Why do Atheists Bother?

[Percepi]

Moral truth is fixed and unchanging and not evolving. Jesus stated well what others had previously known and declared.

First of all, that's not very impressive then.

Second, morality doesn't physically exist. It only exists as an abstract idea in the same ways chess rules exist as an abstract idea. People don't gravitate towards the golden rule because the golden rule is "true", it's because the golden rule arises naturally from human nature.

Lastly, morality isn't unchanging. It's something that changes all the time. Some morals do remain largely untouched such as morals stating murder as wrong - but it's not something that exists in some sort of physical state.

There's this idea that morality exists in a platonic manner.

This video goes over absolute truth, and it touches up on mathematical platonism. It's relevant because the same arguments against mathematical platonism also works against moral platonism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YnlW59--JE&index=2&list=PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk

 

[Cycel]

I never found the quote myself but a former contact in California once attributed this quote to the well-known Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892): "If it's true, it isn't new. If it's new, it isn't true."

I like Charles Spurgeon but I was never sure that I fully endorsed this quote. But, I remembered it and never saw it in writing until now. .

The message being conveyed was that God never changes. Theology in its purest meaning is the study of God. The truth about God never evolves or changes but is established and firm.

Oh, my. I think this final statement of yours is completely false. The opposite appears true Nl. It was the realization of this that, I think, finally ended my belief in God.

Personally, I think that theologians can still discover new insights even though God doesn't change.

I do agree that new insights are possible. The ground breaking work of Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, is one fine example of this being true.

Personally, I think the statement is fully accurate that: "only humans possess true language and conceptual thought, art, humor, science, and religion."

Only humans possess an intricate spoken language, true, but chimps possess vocalizations and gestures that convey meaning to other chimps, just as we do. Facial expressions are all important in the human world, as they are in the world of chimps, and so are gestures. I am not sure that Huxley had much of an awareness of this.

Conceptual thought: if by this we mean problem solving, or self-awareness, then chimps certainly are in full possession of this. I gave you a very good example of this in regard the banana-stealing chimp. They also understand that when they look into a mirror they are looking at themselves. So they possess a concept of themselves as individuals. There was one chimp that used to enjoy looking at photographs of other chimps and people. Interestingly it had the habit of sorting the photos into two separate piles: chimps in one and humans in the other, but it always put photos of itself in the people pile. What’s that tell you? I suspect this would have completely stunned Huxley.

On the matter of art you may have me stymied, but there is at least one primatologist who claims chimp youngsters make and play with stick dolls. I saw the video on-line, but thought, well okay, but how do we know that this is what the chimps are thinking? It was a bit of a stretch, but they did seem to be playing with the sticks they’d fashioned as toys.

Humour: well I don’t know. Do chimps sometimes do things that they think are funny? Maybe they do. How are we to judge that only we appreciate humour? So they don’t tell jokes, but that doesn’t mean they don’t understand and use their own brand of humour. I wonder what Jane Goodall would say?

The modifying word "true" is there as in "true language and conceptual, art, humor, science and religion."

Yes, and interesting modifier, but did Huxley use it? Do you have the original quote? In your post you tied Huxley’s words to the notion that only we think analytically, and you seemed to imply that this is what Huxley meant:

“1. We can think analytically; we can reason and philosophize. A non-Christian writer, Julian Huxley, noted that only humans possess true language and conceptual thought, art, humor, science, and religion.”

Jane Goodall has spent significant time around chimpanzees and I'm sure has observed much. I'd be glad to have contributions from chimpanzees in the areas of language, conceptual thought, art, humor, science and religion but I won't expect too much.

I'm not sure why you would find it necessary to do what I would describe as "dissing" Josh McDowell over using an older source (Julian Huxley) who was a prominent evolutionist.

It is important to understand that since Huxley’s time scientists have had to discard the old notions of what sets humans apart from the animal world. Huxley was part of that misunderstanding. He was born 127 years ago. I am sure McDowell was aware of that when he chose to quote him. McDowell wants to accentuate the differences between ourselves and the animal world, so best to quote from an older evolutionary source that was not yet aware of the newer findings. Yes, Huxley was prominent, but our views have change since his time and we are now far more aware of what ties us to the animal kingdom. We no longer seem so different from the apes as we once did.

If they are true, foundational principles will not change over time. If they are not true, then they need to change.

The foundational principles of Islam have not changed over time so they must be true?

 

[nl]

Oh, my. I think this final statement of yours is completely false. The opposite appears true Nl. It was the realization of this that, I think, finally ended my belief in God.

God never changes but there is always more about God to know. Psalm 19 - "The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart".

I do agree that new insights are possible. The ground breaking work of Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, is one fine example of this being true.

I could know more about this but conspiracy threads belong elsewhere.

