juantoo3's comments in 'Proofs for God's Non-Existence' thread

[Jaiket]

Firstly, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, if one of the mods could take a peek and move it to the suitable section I would appreciate it.


This is a response to juantoo3's post in another thread.

Originally Posted by Juan

...does not the term "evil" require a kind of "faith" from atheists?

Possibly. Personally I don't think the term is any less a human constuct (although a useful one) than god (to me a non-cognitive one).

Originally Posted by Juan

If there were no God, there would be no "evil," nor would there be "good." Every act, even the most unconscionable, would be acceptable.

As far as I know there is no god, there is no evil, there is no good, yet there is still morality, and there are undoubtedly actions I consider unethical.

Originally Posted by Juan

Without humanity's concepts of good and evil, morality, all is fair. Murder, war, theft, greed, etc..., all would be just another day at the office. There would be nothing we construe as child molestation, terrorism, ecological disaster, or any of a litany of heinous crimes against humanity.

My own morals are not based upon good and evil. My own ethical beliefs stem from a desire to protect humans and other animals from suffering, and the planet from becoming inhospitable to life.

Originally Posted by Juan

Now, I realize most atheists posit that they can be moral without God. Very well, but I would suggest that is only a requirement for social acceptance.

No, I don't believe acceptance is the reason at all. Common benefit maybe. I also believe theists share the same motive to be law abiding.

Originally Posted by Juan

In other words, atheists are only moral because the law requires them to be and are no more moral than required of them.

As I understand it atheists are moral through mutual consent and convention whereas theists are moral through commandment and submission.

Originally Posted by Juan

I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to realize the logical conclusion, that if law were done away and morality would no longer be required

It may not take a rocket scientist, but it certainly falls beyond my undertsanding. Is morality note a code within itself? Why should it disappear with laws? Many people are anti-abortionist by morality in countries where abortion is perfectly legal. Many people murder in spite of the law, and many people choose not to harm others regardless of the law. I for one, never consult the justice department before performing an act of kindness.

Originally Posted by Juan

...without some "God" concept, people would become immoral animals.

It just doesn't follow that without god we'd all become immoral, unless morality was redefined to be entirely religious in nature, which would make atheists immoral by definition and there'd be no 'becoming' involved.


In response I would like to know if you can answer Euthyphro's dilemma:


1.Is the holy loved by gods because it is holy? 2.Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?


For if morality is dictated by the gods all becomes moral if the gods say so. Yet if this is not the case the moral yardstick lies outwith the gods and perfectly within my reach as an atheist.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

As far as I know there is no god, there is no evil, there is no good, yet there is still morality, and there are undoubtedly actions I consider unethical.

This is a very good point - as social apes, we already have a sense of what is acceptable within the social group demonstrated for us, though these rules change between cultures.

However, the idea that even chimpanzees can determine social rules of what is acceptable and unacceptable, yet someone humans are incapable of doing so without God, seems too far a stretch of Faith.

2c.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket!

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Possibly. Personally I don't think the term (*evil) is any less a human constuct (although a useful one) than god (to me a non-cognitive one).

OK, I can go with this for the moment.

As far as I know there is no god, there is no evil, there is no good, yet there is still morality, and there are undoubtedly actions I consider unethical.

If I may be so bold as to ask, where did you learn your morality? On a more philosophical note, where does morality come from?

My own morals are not based upon good and evil. My own ethical beliefs stem from a desire to protect humans and other animals from suffering, and the planet from becoming inhospitable to life.

OK, I am trying to follow... Is what you are describing "situational ethics?" What happens when in alleviating the suffering of one you create suffering for another? Is lying "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome? Is murder "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome? And who gets to define the desired outcome, each individual? What then happens when competing outcomes collide? Mill's Utilitarianism is not perfect, particularly when there is not a standard outcome for all to strive for.

No, I don't believe (*social) acceptance is the reason at all. Common benefit maybe. I also believe theists share the same motive to be law abiding.

Social acceptance is largely based on common benefit. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. Mate with me, and I'll protect you. Of course theists, at least monotheists, and I would dare to say even non-theists such as Buddhists, have their moral laws. That is where formalized morality such as the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurabi come from.

I merely suggested that atheists conform because of social pressure to do so. In the absence of that social pressure, I cannot help but wonder just how moral an atheist can truly be?

As I understand it atheists are moral through mutual consent and convention whereas theists are moral through commandment and submission.

I suspect we are saying the same thing in different words. What is "mutual consent and convention" if not social and cultural acceptance?

Is morality note a code within itself? Why should it disappear with laws?

I cannot help but think I am misunderstood here. Law, in and of itself, is not the sum total of morality, nor is morality the sum total of law. Having said this, it is plainly evident by anthropological evidence, such as the Code of Hammurabi, that the earliest codified law was based on religious morality teachings. The further we go back beyond this, we enter a "chicken and egg" dilemma, which came first: religion or morality? I should qualify what I mean by religion here, in that I mean "awareness of 'God'." Here, "God" means "something beyond, something over which humans are helpless and submissive to the power of."

It just doesn't follow that without god we'd all become immoral, unless morality was redefined to be entirely religious in nature, which would make atheists immoral by definition and there'd be no 'becoming' involved.

