927 thoughts on “What Makes Something Right or Wrong?”
Hi Carmen and Peter,
Sounds like Peter grew up a Christian fundamentalist like I did. I was indoctrinated with a very strong dose of fear regarding Hellfire and damnation, on a weekly, if not daily basis ever since I could crawl (my father was a fundamentalist Baptist preacher). I was more afraid of Hell than of the Boogeyman under my bed or in my closet.
If you instill that kind of fear in a young child they will NEVER get completely over it. Ask anyone who was verbally or psychologically abused as a child on an ongoing basis for years and they will tell you the same thing. You never get rid of it completely.
There is still a part of me that fears Hell…intensely. But instead of trying to be 100% free of that fear, I have come to accept it as a permanent part of my psyche. How do I cope with it? I have learned that instead of seeing it as a sign that an invisible God is convicting me of my wicked sin of rejecting him, I see it for what it is: child abuse.
Oddly enough, despite growing up as a fundamentalist myself, there are a couple of things that have helped me move past a fear of Hell.
1) Jesus’s promise in Matthew 7 that those who seek truth will find it. I know that seems weird, since I’m no longer a Christian, but I view it like this: IF the Christian Hell is real, then Christianity is true. And if that’s the case, then Jesus’s statement in Matthew 7 is also true. Which means that honest seekers (of which I’m one) will find the truth. So in that way, I don’t really have to worry about Hell.
2) From a skeptical perspective, it’s very easy to see the progression of belief about the afterlife in the Bible. No one can deny that the OT doesn’t talk about Hell or Heaven (except for one possible reference in Daniel 12, which was pretty obviously written in the Maccabean time period). Hell only shows up in the NT, after the Jews had been subjects of the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires. The NT’s words for the parts of the afterlife either come directly from Greek mythology (Hades and Tartarus), or from a local geographic feature (Gehenna). If Hell were real, it would have to be much older than Greek culture and the trash pit outside Jerusalem, which means it should have had its own name. In other words, it’s so obviously a construct, it just has no power over me at all any more.
Don’t know if that’s helpful or not… I can easily see why many people aren’t ever able to get completely past a fear of Hell.
Nate, thanks for your comments. Yes they are helpful. I agree with everything you say.
However, fear is not a logical or rational construct. I have been analyzing myself and concluded I am a pessimist by nature. I am very adept at constructing a worst case scenario, but fair less adept at applying to it a reasonable probability of outcome.
I kept expecting God to wreak some horrible revenge upon me for leaving the faith. Even though everything that has happened to me since then has been consistent with the scenario of there being no god to wreak that revenge.
I like your summary, Nate, especially the second part. However, it is amazing how Christians can “harmonize” this massive discrepancy. They claim that this was a case of “progressive revelation”: the doctrine of Hell has been there all along but God hid it for thousands of years for reasons known only to him.
There is always a harmonization, it seems. After all, Christians have convinced themselves that three equals one and one equals three.
Hi Nate, I hadn’t listened to the video before, but now I have. You may be surprised to know that I agreed with quite a bit of it, notably the idea that ethics vary with the situation and cannot be precisely written down.
Many christians, and many of their critics, think that christianity is about following rules, but the NT makes it very clear this isn’t so. I could show you many places where it says that the Law is the old and was then passing away, and the new way is to live in the way of the Spirit and not the law, that good and bad are defined by love and our faith that a course of action is right. There are of course many commands in the NT, but they come in the form of principles and guidance. So I agree with the humanists there, and I believe Jesus and Paul did too.
There are other things I didn’t agree with, but I think this probably makes me a christian humanist (?)
Thanks for the comment, unkleE. The way I saw it as a Christian isn’t too different from what you’re saying. I definitely saw that the old law was no longer in effect. My views on the newer commands in the NT were probably a bit more legalistic than how you view it, but I did recognize that the focus had changed.
I like the term “Christian humanist.” Hadn’t really thought of it before, but it’s a great description.