Only humans possess an intricate spoken language, true, but chimps possess vocalizations and gestures that convey meaning to other chimps, just as we do. Facial expressions are all important in the human world, as they are in the world of chimps, and so are gestures. I am not sure that Huxley had much of an awareness of this.

Chimps may communicate but not like we do.

Conceptual thought: if by this we mean problem solving, or self-awareness, then chimps certainly are in full po[ssession of this. I gave you a very good example of this in regard the banana-stealing chimp. They also understand that when they look into a mirror they are looking at themselves. So they possess a concept of themselves as individuals. There was one chimp that used to enjoy looking at photographs of other chimps and people. Interestingly it had the habit of sorting the photos into two separate piles: chimps in one and humans in the other, but it always put photos of itself in the people pile. What’s that tell you? I suspect this would have completely stunned Huxley.

Chimps would not do well on a standardized student exam.

On the matter of art you may have me stymied, but there is at least one primatologist who claims chimp youngsters make and play with stick dolls. I saw the video on-line, but thought, well okay, but how do we know that this is what the chimps are thinking? It was a bit of a stretch, but they did seem to be playing with the sticks they’d fashioned as toys.

Dolphins can be trained to jump through hoops. Chimps can play with stick dolls. Neither is human.

Humour: well I don’t know. Do chimps sometimes do things that they think are funny? Maybe they do. How are we to judge that only we appreciate humour? So they don’t tell jokes, but that doesn’t mean they don’t understand and use their own brand of humour. I wonder what Jane Goodall would say?

Chimps can be smelly and gross and not very funny.

Yes, and interesting modifier, but did Huxley use it? Do you have the original quote? In your post you tied Huxley’s words to the notion that only we think analytically, and you seemed to imply that this is what Huxley meant:

“1. We can think analytically; we can reason and philosophize. A non-Christian writer, Julian Huxley, noted that only humans possess true language and conceptual thought, art, humor, science, and religion.”

To cite an absurdity, I am not ready to have chimpanzees register to vote and to use them to swing elections.

It is important to understand that since Huxley’s time scientists have had to discard the old notions of what sets humans apart from the animal world. Huxley was part of that misunderstanding. He was born 127 years ago. I am sure McDowell was aware of that when he chose to quote him. McDowell wants to accentuate the differences between ourselves and the animal world, so best to quote from an older evolutionary source that was not yet aware of the newer findings. Yes, Huxley was prominent, but our views have change since his time and we are now far more aware of what ties us to the animal kingdom. We no longer seem so different from the apes as we once did.

Apes are still apes. People are still people. New notions are not always better than the old notions that they replace. New versions of software programs are not always better than the old software programs. Julian Huxley was born 127 years ago. Charles Darwin was born 205 years ago. Different people on this web site have different ages.

Should we favor or disfavor people on the basis of age? Who decides?

Isn't discrimination by age, gender and creed illegal at least in in some countries?

The foundational principles of Islam have not changed over time so they must be true?

I said none of that.

 

[nl]

First of all, that's not very impressive then.

Second, morality doesn't physically exist. It only exists as an abstract idea in the same ways chess rules exist as an abstract idea. People don't gravitate towards the golden rule because the golden rule is "true", it's because the golden rule arises naturally from human nature.

Lastly, morality isn't unchanging. It's something that changes all the time. Some morals do remain largely untouched such as morals stating murder as wrong - but it's not something that exists in some sort of physical state.

There's this idea that morality exists in a platonic manner.

This video goes over absolute truth, and it touches up on mathematical platonism. It's relevant because the same arguments against mathematical platonism also works against moral platonism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YnlW59--JE&index=2&list=PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk

Q. Is there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?

A. Yes (of course). Then, morality exists.

Q. Is truth contained within the video link that you shared?

Q. Can truth exist anywhere else?

 

[Percepi]

Q. Is there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?

A. Yes (of course). Then, morality exists.

Morality exists how? Does it exist in some sort of physical state? Or does it exist in the same way the rules of chess exist?

Yes, there are certain morals I feel are superior to others due to the standards for those morals that I hold. I base my morals off of the non-coercion principle. I believe in finding ways to increase personal freedom as much as possible while limiting the freedoms of others as little as possible. This is all based off of sympathy, since I don't force being used on me - I don't want to use force on others without good reason.

My ethical views are based off of certain criteria with the purpose of obtaining certain outcomes or avoiding other outcomes. My views are not right or wrong, they're simply based off of my own outlook. Yes, my morality is subjective. But this doesn't mean we should all be allowed to live however we want since it's subjective. Technically speaking, if you believe it's okay to murder other people just because you're bored - there's no cosmological right or wrong, only a social one.

Do you ever get upset when you see someone on the highway cut another person off without using their turn signal? If so, why? There's no objective rule saying the driver shouldn't do that. You likely feel it's wrong for people to drive that way because such reckless driving is dangerous.

