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

[NH Baritone]

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.

(I truly find your cynicism hard to endure. I will persevere for only as long as I can.)

First, THERE IS NO HIGHEST ORDER OF BEING ON THE PLANET. You are the one who asserts a hierarchy of critters, not I.

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?

Your repeatedly display an impaired connection to community and the best functioning of society. You don't take someone else's iPod because it is harmful to society to live in a place where people's belongings are taken for the fun of it.

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.

Bingo! There is no social progress or moral progress, because there is no goal to achieve. There is, however, finding a good morality for right now, one that fits our current existence better than the last one. Slavery no longer fits.

For example, I suspect that we will be dealing in coming generations about whether it is moral to eat meat. Its production consumes massive amounts of resources that would better go to feeding ourselves first. Most people are not at this point defining this as a moral issue, but in the same way as individual rights is now considered a moral issue, it may be in the future the entire dietary meat issue will become a point of moral discussions.

Oddly, I think that the issue of abortion rights versus fetal rights will remain a topic for a very long time. It lies squarely on the conflict of two opposing interests. It is because there is such a conflict that I want the choice to be left to the individual pregnant woman.

This is your worldview that you accept by faith as the most rational.

It fits the evidence. I could be wrong, and I'm willing to consider evidence to the contrary. I don't see how any faith is required.

I guess your previous ancestoral DNA contributors randomly mutated in such a way to cause you to believe this fable.

Cynicism noted, and after a series of deep breaths, discarded.

[Pseudonym]

There are about 38,000 Christian denominations today.

For some definition of "denomination", which includes six people who meet in someone's basement.

You and I both know that quite a number of them exist through Christians arguing over their understanding of God's morality.

Do you have any examples that are big enough to be on the radar of a typical church historian?

The overwhelming majority of denominational splits were nominally over some combination of issues such as these:

• Disagreement over some aspect of the nature of God.
• Disagreement over how churches should be structured and/or governed.
• Specific misbehaviours (e.g. corruption) engaged in by the church being split from.
• A belief that the denomination being split from was neglecting some area of Christian service.

I can't think of a single denominational split that was over the issue of what is "moral" and what isn't.

[NH Baritone]

There are about 38,000 Christian denominations today.

For some definition of "denomination", which includes six people who meet in someone's basement.

You and I both know that quite a number of them exist through Christians arguing over their understanding of God's morality.

Do you have any examples that are big enough to be on the radar of a typical church historian?

The overwhelming majority of denominational splits were nominally over some combination of issues such as these:

• Disagreement over some aspect of the nature of God.
• Disagreement over how churches should be structured and/or governed.
• Specific misbehaviours (e.g. corruption) engaged in by the church being split from.
• A belief that the denomination being split from was neglecting some area of Christian service.

I can't think of a single denominational split that was over the issue of what is "moral" and what isn't.

Most of the main line protestant churches in the US (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) split over slavery in the 1840s & 50s. Some have yet to re-unite.

The divisions in the Mormon church over the morality of polygamy are still being played out.

However, your point has basic validity. Over the centuries, most of the divisions have arisen over theology or church governance.

[OzAnt]

For some definition of "denomination", which includes six people who meet in someone's basement.

I agree; which is why I said

You and I both know that quite a number of them exist through Christians arguing over their understanding of God's morality.

Perhaps I would have ruffled your feathers a little less if I'd used the word "some" in place of "quite a number".

Do you have any examples that are big enough to be on the radar of a typical church historian?

Some, that come to mind in recent times, include:
Church of England set to split over women bishops
Episcopal Split as Conservatives Form New Group

The overwhelming majority of denominational splits were nominally over some combination of issues such as these:

• Disagreement over some aspect of the nature of God.
• Disagreement over how churches should be structured and/or governed.
• Specific misbehaviours (e.g. corruption) engaged in by the church being split from.
• A belief that the denomination being split from was neglecting some area of Christian service.

I can't think of a single denominational split that was over the issue of what is "moral" and what isn't.

This, to some extent, comes down to semantics. For instance, you can call the above two examples I gave as "disagreement over how churches should be structured and/or governed" but the reality is that it's a morality issue: Do women have as equal a right as men do? & are gays as equal in the sight of God as heterosexuals? Now, you can sugar coat that turd as much as you like, but, in my opinion, there's no mistaking the smell.

I do see your point and accept that it has merit, but I hope you see mine too.

Ant

[Pseudonym]

Most of the main line protestant churches in the US (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) split over slavery in the 1840s & 50s. Some have yet to re-unite.

Ah, OK. I'm not very familiar with the US experience here.

Perhaps I would have ruffled your feathers a little less if I'd used the word "some" in place of "quite a number".