The problem most of you have is that from an evolutionary atheist perspective morality is illogical. That’s not to say there have not been multiple attempts to claim that its logical but that they all fail and fail pretty obviously
Evolution cares about one thing – long term fitness to procreate.
If one species ends up killing off every other one mercilessly – it doesn’t care.
IF criminals can prolifically create off springs – it doesn’t care.
If murder frees up ecologically niches – the more the merrier
You can be a cheat, rape, murder , lie and embezzle. In many cases it will open up more time and more opportunity to procreate and thats all Evolution “cares” about.
Lets face it everyone appealing to a moral code in this thread has been introduced to it by someone else that was introduced to it at some point along the chain – like it or not – by someone religious. Its fine to say you don’t need religion to be moral because you live in a society that already injected you with morality. Its still in your veins to various degrees. You can live n denial that the day you became n atheist it wiped away all your upbringing but its quite the sham of an illogical argument.
The video is a mess for anyone that understands past the verbage (that its one of Nate’s favorite shows you how weak the overall argument is). In just about every minute it has to assume morality as reasonable in order to claim its based on reason. The public has seen through the mental gymnastics. They realize the central tenets of atheism clearly and logically indicate that there is no thumbs up or thumbs down on morality. the problem Atheists have is the public will never buy that there is no real right or wrong.
Which is why we see the continued attempts by atheists to claim though there are no absolutes morality is absolutely rational. Its a huge gaping problem which atheist have no other answer but – spin.
“The experiment was repeated with rats and even they showed changed behaviour and a reluctance to go for the food if it meant another rat felt pain as a result.”
You can’t seriously believe that the minds of rats or monkeys can be read. Unfortunately the tendency for humans to read in human sentiments to animals they are observing has been well proven. I would not be surprised at all that a rat or monkey would stop doing something based on harm coming to a party within his own species – it need to do nothing with morality or empathy. just that he fears he/she might be next.
Thats not to deny empathy as a God designed feature in some animals but that the test as you have described it proves nothing of what you are claiming for it
We have certain instincts that factor into morality. So if someone decides to just start killing everyone indiscriminately, that’s not going to be a very successful strategy. He may get what he wants for a little while, but someone (or many “someones”) will eventually eliminate him. Just like all animals that live cooperatively, we’ve evolved certain instincts that help us function successfully in society.
There’s another level of morality on top of that one that does consist of what’s taught to us — just as Mike was alluding to. In other words, both nature (my first paragraph) and nurture have a lot to do with what we consider moral. And that’s why our views of morality have changed so much over time and throughout various cultures.
Finally, a third level of morality is the idea of absolute morality. This comes into play when we want to judge one culture’s idea of morality against another’s. Religion is able to claim authority in this area by saying that morality comes from God. But this is still just a claim, and if the people involved in the discussion don’t agree on the God in question, then this claim is pretty meaningless. Secularists don’t typically try to claim that there is a hard and fast objective morality; however, many of us do think we can judge whether or not a particular action is more moral than another. We do this by examining what most of us have considered “moral” in the past, and we examine the arc of moral progression that can be seen in human history. When we do this, we find that personal liberty, the minimization of pain, and the maximization of happiness seem to be three of the most important elements. From there, it’s not usually very difficult to see which option in a set of choices is more moral than another.
I would not be surprised at all that a rat or monkey would stop doing something based on harm coming to a party within his own species – it need to do nothing with morality or empathy. just that he fears he/she might be next.
Thats not to deny empathy as a God designed feature in some animals but that the test as you have described it proves nothing of what you are claiming for it
That’s a pretty weak rationalization against the findings of those experiments, Mike.
Furthermore, what are you even arguing against? You don’t like the implications of the experiments that Peter mentioned, but you also say that God gave some animals empathy. If you believe that, why are you troubled by those experiments?
” but I view it like this: IF the Christian Hell is real, then Christianity is true. And if that’s the case, then Jesus’s statement in Matthew 7 is also true. Which means that honest seekers (of which I’m one) will find the truth. So in that way, I don’t really have to worry about Hell.”