Morality only exists in the same way the rules of chess exists. We base morality off of outcomes, not what someone says is "objective". Technically speaking, there are people out there who aren't satisfied with the rules of chess so they develop their own variations of the game. Chess rules, unlike morality, doesn't impact the ways we live so we have no reason to fight for the "rules of chess". However, those who play competitively would have a good reason to fight to keep the rules the same or to change them.

My point is, it's all relative and it's all based off of numerous reasons and ideas.

Q. Is truth contained within the video link that you shared?

Q. Can truth exist anywhere else?

First of all, what is "truth"?

Can truth exist anywhere else? Well, it depends on what you mean by truth. But, generally speaking, asking if truthfulness exists is like asking if bigness exists. In the end, truth exists in an abstract manner. It only exists in the same way the rules of checkers or the rules of poker exists. Without sentient thought, truth ceases to exist.

 

[Percepi]

I guess I should ask... If morality is purely a human construct that only exists in a abstract manner, what would you do? Would you give up on trying to encourage certain ways of living since none of it is backed by some higher entity? Or would you find reason to encourage certain moral behaviors based off of other criteria with certain goals in mind?

 

[nl]

I guess I should ask... If morality is purely a human construct that only exists in a abstract manner, what would you do? Would you give up on trying to encourage certain ways of living since none of it is backed by some higher entity? Or would you find reason to encourage certain moral behaviors based off of other criteria with certain goals in mind?

I have been inside a US prison multiple times and visited a prisoner there.

The prisoner was there because the civil courts applied a standard of the law to the prisoner's prior behavior and rendered a verdict and determined a sentence based on a standard of morality.

The prison fences and walls and guards were not abstract.

Jesus was a prisoner on the night before His crucifixion but, in general, it is a goal to avoid such a situation.

 

[Percepi]

I have been inside a US prison multiple times and visited a prisoner there.

The prisoner was there because the civil courts applied a standard of the law to the prisoner's prior behavior and rendered a verdict and determined a sentence based on a standard of morality.

The prison fences and walls and guards were not abstract.

Jesus was a prisoner on the night before His crucifixion but, in general, it is a goal to avoid such a situation.

I've got a chess set, a physical object. The rules, however, are abstract. How real prisons are don't define whether or not laws or morality is abstract or physical. But just because morality is abstract doesn't mean the ideas of what is and is not moral can't be applied.

 

[Human]

I have been inside a US prison multiple times and visited a prisoner there.

The prisoner was there because the civil courts applied a standard of the law to the prisoner's prior behavior and rendered a verdict and determined a sentence based on a standard of morality.

The prison fences and walls and guards were not abstract.

Jesus was a prisoner on the night before His crucifixion but, in general, it is a goal to avoid such a situation.

There's no reason to think that a deontological, punitive penal code (a dangerously authoritarian social-moral framework if you ask me) is based off some cosmically objective standard of morality. The same case for today's penal code would then have to be made for, say, the Mayan social practice of slaughtering virgins to appease the gods, which was part of their law. Law, contrary to popular opinion, is the result of a social and subjective set of moral principles agreed upon by consensus and perpetuated by a social willingness to reocgnize their validity and be subservient to them, nothing more.

 

[Cycel]

Moral truth is fixed and unchanging and not evolving. Jesus stated well what others had previously known and declared.

In response to my comment about the widespread proclamation of the Golden Rule in the centuries before Christ, you seem to take from this that moral truth is fixed? The perception of what is moral truth should then be gleaned from actual cultural practices, yes? Why then do such practices vary so greatly from culture to culture?

Whether or not moral truths are fixed world wide should be apparent from a look at some basic societal practices. Let's look, for instance, at marital customs among the aristocracy of feudal Japan. The prospective bride was visited nightly by her suitor, in her father's home, but the marriage would not proceed until she'd demonstrated the ability to produce a child. This seems decidedly immoral by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim standards, so if moral laws are fixed then how does such a custom evolve? Or we might look at the Inuit practice of sharing their wives. A British explorer in the 19th century, I think it was, got into trouble when he turned down his host's offer to enjoy the charms of the man's wife for the night. The Inuit man was incensed at the insult to himself and his wife, and slew the Brit in a fit of anger. Among unmarried Inuit in pre-Christian times there was a considerable amount of sexual freedom. Clearly sexual customs were quite different across the north from Alaska to Greenland, and in Japan in historical times, indicating, as if we didn't know already, that there is a very wide variety of sexual mores around the world. If this acknowledgement doesn't serve to show that moral truth is quite fluid then I don't know what does.

Sorry Nl, but moral truth is not fixed. Sexual practices tied to different moral codes serve to show there is no one set truth.