OK, now I see a fallacy of argument developing... Perhaps I can try to clarify. As Brian pointed out, there is an elemental morality displayed among herding and pack animals. Of course, it is easy to say that they can do this without "God," that it is strictly biology. I would argue otherwise, but my evidence is subjective. Coming back to humans, without "God" our morality would be no better than animals, in effect, a return to the cave. Animals do not perceive that "murder" applies even to adversaries, not just the pack. (I choose murder here as example, I hope it doesn't return to bite me in the butt...) Even within the pack, murder is an arbitrary designation, how many pack males will willingly kill newborns if given the opportunity? Even their own offspring? Now, humans are not immune from this, but on a percentage basis it is done with far less frequency. And unless the perpetrator is without conscience, (possible as a mental incapacity), the perp feels guilt. "He" knows he has done wrong, and the human pack (society) will insure he knows he did wrong. He knows by teaching, (indoctrination). And whether or not it is appreciated, by far the vast bulk of ethical indoctrination available to us as humans is religious in essence.

Therefore, I would posit that atheists are moral becasue of latent social conditioning and cultural indoctrination from religious sources. That they deny the sources is irrelevent.

I feel the need to further add, that religious people are no less obligated and bound, and I must add susceptible (sp?), to those very same cultural indoctrinations.

The only way to prove my conjecture would be if a society could be "raised" in a religious vaccuum, of which I must point out that no society of note and merit on the world stage has done so for any serious length of time. Those that have, are only in the last hundred years, and have never fully succeeded in removing religion from the masses.

In response I would like to know if you can answer Euthyphro's dilemma:
1.Is the holy loved by gods because it is holy? 2.Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?

For if morality is dictated by the gods all becomes moral if the gods say so. Yet if this is not the case the moral yardstick lies outwith the gods and perfectly within my reach as an atheist.

I do not presume to know the mind of God. In my mind, since God created all, God created that which is Holy.

And then one must ask what it is you mean by "Holy?" Many things held to be holy by men are to me inventions of men. Many, but not all. There are things separated by God to God. These things stand above and beyond men.

So, to answer your moral dichotomy of ethical dilemma, I cannot say I know. Of those things created by men, all men can reach. Of those things created by God, men continually strive to reach, and seem to get ever closer to reaching. But man, by his very nature, will never be completely and totally Holy. Not in this existence. And yet, as a Christian, I am taught there were three, not least of which is Jesus. So yes, I do feel some dilemma, that is not lost on me.

It does not negate my position that morality, as we as civilized humans understand the concept, is religious in essence. And that without some kind of "God" concept, we would not be able to see far enough to comprehend "good" and "evil." Our actions would be those of the moment, with no regard for consequences. That includes suffering animals and ecological disasters.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I believe that I have a usefull perspective here as I have been both Christian and Atheist but now am neither. I would say this:

When I was a Christian I did what I believed to be right.
When I was an Atheist I did what I believed to be right.
But now I am a buddhist and so I do what I believe to be right.

My behaviour did not noticably change across this entire spectrum of religion, so how can it be possible that my behaviour is dictated by religion?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Awaiting!

Thank you for your perspective.

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

When I was a Christian I did what I believed to be right.
When I was an Atheist I did what I believed to be right.
But now I am a buddhist and so I do what I believe to be right.

My behaviour did not noticably change across this entire spectrum of religion, so how can it be possible that my behaviour is dictated by religion?

I offer that the reason is because religion has always comprised a component of society and culture, most especially politics.

I would be making a great leap of speculation in presuming you also remained in the same culture for this transition. If so, then I would guess that your moral perspective did not change because your society did not change, even if there were a relatively minor shift in your culture.

If you did change societies in the process of your transition, (moved to another country, for example), I would guess that virtually all societies have some form of religious morality latent in their cultures. Witness the great similarities in moral constructs across religions. Even Buddhists have a written moral code, if I am to believe Vajradhara (and I do!).

At least, that is how I see it to this point.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

In that case juantoo3 (I just got jour name, brilliant) I cannot disprove your argument any more than I can disprove the existence of God.

You argue like a proffessional and I take my hat off to your skills.

Of course, I still think you're wrong

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Awaiting!

You argue like a proffessional and I take my hat off to your skills.

Of course, I still think you're wrong

Thank you, I think...

You will not hear me claim I have it all figured out. BTW, in my paradigm, you are allowed to disagree. That is something that makes life fun.

[alexa]

Give them some time to know you, Juan. As I can see they didn't read Morality within evolution yet.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards Alexa!

Yes, I kinda figured that one out. It is a long thread, and I have referred to it a few times already. Don't want to seem too much like tooting my (our!) own horn.

[juantoo3]

Besides, I am waiting for Nietzche...

[alexa]

Oh, no. Not again.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Besides, I am waiting for Nietzche...

Im not the most knowlegeable student of Nietzcheism, but asI understand it, he's not on your side here. He was certainly not a theist in the classic sense.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Awaiting!

(*Nietzche's) not on your side here

I know.

[alexa]

Thanks, Father.

[Alexia]

"Originally Posted by Juan
...without some "God" concept, people would become immoral animals."


I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. People have the natrual desire to reproduce, protect themselves, and try to live as peaceful as possible. Being an "immoral animal" as you described as killing, raping, stealing, etc. etc. that only applies to people who are mentally damaged. The average Joe doesn't want to commit heinious crimes against society. MOST people don't need a list of laws of how to live, it usually comes natrually.