Unfortunately Nate you are forgetting there are multiple warnings in the Bible about being deceived by yourself. They would apply particularly to you especially since you have a post around here somewhere where you claim to have totally made up your mind regarding the Bible but yet are not closed minded on the issue.
Thats not seeking but the tell tale sign of someone deceiving himself he can occupy two mutually exclusive positions on openness at the same time.
Besides, the passage reads in the continuous tense in the Greek and seeking Till isn’t the context. I don’t think in any of our debates you have ever shown that you sought enough to not have missed even key facts which you admitted to being unaware of.
I ‘m just telling you this because if you are wrong and you find yourself in an after life you didn’t think existed, Matthew 7 isn’t likely to be something that will stand up to HIS scrutiny.
“That’s a pretty weak rationalization against the findings of those experiments, Mike.”
If so it should be easy for you to show they are weak…your absence of doing so is obviously telling.
However by all means go ahead and proceed to give us the scientific evidence that we are capable of determining what the Monkey or the rat was thinking that made them stop. It would make for an interesting read. Thing is I know lots of people who given this same situation would stop pulling the lever not simply to save others but the very real possibility that seeing other people die or in pain by pulling the lever would make them fear for their own life.
“Furthermore, what are you even arguing against? You don’t like the implications of the experiments that Peter mentioned”
I said not a thing about like or dislike now did I? don’t start fibbing so soon again
“If you believe that, why are you troubled by those experiments?”
Apparently Nate does as poor of a job mind reading as he does reasoning. I am not troubled at all. I am merely pointing out a logical flaw in deducing human rationals from animal reactions.
Am I sensing some distress that the test might now quite show what you thought it did?
You say The problem most of you have is that from an evolutionary atheist perspective morality is illogical.
No it’s not. But by making this ludicrous assertion, you demonstrate the real problem here: you are ignorant about what is meant by the term ‘morality’, how this sentiment is explained by compelling evidence from reality in evolutionary biology, and then fill that ignorance in with your selected faith-based beliefs that has an agenda unconcerned with what is true and knowable.
Your imposed beliefs are not indicative or reflective of, or knowledgeable about, reality; they are indicative of only your faith-based beliefs and they are without any knowledge value whatsoever. That’s why the conclusion you think you have drawn is nothing more than a premise (that you assume is true). It is absolute rubbish and has no relevance to reality or reveal any accuracy about morality.
I hesitate to jump in here but ABlacksmanagain said:
Unfortunately Nate you are forgetting there are multiple warnings in the Bible about being deceived by yourself.
Generally speaking if you are deceived you are unaware that you are being deceived until further information comes to light. Some people never know. So if you’re self-deceived how would you ever know that you are? The Bible may warn against it, but how would you even know you were doing it?
“We have certain instincts that factor into morality. So if someone decides to just start killing everyone indiscriminately, that’s not going to be a very successful strategy.”
Probably not but once we come back from that strawman constructed argument of killing everyone indiscriminately we certainly have no innate instinct of morality for killing some people “discriminately” or we wouldn’t have as many murders as we do
“He may get what he wants for a little while, but someone (or many “someones”) will eventually eliminate him. Just like all animals ”
Nature is filled with animals that kill everyday to eat, procreate and dominate. The strongest ones live a full life. Appealing to other species just doesn’t work due to the nature of life in the wild
“In other words, both nature (my first paragraph) and nurture have a lot to do with what we consider moral. And that’s why our views of morality have changed so much over time and throughout various cultures.”
Some perhaps but not most but heres the curious thing. Many of the moralities we hold to are not held to animals yet they favor us BIOLOGICALLY. Constant agression gives us high blood pressure and heart disease but serves Lions well. Most studies indicate a large amount of sexual partners makes humans less healthy despite it being favorable for evolution. ALtrusim actually releases some hormones but altruism can leave you dead so not to wonderful for evolution.
Isn’t it grand that our bodies seem to reward us for a certain set of morals?
“Secularists don’t typically try to claim that there is a hard and fast objective morality; however, many of us do think we can judge whether or not a particular action is more moral than another.”
