to have social progress in reality is if there is an objective moral standard by which to aspire. All other options leave us cold and open to evolution taking us in any direction. Are Morals someting we find? or something we create? If the later, then who knows what is coming? If the former, then and only then does your above list of goals have any hope of being attained.

[Jason M]

haha, anyone count how many times i said "ya know" i had that same problem when i did my speeches in my communication class

[Emery]

Well, I know it's not as many times as I say "uh" or "um." Only Scott is the professional speaker here.

[NH Baritone]

What does morality evolving mean? How would we know that a society is getting more moral? Based upon what standard? Maybe evolving involves the extermination of one race over another? They only way to have social progress in reality is if there is an objective moral standard by which to aspire. All other options leave us cold and open to evolution taking us in any direction. Are Morals someting we find? or something we create? If the later, then who knows what is coming? If the former, then and only then does your above list of goals have any hope of being attained.

Your comments suggest that you are not fully aware of the mechanisms & processes of species evolution. I fear that this has led you to translate your misunderstanding into entirely meaningless questions.

Remember, species evolution does not work toward anything other than adaptation to the environment. Evolutionary theory simply describes the process of change; it doesn't suggest (and even rejects) the notion that there is any goal, other than allowing the species to remain extant. Moral evolution, too, describes changes in moral standards over time. Humans can no more become "more moral" than we can become more human.

Here's one example of moral evolution: We have come to place greater value on the individual, without regard to gender, race, social class, and in recent days in the West, even without regard to disability. I believe we can celebrate these moral values because they allow us to embrace our own innate empathy and cooperative natures. They seem to be working so well that people are striving to put them in place legally through human rights laws, etc.

n the past when we placed less value on individuals, slavery could be justified by the benefits it brought to the upper classes. People thus tolerated its obvious cruelty. (The same attitude allows people to commit genocide, which preserves groups at the expense of individuals.) Eventually the moral value of the individual grew to such a level that we can no longer imagine such flagrant violations of a person's integrity.

[StillSearching]

What does morality evolving mean? How would we know that a society is getting more moral? Based upon what standard?

An evolving morality is one that changes, over time, in response to factors within the environment. Look to your good book for an example - polygamy. Old testament, polygamy good (moral). New testament, polygamy bad (immoral). Another example: Pre-Civil War America, slavery moral. Post-Civil War America, slavery immoral. Now to say that we found the "slavery bad" moral is simplistic and misleading, implying that all humans simultaneously discovered that slavery was immoral. It evolved over centuries of observation, experience, thought and debate.

Asking how we know that a society is getting more moral is a misleading question. If I asked you to tell me which society is more moral, ancient Israel or the modern United States, your answer would be completely subjective, based on your own view of "good morals." People from each of these cultures would argue that theirs is the more moral society, and they could both objectively be right because of differences in values and priorities. So, I could ask which society's morality was more conducive to individual liberty and prosperity. But to ask which society is more moral is like asking which ice cream flavor is more flavorful, chocolate or vanilla. The answer depends on who you are asking.

A modern example. Ask any American whether they think the US is a more moral society than Iran. Most would likely answer yes, citing the Iranian subjugation of women and the barbaric practice of stoning people, among other things. Ask the same question of an Iranian and you'll get a different answer. Their citizens would likely cite the immodesty of American women and our blasphemous culture. Now, can you honestly say that one society is more moral than another?

I assume your response to this is going to be, "Well then how do we know who's right and who's wrong if it's all subjective?" Not an unfair question, but the answer is simple: understanding and dialogue. Travel guide Rick Steves did a show in which he traveled to Iran and met many ordinary people there. The differences in culture were striking, and yet he was profoundly moved by the commonalities and learned that ordinary Iranians want much the same as we want out of life. Peace, security, happiness, etc.

Since morals are a human invention, there IS a standard. It is the human standard, and it is evolving through us every day.

They only way to have social progress in reality is if there is an objective moral standard by which to aspire. All other options leave us cold and open to evolution taking us in any direction. Are Morals someting we find? or something we create? If the later, then who knows what is coming? If the former, then and only then does your above list of goals have any hope of being attained.

