Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even the most secular societies today are built on laws steeped in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, e.g. the Ten Commandments.
Shenanigans. Compare and contrast the First Amendment with First Commandment.
Western Civilization is rooted in Greek and Roman culture, and they weren't about to obey the laws of an admittedly successful tribe in the Middle East. US law is rooted in English Common Law - and that in turn came about by codifying traditions that far predated the introduction of Christianity on the British Isles.
Apart from the purely religious content, the 10 commandments only codify what every successful law in the history of history has agreed on: Don't kill, don't steal, don't boink your neighbor, and have respect for authority. Hammurabi came up with that, too.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
I guess I didn't quite think through what I posted...I mean it's clear that there are many societies not based in the Abrahamic tradition that are quite peaceful and outwardly comparatively orderly and moral, Japan comes to mind...I know morality might have an evolutionary origin, but I don't know, it just seems that nature itself isn't always that moral (e.g. on the subject of infanticide what about say lions killing their young?), in fact it more often than not what we'd call immoral. I guess I'm thinking that ultimately most morality is derived from religion (whether Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion) and I think all religion derives from a divine source. I believe things aren't how they're really supposed to be. We live in a fallen world so to speak.
People are a social species which means they need other people to survive. This means that cooperation and empathy are necessary. God and religion don't have anything to do with this and a purely secular society wouldn't lead to chaos and degradation. This can be shown through other primates like gorillas and monkeys. These species most likely don't follow any sort of divinity yet they have not fallen into chaos. Making humanity the arbiter of morality would be much more productive. The problem with making god the arbiter is that it allows for morals to be based on whatever a deity says is moral. You say that making people the arbiter of morality would lead to making infanticide okay, yet the god of the bible endorses killing infants and children. One of the plagues was having the angel of death kill the first born son of the egyptians. Another problem with saying morality can only come from a divine source is that it says all transcendent moral codes are equally valid which means you can't say the holocaust, honor killings, the Taliban, slavery or the genocidal stupidity of catholic missionaries in Africa are wrong.
I guess I didn't quite think through what I posted...I mean it's clear that there are many societies not based in the Abrahamic tradition that are quite peaceful and outwardly comparatively orderly and moral, Japan comes to mind...I know morality might have an evolutionary origin, but I don't know, it just seems that nature itself isn't always that moral (e.g. on the subject of infanticide what about say lions killing their young?), in fact it more often than not what we'd call immoral. I guess I'm thinking that ultimately most morality is derived from religion (whether Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion) and I think all religion derives from a divine source. I believe things aren't how they're really supposed to be. We live in a fallen world so to speak.
Well, that's a different kettle of fish. Nature isn't moral - "red in tooth and claw" and all that - so the idea of moral is a human invention. There's likely an anthropological explanation - if Oog's tribe come up with an ethos that makes it possible for them to cooperate, they stand a better chance than Guh's tribe one valley over where the strongest guy gets what he wants.
(It's interesting that chimpanzees can cooperate chillingly well in killing other chimpanzees who encroach on their territory, yet they can't gather food as a group- they forage, each eating what they find on the spot.)
Morality requires the individual to sometimes act against his own self-interest, so an authority of sorts may be needed. And a supernatural all-seeing, all-powerful entity is of course the ultimate in authority. Presto, deism and religion.
I guess I didn't quite think through what I posted...I mean it's clear that there are many societies not based in the Abrahamic tradition that are quite peaceful and outwardly comparatively orderly and moral, Japan comes to mind...I know morality might have an evolutionary origin, but I don't know, it just seems that nature itself isn't always that moral (e.g. on the subject of infanticide what about say lions killing their young?), in fact it more often than not what we'd call immoral. I guess I'm thinking that ultimately most morality is derived from religion (whether Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion) and I think all religion derives from a divine source. I believe things aren't how they're really supposed to be. We live in a fallen world so to speak.
In your original post you claim that we Atheists would simply like to trade moral absolutism for some sort of strict utilitarianism. Strict utilitarianism, Bentham-style, which is slightly different than Gangham-style, insists that the right act to do is the one that maximizes happiness for all people. Or, in other words, "rightness and wrongness" is decided upon by the maximum happiness derived from all of the people involved in the act itself. On the surface, this notion can seem a little warm and friendly because of its ringing similarity to democracy.
However, if utilitarianism is the moral code for we Atheists, as you claim, then we godless should all agree that throwing Christians to the lions in ancient Rome maximized the happiness of the Romans (the majority) and despite the pain and suffering of the minority (the Christians), it was the "right thing to do." Suddenly, when put in this light, strict utilitarianism shows a fairly glaring weakness. I think even the most ardent religious person may think it unwise to claim that all of us Atheists would love to see Christians torn apart by lions in a Coliseum-like setting.
John Stewart Mill built upon Bentham's utilitarian philosophy to include natural rights (Bentham didn't believe in this) and that we should recognize individual rights. Thus, in Mill's theory of utilitarianism, despite the fact that throwing Christians to the lions maximized the pleasure of the majority, it ignored the basic individual rights of humans once we fed them to the lions.
These thought processes can transcend into political theory, and often do, but neither of them is so hard to grasp or difficult to understand that we must attribute them to some sort of deity. Is it really so difficult to see another human being as an individual with rights and that infringing upon those rights is immoral? I don't think so. John Locke does touch on this a bit in his explanation as to what the purpose of government is.