There you go — You just demonstrated what I was talking about. That secularists do not adhere to a hard and fast objective morality yet can judge which actions is more moral than another is the very kind of gibberish you all should be embarrassed to utter but have to in order to save face from the logical consequence of your atheism.
“Generally speaking if you are deceived you are unaware that you are being deceived until further information comes to light. Some people never know. So if you’re self-deceived how would you ever know that you are? The Bible may warn against it, but how would you even know you were doing it?”
Hi Ruth,
By doing what the Bible says is its cure
Examining yourself. You do this by introspection, holding yourself up to objective standards and being willing to hear and objectively evaluate input from those around you.
Examining yourself. You do this by introspection, holding yourself up to objective standards and being willing to hear and objectively evaluate input from those around you.
I think most of us believe we’re doing that. What objective standards?
“That’s why the conclusion you think you have drawn is nothing more than a premise (that you assume is true). It is absolute rubbish and has no relevance to reality or reveal any accuracy about morality.”
Yaaaawwwwwn…… In that meandering useless mass of rhetorical verbage there was not a single attempt to provide a rational basis for morality (of any kind) in an evolutionary framework.
Thank you for confirming my earlier post that you have no rational basis for your argument.
I believe that Mike is entirely correct to complain that atheism cannot explain morality. There has to be something more. I believe that the something more is “humanism”. Some Christians will complain that humanism is just liberal Christianity, and in a sense they may be correct. But so what?
I see religion as one of many stages of human evolution. Humans created religion and god(s) to give some order and meaning to their mysterious and very dangerous world. With the advancements of Science, we understand our mysterious and dangerous world much better. We no longer need god(s) to explain why there are droughts, floods, lightening, sickness, etc.. So we can move on to the next stage: humanism. A perspective that encourages the intrinsic value of each individual; the wellbeing of all; and the maximization of happiness.
These are values and behaviors valued by all “herd” animals. The selfish, violent individual is not tolerated for long and is either eliminated or ostracized. Watch any film about our closest relatives, the great apes, and you will see these same behaviors. Behaviors that benefit the wellbeing of the group are encouraged and supported. Behaviors that disrupt the group and expose it to danger, is discouraged.
Instead of fighting against the notion that humanism is an outgrowth of religion, we should embrace it. “Yes! It is,” should be our response. “But we are advancing beyond religion into something better, more beautiful, and more fulfilling.”
“I think most of us believe we’re doing that. What objective standards?”
If you claim to be doing that then shouldn’t you know that? obviously ones that you hold to previously and use with others. Equal weights. As an illustration almost every bad relationship that fell apart I know would have seen the writing on the wall if they had listened to others and asked themselves questions honestly as they would before the relationship started.
You can see exactly how self deception works in bad relationships.
Mind you I am just answering a question regarding self deception you asked me I presumed without ulterior motive
“So we can move on to the next stage: humanism. A perspective that encourages the intrinsic value of each individual; the wellbeing of all; and the maximization of happiness.”
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
Humanism on the issue of objective morality is still as beat
If you claim to be doing that then shouldn’t you know that?
You have a point there. I guess what I was saying is that we are all looking at evidence – any evidence – as objectively as we know how.
The trouble with objective standards is that, as you said, they’re the ones I hold myself to and use with others. If you don’t have the same standards as me doesn’t that make mine subjective? And perhaps yours?
Morality is defined by the culture and the times. Even in Judeo-Christianity one can see the change in moral standards. At one time a husband could have his wife killed on their wedding night if he found her hymen to not be intact. I don’t think that any Jewish or Christian group today would support such a punishment. There are many more examples.
There are some actions that most “herds” do not tolerate, such as killing the young members of the group. A chimpanzee in a group who targets the children of other group members for killing will not last long in the group, while killing of infants of another group is tolerated. We see this same “morality” in the stories of the ancient Hebrews.
