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.
The problems with those weak analogies is that we don't have the physical capacity to start nuclear fusion in our bodies or grow like trees
We do have the physical capacity for cannibalism, assault, theft, murder, etc
Yet it is decided that those behaviors are *gasp* morally impermissible for anyone to participate in.
Yet what obligation does one have to those standards if we are just like the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom and we have the physical capacity to perform the same behaviors? And in those behaviors found in nature are even often used to justify human behavior and change perceptions of systems of values?
That makes absolutely no sense. I don't even know what you are trying to argue here.
First off, what behavior constitutes "just like all animals?" Some animals fly, some live 20,000 feet below the ocean, some mate for life, some don't even see their mate, some eat their young and some eat their poop. The variation is incredible.
So what? They are not human and they do not share nor need our way of seeing things.
If you look at any particular species they share common behavioral traits among themselves. They don't all act exactly the same of course but you could map out all the various behavior options and find a bell curve where the majority of (insert species here) behaves like this or that.
Humans are no different in the respect; we have common behavioral tendencies and behaviors outside our norm are labeled as "immoral" by the majority.
Where is god in all this? Maybe he's taking a nap on Kolob when he should be working? Maybe he's smart enough to know that NOTHING is absolute (especially morals) and lets things happen naturally?
Clearly however, there is no "absolute morality" functioning in the universe above and apart from us, only yet another human claiming to "know the mind of god."
I know because scripture holds mankind to a higher standard than animals
But if you believe man is just a common animal, why should he be held to a higher standard?
Why don't the laws of the fittest survive apply for humans? What arbitrarily makes human beings held to a different standard if there is no external force holding them to that standard?
Our treatment of other people at a higher standard is possibly a result of survival of the fittest. When we treat other people at a higher standard, it's better for the species, and therefore better for our survival as a whole.
From an atheist's perspective, perhaps the best explanation is that law and order lead to the best life for everyone, even if there's no absolute moral standard holding humans on a higher value-level.
I'm playing the devil's advocate, by the way (I'm a Christian). I still think this is an important question for atheists to answer - if there's no sense of a higher power or absolute moral standards, then there's no reason (other than pure self-interest) to object to something considered morally wrong.
Our treatment of other people at a higher standard is possibly a result of survival of the fittest. When we treat other people at a higher standard, it's better for the species, and therefore better for our survival as a whole.
From an atheist's perspective, perhaps the best explanation is that law and order lead to the best life for everyone, even if there's no absolute moral standard holding humans on a higher value-level.
I'm playing the devil's advocate, by the way (I'm a Christian). I still think this is an important question for atheists to answer - if there's no sense of a higher power or absolute moral standards, then there's no reason (other than pure self-interest) to object to something considered morally wrong.
This is certainly the best argument Christians have, though its really not very difficult to dis spell, as you did so adequately in your second paragraph. What you didn't mention is the part that evolution has played in this scenario. Moral standards has developed over centuries, primarily because of the ramifications certain actions have on the species and its procreation. Certainly, one wouldn't want society to follow the morals of the Bible god now, would they not?
if there's no sense of a higher power or absolute moral standards, then there's no reason (other than pure self-interest) to object to something considered morally wrong.
there is a difference between self-interest, and interest in Self, just as there is a difference between self-consciousness and consciousness in Self, self-centered-ness and centered-ness in Self. some of us do not see any merit in avoiding bad behavior out of the fear of being punished by a higher power, nor do we see any merit in choosing 'good' behavior for the sake of godly reward. some do not view any desire for recognition good or bad, by any god, as worthy ideals to subscribe to. such tendencies are completely lacking in sincerity, and thus would completely negate any guidance graced by a 'higher-power' anyway.
there is an ideal called personal integrity, that those with the capacity for self-honesty and personal accountability are intrinsically dedicated to. an understanding of the concept and context of *consequences* - provides allowance for devotion to a sense of personal accountability in which consequences are it's own reward, while deviation and failure to adhere to one's personal sense of integrity brings about consequences that provide great remedial value. one's reasons and choices in thought, word and deed are thus devoid of any kind of underlying insincerity, personal agenda and motive for religious salvation or against fear-based punishment. to operate from a level of consciousness that allows only 'for' or 'against' choices, is a form of enslavement that those - with eyes to see- have no useful purpose or value for in their lives.
that is more than enough 'reason' for me, to keep me on the straight and narrow way.