I'd be happy with "some". I also note that your examples of Anglicanism, for the most part, haven't actually happened yet.

If it happens, I predict that the split will mostly happen along national lines, with the majority in each nation going one way, and a small splinter group forming from those who go the other way.

[StillSearching]

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.

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.

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?

How can you expect me to take your view seriously when you won't even bother to use proper language to express it? I'm sorry to be snide, but you do this in almost every post and it drives me crazy.

But the core of morals is something discovered by all human beings.

I would like you to lay out your case for using the word "discovered" as opposed to "developed." You seem to imply that there was a box marked MORALS buried somewhere that was exhumed at a particular point in time. Are there similar boxes buried in Iran, North Korea, Darfur, and all the other immoral places on Earth, waiting to be discovered by their occupants? I say that humans develop morals by living, experiencing, observing, learning, applying knowledge and adapting. Let's compare the research for either view and see which is the more appropriate term, because that's basically what your view hinges upon.

I'm guessing that your evidence for calling morals "discovered" starts and ends with the Bible.

[Pseudonym]

I would like you to lay out your case for using the word "discovered" as opposed to "developed."

I would like you to lay out your case for using the word "developed".

Let me lay out my case for "neither". First off, I should point out that the field of "experimental morality" (for lack of a better term) is an active research area right at the moment, and not all the findings are in at the moment. Nonetheless, I'd like to encourage everyone to participate by taking the moral sense test. Come back when you've done it, because the rest of this post might spoil your answers.

You will note, down the bottom of the first plage, that it's sponsored by the "Cognitive Evolution Laboratory" at Harvard. One of the things they're researching is how much our sense of morality is innate, and how much is learned.

Here's the sort of thing I mean. Consider the following three moral dilemmas. The usual rule of moral dilemmas applies, in that you're not allowed to avoid making the decision. You are to label each action as "obligatory", "permissible" or "forbidden".

1. You are standing next to a railway (or railroad, for you Americans) line. There is a runaway boxcar hurtling out of control towards a set of points. You happen to have a switch within reach that will switch the points. If you do nothing, the boxcar will go down one track, and kill five people who are standing on the track. (As always, you can't warn them in time.) If you switch, the boxcar will go down the other track, and kill a cow which is standing on the other track. Should you flip the switch?
2. Same railway, same track, same boxcar, same switch, same five people in mortal danger. The difference is that this time, it's not a cow standing on the other line, but a person. If you do nothing, five people will die. If you flip the switch, one person will die. Should you flip the switch?
3. This time, you're standing in front of a straight stretch of track, and there's the usual runaway boxcar heading towards five people. However, there happens to be a person standing in front of you who is wearing a heavy backpack, maybe 100kg or so. If you push this person onto the track, it will slow down the boxcar enough that it will give you time to warn the five people ahead on the track. So if you do nothing, five people will die. If you push the guy, he will die and the other five will live. Should you push?

The overwhelming majority of people, independent of country, independent of religion, independent of sex, independent of age etc answer that the first one is obligatory, the second one is permissible, and the third one is forbidden. They also come to this conclusion very quickly, without thinking about it.

Some observations:

First off, religiosity or lack thereof doesn't change peoples' moral judgements in this kind of dilemma. Tony (and I know this is an over-simplification, so apologies to Tony in advance) is pushing the deontological "morality as divine command" line in this discussion, but whether or not you've received morality from an external source or not doesn't seem to affect your judgements on this type of dilemma at all. Deontology doesn't explain our moral sense in this case.

Secondly, most people can't justify why they make these judgements. Emery (same apologies) is pushing the utilitarian line in this discussion, but from a utilitarian point of view, there is no difference between scenario 2 and scenario 3: it's one versus five. Yet we all think that 3 is a morally worse act (by a huge margin) than 2. Utilitarianism doesn't explain our moral sense in this case.

Incidentally, while nobody in this discussion is pushing the virtue ethics line, I should point out for completeness that from this point of view, there is also no difference between scenario 2 and scenario 3: performing a deliberate act with the intention of killing someone is wrong, and performing an act with the intention of saving five people is right, and there is no way to tell the difference. Virtue ethics doesn't explain or moral sense in this case.

Thirdly, if you can't explain why certain moral judgements are right and wrong, you can't teach it, either. Nobody is ever explicitly taught, for example, that committing a bad act is worse than letting a bad thing happen by omission, but most people agree with this when they make snap judgements.

So I concede that some of our sense of morality is acquired by learning, but a lot of it is probably wiring in our brain.

Incidentally, I think I know what the difference between scenario 2 and scenario 3 is, but I'm curious to know what you all think.