Finding Truth 
Hi Carmen and Peter,
Sounds like Peter grew up a Christian fundamentalist like I did. I was indoctrinated with a very strong dose of fear regarding Hellfire and damnation, on a weekly, if not daily basis ever since I could crawl (my father was a fundamentalist Baptist preacher). I was more afraid of Hell than of the Boogeyman under my bed or in my closet.
If you instill that kind of fear in a young child they will NEVER get completely over it. Ask anyone who was verbally or psychologically abused as a child on an ongoing basis for years and they will tell you the same thing. You never get rid of it completely.
There is still a part of me that fears Hell…intensely. But instead of trying to be 100% free of that fear, I have come to accept it as a permanent part of my psyche. How do I cope with it? I have learned that instead of seeing it as a sign that an invisible God is convicting me of my wicked sin of rejecting him, I see it for what it is: child abuse.
I can live with that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oddly enough, despite growing up as a fundamentalist myself, there are a couple of things that have helped me move past a fear of Hell.
1) Jesus’s promise in Matthew 7 that those who seek truth will find it. I know that seems weird, since I’m no longer a Christian, but I view it like this: IF the Christian Hell is real, then Christianity is true. And if that’s the case, then Jesus’s statement in Matthew 7 is also true. Which means that honest seekers (of which I’m one) will find the truth. So in that way, I don’t really have to worry about Hell.
2) From a skeptical perspective, it’s very easy to see the progression of belief about the afterlife in the Bible. No one can deny that the OT doesn’t talk about Hell or Heaven (except for one possible reference in Daniel 12, which was pretty obviously written in the Maccabean time period). Hell only shows up in the NT, after the Jews had been subjects of the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires. The NT’s words for the parts of the afterlife either come directly from Greek mythology (Hades and Tartarus), or from a local geographic feature (Gehenna). If Hell were real, it would have to be much older than Greek culture and the trash pit outside Jerusalem, which means it should have had its own name. In other words, it’s so obviously a construct, it just has no power over me at all any more.
Don’t know if that’s helpful or not… I can easily see why many people aren’t ever able to get completely past a fear of Hell.
LikeLike
Nate, thanks for your comments. Yes they are helpful. I agree with everything you say.
However, fear is not a logical or rational construct. I have been analyzing myself and concluded I am a pessimist by nature. I am very adept at constructing a worst case scenario, but fair less adept at applying to it a reasonable probability of outcome.
I kept expecting God to wreak some horrible revenge upon me for leaving the faith. Even though everything that has happened to me since then has been consistent with the scenario of there being no god to wreak that revenge.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I like your summary, Nate, especially the second part. However, it is amazing how Christians can “harmonize” this massive discrepancy. They claim that this was a case of “progressive revelation”: the doctrine of Hell has been there all along but God hid it for thousands of years for reasons known only to him.
There is always a harmonization, it seems. After all, Christians have convinced themselves that three equals one and one equals three.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nate, I hadn’t listened to the video before, but now I have. You may be surprised to know that I agreed with quite a bit of it, notably the idea that ethics vary with the situation and cannot be precisely written down.
Many christians, and many of their critics, think that christianity is about following rules, but the NT makes it very clear this isn’t so. I could show you many places where it says that the Law is the old and was then passing away, and the new way is to live in the way of the Spirit and not the law, that good and bad are defined by love and our faith that a course of action is right. There are of course many commands in the NT, but they come in the form of principles and guidance. So I agree with the humanists there, and I believe Jesus and Paul did too.
There are other things I didn’t agree with, but I think this probably makes me a christian humanist (?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the comment, unkleE. The way I saw it as a Christian isn’t too different from what you’re saying. I definitely saw that the old law was no longer in effect. My views on the newer commands in the NT were probably a bit more legalistic than how you view it, but I did recognize that the focus had changed.
I like the term “Christian humanist.” Hadn’t really thought of it before, but it’s a great description.
LikeLike
The problem most of you have is that from an evolutionary atheist perspective morality is illogical. That’s not to say there have not been multiple attempts to claim that its logical but that they all fail and fail pretty obviously
Evolution cares about one thing – long term fitness to procreate.