The only way to have social progress is to challenge the "objective moral standard" or status quo. If no one in our society had stood up to the standard of the day and declared slavery immoral, we would still be trading negroes. What you describe as cold and directionless, I describe as vital to the perpetuation and benefit of the human race, and to life as we know it.

I'll close with a paraphrase of something Emery said on one of the morality podcasts. Tony, if God opened up the heavens, descended to Earth in a blaze of glory and announced to everyone that the commandment against murder was null and void, would you suddenly be OK with someone decapitating your Grandma? I didn't think so.

What's God got to do with it?

[scomsjw]

I'm enjoying these chapter-by-chapter discussions and have bought the book. There are some preposterous claims to come in later chapters. I felt frustration on Emery's behalf when the other two speakers ducked difficult questions. How can you have a debate with someone who effectively says "you've just made a very good point but because God exists you must somehow be wrong, but don't ask me to tell you in what way you are wrong". Where can the debate go from there?

[tonyenglish7]

What does morality evolving mean? How would we know that a society is getting more moral? Based upon what standard? Maybe evolving involves the extermination of one race over another? They only way to have social progress in reality is if there is an objective moral standard by which to aspire. All other options leave us cold and open to evolution taking us in any direction. Are Morals someting we find? or something we create? If the later, then who knows what is coming? If the former, then and only then does your above list of goals have any hope of being attained.

Your comments suggest that you are not fully aware of the mechanisms & processes of species evolution. I fear that this has led you to translate your misunderstanding into entirely meaningless questions.

Remember, species evolution does not work toward anything other than adaptation to the environment. Evolutionary theory simply describes the process of change; it doesn't suggest (and even rejects) the notion that there is any goal, other than allowing the species to remain extant. Moral evolution, too, describes changes in moral standards over time. Humans can no more become "more moral" than we can become more human.

Here's one example of moral evolution: We have come to place greater value on the individual, without regard to gender, race, social class, and in recent days in the West, even without regard to disability. I believe we can celebrate these moral values because they allow us to embrace our own innate empathy and cooperative natures. They seem to be working so well that people are striving to put them in place legally through human rights laws, etc.

n the past when we placed less value on individuals, slavery could be justified by the benefits it brought to the upper classes. People thus tolerated its obvious cruelty. (The same attitude allows people to commit genocide, which preserves groups at the expense of individuals.) Eventually the moral value of the individual grew to such a level that we can no longer imagine such flagrant violations of a person's integrity.

No trust me; I fully am aware of the theory of species evolution derived from the evidence for natural selection. That is my point about morals. We all sense that morals have incumbency. They rule over use in some real way. The question is how? Is it as you say, the result of our adaptation to the environment?

First, it doesn't explain the resulting morals sufficiently (in my opinion), even theoretically. But further, it doesn't provide a philosophical reason to submit to their pull. If, the only reason we feel the sense that we should not steal is because our DNA has determined that we would feel some guilt and that the result of random natural selection to keep the species "extant", then morals are an illusion and that is it. Guilt functions to trick me into delaying gratification for the sake of future DNA survival. So, the successful sociopath is the highest order being on the planet, under your view.

Further, if the being I am stealing from has no objective intrinsic value, no real purpose other then to pass on the DNA to the next generation, then knowing this "fact" should set me free to do as I please, free from the power of the moral illusion. If I can get a free iPod, then why not?

And again, your whole concept of moral growth loses any meaning whatsoever because it is not about what is actually right or wrong, it is about what successfully transfers the DNA to the next generation. All talk of social progression is gibberish because there is no standard on which to judge it except the success of the human race. And even the success of the human race is a meaningless goal if that is all there is. It is simply the result of being the alternate pole from the failure of the human race. That's it! Either option is meaningless.

This is your worldview that you accept by faith as the most rational. I guess your previous ancestoral DNA contributors randomly mutated in such a way to cause you to believe this fable.

[tonyenglish7]

What does morality evolving mean? How would we know that a society is getting more moral? Based upon what standard?

An evolving morality is one that changes, over time, in response to factors within the environment. Look to your good book for an example - polygamy. Old testament, polygamy good (moral). New testament, polygamy bad (immoral). Another example: Pre-Civil War America, slavery moral. Post-Civil War America, slavery immoral. Now to say that we found the "slavery bad" moral is simplistic and misleading, implying that all humans simultaneously discovered that slavery was immoral. It evolved over centuries of observation, experience, thought and debate.