In Locke's view, the state of nature (what we might refer to as one completely free of government), would be a violent and brutal one. People are free to kill one another without fear of repercussion. Those who steal or maim can have justice enacted on them by any sort of vigilantism - and so can those who don't steal. In many regards, it's much like a complete state of anarchy. It's because of this that we erect entities of government to enforce the law, to maximize our protection to our inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and estates/property." This brings up an important question for you, though, Trimac. Because it is your claim that we are governed by some sort of deity and that our moral code implicitly instilled upon us by this deity would prevent such an anarchist state from existing. To wit, we would see this state of absent law as one no better or worse than one with a government to enact the laws simply due to the fact that we have a pre-determined moral code written in us. Yet, I think it's quite possible that you see the fallacy in this because you can probably imagine a lawless society RIFE with these injustices and injurious acts.
So, that seems to be the crux of the argument, in my opinion. If we can easily envision lawlessness without any form of government, it would probably stand to reason that our moral code is not as innately sound and secured as a "natural" property divinely given to us. Rather, it would seem to stand to reason that our "morality" is dictated in large part by the structure of society based in part on a variety of aspects to include certain elements of previously mentioned political and moral theories. We maximize our happiness as a society by recognizing human rights, but also doing what we can to affect the greatest number of people with that happiness. So, I fail to see where we should be forced to acknowledge or have to admit to anything other than the status quo as far as sources of morality. Simply stating that our laws are not divinely given does not make the impact of them any more meaningless or ineffectual. In fact, I do think that ignoring this concept of foolish God-bothering when speaking of laws would actually maximize happiness while still recognizing the basic human rights of everyone as well. Taking a deity out of the equation does not infringe upon that or challenge that concept in the slightest.
I guess I didn't quite think through what I posted...I mean it's clear that there are many societies not based in the Abrahamic tradition that are quite peaceful and outwardly comparatively orderly and moral, Japan comes to mind...I know morality might have an evolutionary origin, but I don't know, it just seems that nature itself isn't always that moral (e.g. on the subject of infanticide what about say lions killing their young?), in fact it more often than not what we'd call immoral. I guess I'm thinking that ultimately most morality is derived from religion (whether Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion) and I think all religion derives from a divine source. I believe things aren't how they're really supposed to be. We live in a fallen world so to speak.
Have you studied history much? In which period of history would you have a life anywhere near as safe, pain-free and comfortable as in Perth in 2013?
Many atheists like to imagine a glorious atheist paradise or utopia where God or religious has no place in society - some even cite examples of Sweden or the Netherlands of successful examples. In such a case, man - rational, peace-loving man - is the ultimate arbitrator of what is ultimately right and wrong. Moral absolutism will be exchanged for utilitarian ethics.
Of course, the thing is, no such society exists or is ever likely to. Even the most secular societies today are built on laws steeped in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, e.g. the Ten Commandments. Fact is, there's never been a truly atheistic or secular society in history so it's impossible to know what it would be like. Some communist regimes have got close though and they aren't good examples.
I know some will cite atrocities committed by God in the OT, but assuming we don't know whether those are true, and assuming God is good, and assuming everything we know about the 'nature of man or humans' I think ultimately, pure atheism would lead to utilitarianism and moral relativism. It just seems implausible now because we still have checks and balances from our religious heritage (which atheist's often dismiss) but without those, we'll go down a slippery slope. Abortion will lead to infanticide and who knows what else.
Of course so-called 'religious' societies have been terrible, but that's when they diverged from doing good and what they knew was right. I think our innate morals/conscience are derived from a divine source, and if we lose that, we'll descend into the law of the jungle.
Human morals existed long before the bible. It is fallacy to claim Judaeo-Christian traditions are the source.
It's not wrong or dangerous to accept that morals evolved along with humankind over millenia. That already makes morality bigger than man without a god to enforce them and makes them worthy of aspiring to.
I don't understand how religious folks consistently can't imagine morals existing without religion. If all religions were proven false and abandoned tomorrow, it would still be "wrong" to cheat on your wife or murder or steal next week. Those ideas were ingrained in human behavior eons before someone cooked up the "ten commandments" story.
I believe things aren't how they're really supposed to be. We live in a fallen world so to speak.
I totally understand the sentiment and thoughts of this general nature underlaid much of my reluctance to completely abandon theism.
But if the world is not as it's "supposed" to be, who is doing the supposing? You. Of what significance is what you or I might put forward as a supposition about how the world should be according to us? The world just is what it is. It doesn't give a fig about your sensibilities or mine.
I give a fig about my sensibilities, however, and I'm sure you care about yours, so the concrete thing you and I can do is be the change we want to see in the world, do what we can to make things better. This is much more useful and concrete than imagining that god is going to fix the world and that his idea of a fix would comport with your idea of a fix. Or imagining that god has decreed how the world "should" work and his decree is coherent, unmistakable, correct and -- again -- consistent with your subjective feeling about "rightness".
All we have is each other. The only thing we can do to make the world better, is make it better together.
You are assuming that religion is the origin of ethics and morality. In fact, societies author their ethics and morality and the survival and endurance of said societies is the ultimate test of the validity of their ethical and moral judgments and laws and principles, and of their commitment to them. Religion has always been along for the ride as it was long a useful tool to validate and help enforce society's edicts. But the truth is that it's not the church that issues you a speeding ticket, it's civil authority. It's not the truth that employs the detectives that investigate murders, it's secular civil authority. Whenever the church has pretended to such roles, disaster has ensued. And yes, I have just one word: "Inquisition".
Saying that religion inspires or animates morality is like saying that it is the inspiration for pizza, because where there's churches, there's pizza. Or like saying that grave diggers or tax collectors are the foundation of morality, because they've always been around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you studied history much? In which period of history would you have a life anywhere near as safe, pain-free and comfortable as in Perth in 2013?