If one species ends up killing off every other one mercilessly – it doesn’t care.
IF criminals can prolifically create off springs – it doesn’t care.
If murder frees up ecologically niches – the more the merrier
You can be a cheat, rape, murder , lie and embezzle. In many cases it will open up more time and more opportunity to procreate and thats all Evolution “cares” about.
Lets face it everyone appealing to a moral code in this thread has been introduced to it by someone else that was introduced to it at some point along the chain – like it or not – by someone religious. Its fine to say you don’t need religion to be moral because you live in a society that already injected you with morality. Its still in your veins to various degrees. You can live n denial that the day you became n atheist it wiped away all your upbringing but its quite the sham of an illogical argument.
The video is a mess for anyone that understands past the verbage (that its one of Nate’s favorite shows you how weak the overall argument is). In just about every minute it has to assume morality as reasonable in order to claim its based on reason. The public has seen through the mental gymnastics. They realize the central tenets of atheism clearly and logically indicate that there is no thumbs up or thumbs down on morality. the problem Atheists have is the public will never buy that there is no real right or wrong.
Which is why we see the continued attempts by atheists to claim though there are no absolutes morality is absolutely rational. Its a huge gaping problem which atheist have no other answer but – spin.
LikeLike
ha, ha – You’re lecturing US about SPIN???? That’s rich!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The experiment was repeated with rats and even they showed changed behaviour and a reluctance to go for the food if it meant another rat felt pain as a result.”
You can’t seriously believe that the minds of rats or monkeys can be read. Unfortunately the tendency for humans to read in human sentiments to animals they are observing has been well proven. I would not be surprised at all that a rat or monkey would stop doing something based on harm coming to a party within his own species – it need to do nothing with morality or empathy. just that he fears he/she might be next.
Thats not to deny empathy as a God designed feature in some animals but that the test as you have described it proves nothing of what you are claiming for it
LikeLike
“ha, ha – You’re lecturing US about SPIN???? That’s rich!!”
Then I’ll make you a wealthy man. Regardless I noticed the distinct absence of a reasoned rebuttal – so see? Even you know there is none
LikeLike
We have certain instincts that factor into morality. So if someone decides to just start killing everyone indiscriminately, that’s not going to be a very successful strategy. He may get what he wants for a little while, but someone (or many “someones”) will eventually eliminate him. Just like all animals that live cooperatively, we’ve evolved certain instincts that help us function successfully in society.
There’s another level of morality on top of that one that does consist of what’s taught to us — just as Mike was alluding to. In other words, both nature (my first paragraph) and nurture have a lot to do with what we consider moral. And that’s why our views of morality have changed so much over time and throughout various cultures.
Finally, a third level of morality is the idea of absolute morality. This comes into play when we want to judge one culture’s idea of morality against another’s. Religion is able to claim authority in this area by saying that morality comes from God. But this is still just a claim, and if the people involved in the discussion don’t agree on the God in question, then this claim is pretty meaningless. Secularists don’t typically try to claim that there is a hard and fast objective morality; however, many of us do think we can judge whether or not a particular action is more moral than another. We do this by examining what most of us have considered “moral” in the past, and we examine the arc of moral progression that can be seen in human history. When we do this, we find that personal liberty, the minimization of pain, and the maximization of happiness seem to be three of the most important elements. From there, it’s not usually very difficult to see which option in a set of choices is more moral than another.
LikeLike
That’s a pretty weak rationalization against the findings of those experiments, Mike.
Furthermore, what are you even arguing against? You don’t like the implications of the experiments that Peter mentioned, but you also say that God gave some animals empathy. If you believe that, why are you troubled by those experiments?
LikeLike
” but I view it like this: IF the Christian Hell is real, then Christianity is true. And if that’s the case, then Jesus’s statement in Matthew 7 is also true. Which means that honest seekers (of which I’m one) will find the truth. So in that way, I don’t really have to worry about Hell.”
Unfortunately Nate you are forgetting there are multiple warnings in the Bible about being deceived by yourself. They would apply particularly to you especially since you have a post around here somewhere where you claim to have totally made up your mind regarding the Bible but yet are not closed minded on the issue.