[StillSearching]

I would like you to lay out your case for using the word "developed".

My case for using the word "developed" is exactly the case you just laid out. Developed, as in was part of the evolution of our species, including wiring and culture. I'm simply unable to accept Tony's morals-are-grounded-in-God point of view.

I was, unfortunately, unable to take your test. My Mac wouldn't load it properly. I'll try again later, but here's some thoughts on your scenarios.

The only difference that I see between 2 and 3 is that in 3 you are actively assaulting heavy backpack man. For me, this is morally equivalent to flipping the switch, so I would call it permissible from a moral consistency standpoint - kill 1, save 5.

[Pseudonym]

The only difference that I see between 2 and 3 is that in 3 you are actively assaulting heavy backpack man. For me, this is morally equivalent to flipping the switch, so I would call it permissible from a moral consistency standpoint - kill 1, save 5.

Admit it, your gut feeling before you thought about it was that 2 and 3 were different. It's only by a process of rationalisation that you determine that 2 and 3 are the same.

So what is different about it? And while we're at it, what is "moral consistency" and why is that morally correct?

[NH Baritone]

Pseudo:

Do you understand the logical leap you & Tony take by inserting a deity in the trolley/boxcar thought experiment?

People worldwide choose not to shove the big guy in front of the train, although they would most often sacrifice him if the could do so indirectly by pushing a switch. Either one results in one death vs. five, yet people see these choices as morally different.

But if a morality were absolute & God-given, then people would uniformly choose "the best outcome." It wouldn't matter which choice they made (either to sacrifice the one to save the many, or uniformly decide to take no action), but an in-bred uniform moral choice would be expected.

But instead, we humans have a mixed, irrational response. This is just as you would expect from a moral sense that evolved over time in a likewise evolving social species. We are, after all, the species whose windpipe and food intake are adjacent to one another (thus suffering a high risk of choking), whose back and knees are only partially well-built for standing upright, and whose birth canals are so narrow that (until the last 125 years) the child-birth process frequently caused the death of the mothers, the babies, or both.

In other words, we are an often nonsensical amalgam. It's no surprise, then, that we can simultaneously disdain shoving someone in close proximity to their certain death, while we accept lobbing missiles a thousand kilometers away to kill thousands.

[OzAnt]

So I concede that some of our sense of morality is acquired by learning, but a lot of it is probably wiring in our brain.

My gut instinct tells me it's the other way 'round. I've even got a story to relate re: this. I'll leave it though, 'til we finish thrashing your current thoughts about.

I think I know what the difference between scenario 2 and scenario 3 is, but I'm curious to know what you all think.

I think it's all about the monkeysphere. In scenario 2, the person is a 2 dimensional "abstract" character. In scenario 3, he immediately becomes a "real" 3 dimensional character. In fact, that's something the article doesn't touch on - the speed with which one can enter your monkeysphere (ie: the speed somebody goes from being an abstract person, to being a real person). In scenario 3, it would happen in a flash, wouldn't it? Wow, I'm just imagining the scenario, and this imaginary person is becoming real. I can see the look of horror on his face, as he experiences a fellow human being betraying him. That thought on its own tells me I couldn't do it.

Ant

[Pseudonym]

Do you understand the logical leap you & Tony take by inserting a deity in the trolley/boxcar thought experiment?

Sorry? I was trying to say that I disagreed with Tony. Oh, and Emery.

I think it's all about the monkeysphere. In scenario 2, the person is a 2 dimensional "abstract" character. In scenario 3, he immediately becomes a "real" 3 dimensional character.

Right, I think that's exactly it. It's one thing to shoot someone from a distance or drop a bomb on them from 30,000 feet. It's quite something else to dispatch them with a sword at close range. Our moral sense changes depending on how abstract the situation is.

It's kind of like the current global financial crisis. In one sense, it was about mortgages. But not really mortgages, but abstract versions of them. It's much harder to gamble with someone's house and livelihood than it is to gamble with a piece of paper that's many steps removed from someone's house and livelihood even if it's actually the same thing.

The reason why I bring this up is that this raises an interesting question of what the purpose of moral teaching is.

Any of us (assuming we're not animal liberationists or sociopaths) would flip the switch to kill the cow. We might feel bad about it, but we'd do it. We don't need to be told that this is the right thing to do. We don't need moral teaching to tell us that if it's a choice between saving five people or saving a cow, we save the five people.

However, prescriptive moral systems (e.g. utilitarianism) can't distinguish between scenarios 2 and 3, and as such, conflict with our innate moral sense. This suggests that either our moral sense is broken (by what standard?) or the prescriptive systems are broken, or both.