Asking how we know that a society is getting more moral is a misleading question. If I asked you to tell me which society is more moral, ancient Israel or the modern United States, your answer would be completely subjective, based on your own view of "good morals." People from each of these cultures would argue that theirs is the more moral society, and they could both objectively be right because of differences in values and priorities. So, I could ask which society's morality was more conducive to individual liberty and prosperity. But to ask which society is more moral is like asking which ice cream flavor is more flavorful, chocolate or vanilla. The answer depends on who you are asking.

A modern example. Ask any American whether they think the US is a more moral society than Iran. Most would likely answer yes, citing the Iranian subjugation of women and the barbaric practice of stoning people, among other things. Ask the same question of an Iranian and you'll get a different answer. Their citizens would likely cite the immodesty of American women and our blasphemous culture. Now, can you honestly say that one society is more moral than another?

I assume your response to this is going to be, "Well then how do we know who's right and who's wrong if it's all subjective?" Not an unfair question, but the answer is simple: understanding and dialogue. Travel guide Rick Steves did a show in which he traveled to Iran and met many ordinary people there. The differences in culture were striking, and yet he was profoundly moved by the commonalities and learned that ordinary Iranians want much the same as we want out of life. Peace, security, happiness, etc.

Since morals are a human invention, there IS a standard. It is the human standard, and it is evolving through us every day.

They only way to have social progress in reality is if there is an objective moral standard by which to aspire. All other options leave us cold and open to evolution taking us in any direction. Are Morals someting we find? or something we create? If the later, then who knows what is coming? If the former, then and only then does your above list of goals have any hope of being attained.

The only way to have social progress is to challenge the "objective moral standard" or status quo. If no one in our society had stood up to the standard of the day and declared slavery immoral, we would still be trading negroes. What you describe as cold and directionless, I describe as vital to the perpetuation and benefit of the human race, and to life as we know it.

I'll close with a paraphrase of something Emery said on one of the morality podcasts. Tony, if God opened up the heavens, descended to Earth in a blaze of glory and announced to everyone that the commandment against murder was null and void, would you suddenly be OK with someone decapitating your Grandma? I didn't think so.

What's God got to do with it?

Yes, if you travel throughout the world, you will find a common moral sense that is worked out in varying ways. But the core of morals is something discovered by all human beings. Some cultures are more progressed and some are less progressed. The goal is to move towards a more just and fair culture, a better world view and better society for all. Slavery is an example of a moral wrong that took some cultures longer to realize then others. But we call all agree, slavery is not good.

Women rights are a good example, in Iran, a women does not have the same rights as a man. This should be corrected. But here in the United States, babies who are not born, lack the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because we have over corrected for women’s rights. The balance has swung too far. Our society has not recognized this yet. Now, if morals are simply what the majority want, then it really doesn't matter that we progress to the point the babies have a right to life. Is just a blunt fact and nothing more. But if morals are objective and based upon something more then majority rule, then it is important that any being endowed with value, be granted the right to life.

Did Slavery become wrong only when the society decided it was wrong? Or was it wrong prior and society discovered that truth by progressing towards the truth? In the same way, if babies (fetus') are human beings, our society needs to progress towards the truth despite the women’s right movement. If they are tissue, or the result of random mutations without any purpose or value, then it really doesn't matter.

If, under your view, someday society decided that babies (fetus') are more then tissue, and deserve life, then that is just a change in perspective, nothing more? (except of course if you are one of the babies that survive the holocaust). And today, black people are free under the same umbrella and really it doesn't matter if it changes back again objectively.

[OzAnt]

Tony,

I don't see how you can keep trying to push the illusion that you have, through your Christian god, an objective standard to measure morality against.

A few posts ago, you asked:

What does morality evolving mean? How would we know that a society is getting more moral? Based upon what standard?

There are about 38,000 Christian denominations today. You and I both know that quite a number of them exist through Christians arguing over their understanding of God's morality. It's painfully clear that you Christians don't know God's morality for hunmankind any better than we know humankind's ideal morality. The only difference is that we've stopped pretending there's an invisible entity out there that's got the answers. If you could only recognise and accept this, the posts in this thread would make so much more sense to you.

Ant