Thats not seeking but the tell tale sign of someone deceiving himself he can occupy two mutually exclusive positions on openness at the same time.
Besides, the passage reads in the continuous tense in the Greek and seeking Till isn’t the context. I don’t think in any of our debates you have ever shown that you sought enough to not have missed even key facts which you admitted to being unaware of.
I ‘m just telling you this because if you are wrong and you find yourself in an after life you didn’t think existed, Matthew 7 isn’t likely to be something that will stand up to HIS scrutiny.
LikeLike
“That’s a pretty weak rationalization against the findings of those experiments, Mike.”
If so it should be easy for you to show they are weak…your absence of doing so is obviously telling.
However by all means go ahead and proceed to give us the scientific evidence that we are capable of determining what the Monkey or the rat was thinking that made them stop. It would make for an interesting read. Thing is I know lots of people who given this same situation would stop pulling the lever not simply to save others but the very real possibility that seeing other people die or in pain by pulling the lever would make them fear for their own life.
“Furthermore, what are you even arguing against? You don’t like the implications of the experiments that Peter mentioned”
I said not a thing about like or dislike now did I? don’t start fibbing so soon again
“If you believe that, why are you troubled by those experiments?”
Apparently Nate does as poor of a job mind reading as he does reasoning. I am not troubled at all. I am merely pointing out a logical flaw in deducing human rationals from animal reactions.
Am I sensing some distress that the test might now quite show what you thought it did?
LikeLike
@ ablacksmanagain
You say The problem most of you have is that from an evolutionary atheist perspective morality is illogical.
No it’s not. But by making this ludicrous assertion, you demonstrate the real problem here: you are ignorant about what is meant by the term ‘morality’, how this sentiment is explained by compelling evidence from reality in evolutionary biology, and then fill that ignorance in with your selected faith-based beliefs that has an agenda unconcerned with what is true and knowable.
Your imposed beliefs are not indicative or reflective of, or knowledgeable about, reality; they are indicative of only your faith-based beliefs and they are without any knowledge value whatsoever. That’s why the conclusion you think you have drawn is nothing more than a premise (that you assume is true). It is absolute rubbish and has no relevance to reality or reveal any accuracy about morality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hesitate to jump in here but ABlacksmanagain said:
Unfortunately Nate you are forgetting there are multiple warnings in the Bible about being deceived by yourself.
Generally speaking if you are deceived you are unaware that you are being deceived until further information comes to light. Some people never know. So if you’re self-deceived how would you ever know that you are? The Bible may warn against it, but how would you even know you were doing it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We have certain instincts that factor into morality. So if someone decides to just start killing everyone indiscriminately, that’s not going to be a very successful strategy.”
Probably not but once we come back from that strawman constructed argument of killing everyone indiscriminately we certainly have no innate instinct of morality for killing some people “discriminately” or we wouldn’t have as many murders as we do
“He may get what he wants for a little while, but someone (or many “someones”) will eventually eliminate him. Just like all animals ”
Nature is filled with animals that kill everyday to eat, procreate and dominate. The strongest ones live a full life. Appealing to other species just doesn’t work due to the nature of life in the wild
“In other words, both nature (my first paragraph) and nurture have a lot to do with what we consider moral. And that’s why our views of morality have changed so much over time and throughout various cultures.”
Some perhaps but not most but heres the curious thing. Many of the moralities we hold to are not held to animals yet they favor us BIOLOGICALLY. Constant agression gives us high blood pressure and heart disease but serves Lions well. Most studies indicate a large amount of sexual partners makes humans less healthy despite it being favorable for evolution. ALtrusim actually releases some hormones but altruism can leave you dead so not to wonderful for evolution.
Isn’t it grand that our bodies seem to reward us for a certain set of morals?
“Secularists don’t typically try to claim that there is a hard and fast objective morality; however, many of us do think we can judge whether or not a particular action is more moral than another.”