[tonyenglish7]

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

You are stumbling over your own opinion. You and I both know that there is either a "sense" of morality, or there is real morality. That is the discussion. If you hold that there is not even a "sense" of morality, then you are not even in the 99th percentile of those in this discussion. So I will assume you agree that there seems to be right or wrong to some extent? The discussion is now, how is that so? Is it because we evolved that way and there is no objective real standard? Or is it because as human beings we have the capability of "sensing", or better yet discovering these truths in the same way we discover logic, math, music, beauty and love.

I do not hold that Christians have all of morality down to a perfectly clear program and that every question is black and white. But I do hold that the majority of humans on the planet hold to a majority of the moral standards that are available on a self evident basis. Just because there are some issues that are not clear, doesn't change the discussion at all. All I need is one single moral code that is real and I win the discussion. You need to show that "none" are real and that all are an illusion to win your argument.

And finally, regarding your truth claim above about morality, you are not "invisable" so you seem to have the answers regarding morality? So, what is moral and what is not you visible creature?

[Mr. Sluagh]

I can never quite wrap my head around the all-or-nothing attitude that many people have toward meaning. This is one of my big disconnects with most of the human race. There's this assumption among people of all persuasions that in order for anything to have any meaning at all, it must have an absolute, transcendent, apocalyptic meaning. Morality that's good enough for the time being and makes life easier for everyone in the long run isn't sufficient; unless there is some perfect code of morality that is the some in all situations and always will be, you might as well be strangling babies for shits and giggles. Patriotism for one's planet and one's species in spite of all their ugliness because they're all one has doesn't cut it; unless humanity is the main purpose for the existence of the universe, there's no value whatsoever in human life. It's not enough to take responsibility for consequences of one's actions and to take comfort in the fact that no matter how small one's existence may seem, those actions are part of a whole that reverberates throughout all time; unless the consequences are perfectly just, infinite and eternal everything's a free-for-all.

Religious people often ask what motivation one has to be moral if not divine mandates. I have a lot of answers to that question. None of them are as quick and easy as "Where does morality come from?" "God." "Why should one be moral?" "You're damned if you don't." "Why is human life valuable?" "Because God made us in His image." A lot of religious people seem to think that my inability to spit out simple, complete answers to the world's oldest and hardest philosophical questions makes me a nihilist. It's such a bizarre false dichotomy. The extent to which so many people take it for granted makes me feel really alienated. The idea that it's better to imagine a God so that one can rationalize morality in an absolute way than to admit that one is just making it up as one goes like everyone else strikes me as another breed of God of the gaps.

[tonyenglish7]

I can never quite wrap my head around the all-or-nothing attitude that many people have toward meaning. This is one of my big disconnects with most of the human race. There's this assumption among people of all persuasions that in order for anything to have any meaning at all, it must have an absolute, transcendent, apocalyptic meaning. Morality that's good enough for the time being and makes life easier for everyone in the long run isn't sufficient; unless there is some perfect code of morality that is the some in all situations and always will be, you might as well be strangling babies for shits and giggles. Patriotism for one's planet and one's species in spite of all their ugliness because they're all one has doesn't cut it; unless humanity is the main purpose for the existence of the universe, there's no value whatsoever in human life. It's not enough to take responsibility for consequences of one's actions and to take comfort in the fact that no matter how small one's existence may seem, those actions are part of a whole that reverberates throughout all time; unless the consequences are perfectly just and infinite in scope, it's all a free-for-all.

Religious people often ask what motivation one has to be moral if not divine mandates. I have a lot of answers to that question. None of them are as quick and easy as "Where does morality come from?" "God." "Why should one be moral?" "You're damned if you don't." "Why is human life valuable?" "Because God made us in His image." A lot of religious people seem to think that my inability to spit out simple, complete answers to the world's oldest and hardest philosophical questions makes me a nihilist. It's a really bizarre false dichotomy. The extent to which so many people take for granted makes me feel really alienated.

OK, it is either actual meaning or illusionary meaning, in both cases, we sense meaning. But there is no midway point between actual meaning and illusionary meaning. To act incredulous at the suggestion makes you sound balanced and wise, but it fails philosophically. I understand we all sense meaning, and since we sense it, we experience meaning, but simply experiencing meaning isn't enough for this discussion. Here, we are trying to "explain" it.

If you are a complicated result of natural selection by chance changes over time and lack a designer, or a personal cause, and lack any future after death, then any concept of meaning is well, meaningless. The only meaning you have is the illusion of meaning you experience when you are alive, that is it. But even that is not what we are discussing, we are talking about real meaning and purpose.

Please explain how you can find a midway point between, the actual ultimate value of a human life and no value of a human life?