Your argument is based on the presumption human beings are intrinsically worthless. Most atheists know that this is nonsense, however. The reason atheists don't hold people to the same standards is because most atheists/agnostics actually care about others. They don't need a book to tell them to.
there is a difference between self-interest, and interest in Self, just as there is a difference between self-consciousness and consciousness in Self, self-centered-ness and centered-ness in Self. some of us do not see any merit in avoiding bad behavior out of the fear of being punished by a higher power, nor do we see any merit in choosing 'good' behavior for the sake of godly reward. some do not view any desire for recognition good or bad, by any god, as worthy ideals to subscribe to. such tendencies are completely lacking in sincerity, and thus would completely negate any guidance graced by a 'higher-power' anyway.
there is an ideal called personal integrity, that those with the capacity for self-honesty and personal accountability are intrinsically dedicated to. an understanding of the concept and context of *consequences* - provides allowance for devotion to a sense of personal accountability in which consequences are it's own reward, while deviation and failure to adhere to one's personal sense of integrity brings about consequences that provide great remedial value. one's reasons and choices in thought, word and deed are thus devoid of any kind of underlying insincerity, personal agenda and motive for religious salvation or against fear-based punishment. to operate from a level of consciousness that allows only 'for' or 'against' choices, is a form of enslavement that those - with eyes to see- have no useful purpose or value for in their lives.
that is more than enough 'reason' for me, to keep me on the straight and narrow way.
I'm not saying you don't have reasons to abide by moral norms. I'm just saying that there are no absolute, external moral standard to judge by. The standard is whatever society chooses.
Also (perhaps I'm misreading your post), I don't think it's fair to imply that moral actions performed by religious people are motivated by fear or divine reward. I don't believe that my good actions are necessary for salvation, nor do I think my good actions will earn me extra goodies up in the clouds. I do good actions out of reason (as you describe) and out of love, not fear.
This is certainly the best argument Christians have, though its really not very difficult to dis spell, as you did so adequately in your second paragraph. What you didn't mention is the part that evolution has played in this scenario. Moral standards has developed over centuries, primarily because of the ramifications certain actions have on the species and its procreation. Certainly, one wouldn't want society to follow the morals of the Bible god now, would they not?
The evolutionary aspect is what I meant by survival of the fittest. It think it depends what you mean by "morals of the Bible god," as to whether or not you'd want those morals governing society.
Many of our laws are based in or at least have something in common with Biblical morals.
The problems with those weak analogies is that we don't have the physical capacity to start nuclear fusion in our bodies or grow like trees
We do have the physical capacity for cannibalism, assault, theft, murder, etc
Yet it is decided that those behaviors are *gasp* morally impermissible for anyone to participate in.
Yet what obligation does one have to those standards if we are just like the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom and we have the physical capacity to perform the same behaviors? And in those behaviors found in nature are even often used to justify human behavior and change perceptions of systems of values?
But... there's the problem. Moral impermissability is just a construct without something to back it up.
Religion has afterlife as a sort of Damocles sword (I don't believe in punitive afterlife, I think human guilt creates its own punishment, with or without an actual deed) to hang over people's heads.
But atheism has only the law. If you decide you don't care about what other people think, that life's short enough that there really is nothing to stop you, why would you need to worry about what other people think?
The best answer to this, is the original assertion, about being no different from animals. Most animals don't appear to cannibalize (live) animals. Most animals know if they try to steal something, they get attacked. Most animals are strong enough (and don't have the gender hangups, about how women shouldn't be strong) that rape attempts get met with violent force (that said, I once saw birds gang rape, so it can happen if numbers are enough). Forget morals. Boundaries are what are important, if you violate other people's, you can expect to get retaliation in many cases.
I'm not saying you don't have reasons to abide by moral norms. I'm just saying that there are no absolute, external moral standard to judge by. The standard is whatever society chooses.
agreed. morality is completely dependent on societal standards. so if this is generally agreed upon and understood, (is it?) why is the question posed specifically to atheists? why the deliberate manipulation of context for such discussion?
Also (perhaps I'm misreading your post), I don't think it's fair to imply that moral actions performed by religious people are motivated by fear or divine reward. I don't believe that my good actions are necessary for salvation, nor do I think my good actions will earn me extra goodies up in the clouds. I do good actions out of reason (as you describe) and out of love, not fear.
it is the context in which the question was posed in the first place that created...quite a few 'implications' here. for example, there seems to be an implication in the question itself that moral code devoid of religious standard and godly guidance either cannot exist, or is fraudulent somehow, or too fragile to stand up to scrutiny. religious or not, each of us ultimately answers to the call of our own conscience. the law of cause and effect is in and of itself, sufficient.
it would seem that the original question, as posed, is not *really* the question?
what exactly, is *really* being asked here?
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.