There you go — You just demonstrated what I was talking about. That secularists do not adhere to a hard and fast objective morality yet can judge which actions is more moral than another is the very kind of gibberish you all should be embarrassed to utter but have to in order to save face from the logical consequence of your atheism.
LikeLike
“Generally speaking if you are deceived you are unaware that you are being deceived until further information comes to light. Some people never know. So if you’re self-deceived how would you ever know that you are? The Bible may warn against it, but how would you even know you were doing it?”
Hi Ruth,
By doing what the Bible says is its cure
Examining yourself. You do this by introspection, holding yourself up to objective standards and being willing to hear and objectively evaluate input from those around you.
LikeLike
Hey Mike,
Examining yourself. You do this by introspection, holding yourself up to objective standards and being willing to hear and objectively evaluate input from those around you.
I think most of us believe we’re doing that. What objective standards?
LikeLike
“That’s why the conclusion you think you have drawn is nothing more than a premise (that you assume is true). It is absolute rubbish and has no relevance to reality or reveal any accuracy about morality.”
Yaaaawwwwwn…… In that meandering useless mass of rhetorical verbage there was not a single attempt to provide a rational basis for morality (of any kind) in an evolutionary framework.
Thank you for confirming my earlier post that you have no rational basis for your argument.
P.S. Please do not forget to take your meds today
LikeLike
I believe that Mike is entirely correct to complain that atheism cannot explain morality. There has to be something more. I believe that the something more is “humanism”. Some Christians will complain that humanism is just liberal Christianity, and in a sense they may be correct. But so what?
I see religion as one of many stages of human evolution. Humans created religion and god(s) to give some order and meaning to their mysterious and very dangerous world. With the advancements of Science, we understand our mysterious and dangerous world much better. We no longer need god(s) to explain why there are droughts, floods, lightening, sickness, etc.. So we can move on to the next stage: humanism. A perspective that encourages the intrinsic value of each individual; the wellbeing of all; and the maximization of happiness.
These are values and behaviors valued by all “herd” animals. The selfish, violent individual is not tolerated for long and is either eliminated or ostracized. Watch any film about our closest relatives, the great apes, and you will see these same behaviors. Behaviors that benefit the wellbeing of the group are encouraged and supported. Behaviors that disrupt the group and expose it to danger, is discouraged.
Instead of fighting against the notion that humanism is an outgrowth of religion, we should embrace it. “Yes! It is,” should be our response. “But we are advancing beyond religion into something better, more beautiful, and more fulfilling.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I think most of us believe we’re doing that. What objective standards?”
If you claim to be doing that then shouldn’t you know that? obviously ones that you hold to previously and use with others. Equal weights. As an illustration almost every bad relationship that fell apart I know would have seen the writing on the wall if they had listened to others and asked themselves questions honestly as they would before the relationship started.
You can see exactly how self deception works in bad relationships.
Mind you I am just answering a question regarding self deception you asked me I presumed without ulterior motive
LikeLike
“So we can move on to the next stage: humanism. A perspective that encourages the intrinsic value of each individual; the wellbeing of all; and the maximization of happiness.”
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
Humanism on the issue of objective morality is still as beat
LikeLike
If you claim to be doing that then shouldn’t you know that?
You have a point there. I guess what I was saying is that we are all looking at evidence – any evidence – as objectively as we know how.
The trouble with objective standards is that, as you said, they’re the ones I hold myself to and use with others. If you don’t have the same standards as me doesn’t that make mine subjective? And perhaps yours?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is no such thing as objective morality.
Morality is defined by the culture and the times. Even in Judeo-Christianity one can see the change in moral standards. At one time a husband could have his wife killed on their wedding night if he found her hymen to not be intact. I don’t think that any Jewish or Christian group today would support such a punishment. There are many more examples.
There are some actions that most “herds” do not tolerate, such as killing the young members of the group. A chimpanzee in a group who targets the children of other group members for killing will not last long in the group, while killing of infants of another group is tolerated. We see this same “morality” in the stories of the ancient Hebrews.
LikeLiked by 1 person