 

[Sirk]

In response to my comment about the widespread proclamation of the Golden Rule in the centuries before Christ, you seem to take from this that moral truth is fixed? The perception of what is moral truth should then be gleaned from actual cultural practices, yes? Why then do such practices vary so greatly from culture to culture?

Whether or not moral truths are fixed world wide should be apparent from a look at some basic societal practices. Let's look, for instance, at marital customs among the aristocracy of feudal Japan. The prospective bride was visited nightly by her suitor, in her father's home, but the marriage would not proceed until she'd demonstrated the ability to produce a child. This seems decidedly immoral by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim standards, so if moral laws are fixed then how does such a custom evolve? Or we might look at the Inuit practice of sharing their wives. A British explorer in the 19th century, I think it was, got into trouble when he turned down his host's offer to enjoy the charms of the man's wife for the night. The Inuit man was incensed at the insult to himself and his wife, and slew the Brit in a fit of anger. Among unmarried Inuit in pre-Christian times there was a considerable amount of sexual freedom. Clearly sexual customs were quite different across the north from Alaska to Greenland, and in Japan in historical times, indicating, as if we didn't know already, that there is a very wide variety of sexual mores around the world. If this acknowledgement doesn't serve to show that moral truth is quite fluid then I don't know what does.

Sorry Nl, but moral truth is not fixed. Sexual practices tied to different moral codes serve to show there is no one set truth.

Customs evolve because man is driven by the natural desires of his heart because of the very nature of the fall. No different than than many of the "invented" rules in Christendom. Mans hearts are inherently wicked and selfish. God's laws and truths ARE fixed.....Man's customs and laws are "a moving target...with hairs to split and pieces that don't fit."

 

[nl]

Morality does exist. Each of us can look around and see behavior in others that we believe was wrong because it transgressed our personal standards of morality.

If we're honest, we've also seen behavior in ourselves that we regret even if for short periods of time.

All of us have a different set of experiences and knowledge. Even with common experiences and knowledge, each of us is likely to evaluate a situation somewhat differently.

Conscience can be suppressed but I believe that it's there in all of us. Conscience = con + science or "with knowledge".

"Playing dumb" has long been a common method of evasion of moral responsibility. We have this dialog after Cain slew Abel:

And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? (Genesis 4:9)

Morality is defined from the context of a reference point. In civil courts, the law code defines standards. In ancient Israel, after the times of Moses and Joshua and before the times of Saul, David and Solomon, there was a period of the Judges when "each man did what was right in his own eyes" without reference to God because most were ungodly.

Once God's existence is acknowledged, then another reference point is established and that reference point doesn't change.

 

[nl]

God does know what we know. I do think that He takes that into account.

 

[Dan_473]

Morality exists how? Does it exist in some sort of physical state? Or does it exist in the same way the rules of chess exist?

Yes, there are certain morals I feel are superior to others due to the standards for those morals that I hold. I base my morals off of the non-coercion principle. I believe in finding ways to increase personal freedom as much as possible while limiting the freedoms of others as little as possible. This is all based off of sympathy, since I don't force being used on me - I don't want to use force on others without good reason.

My ethical views are based off of certain criteria with the purpose of obtaining certain outcomes or avoiding other outcomes. My views are not right or wrong, they're simply based off of my own outlook. Yes, my morality is subjective. But this doesn't mean we should all be allowed to live however we want since it's subjective. Technically speaking, if you believe it's okay to murder other people just because you're bored - there's no cosmological right or wrong, only a social one.

Do you ever get upset when you see someone on the highway cut another person off without using their turn signal? If so, why? There's no objective rule saying the driver shouldn't do that. You likely feel it's wrong for people to drive that way because such reckless driving is dangerous.

Morality only exists in the same way the rules of chess exists. We base morality off of outcomes, not what someone says is "objective". Technically speaking, there are people out there who aren't satisfied with the rules of chess so they develop their own variations of the game. Chess rules, unlike morality, doesn't impact the ways we live so we have no reason to fight for the "rules of chess". However, those who play competitively would have a good reason to fight to keep the rules the same or to change them.

My point is, it's all relative and it's all based off of numerous reasons and ideas.



First of all, what is "truth"?

Can truth exist anywhere else? Well, it depends on what you mean by truth. But, generally speaking, asking if truthfulness exists is like asking if bigness exists. In the end, truth exists in an abstract manner. It only exists in the same way the rules of checkers or the rules of poker exists. Without sentient thought, truth ceases to exist.

"There's no objective rule saying the driver shouldn't do that."
"My point is, it's all relative and it's all based off of numerous reasons and ideas."


That's a logical position, I think. Then, to apply it to the question I asked earlier,

"Who's to say [stereotype bad person] was wrong?

The atheist can say, "I can, based on my subjective moral standard."
([Stereotype bad person] can say they were right, based on their subjective moral standard.)

The theist can say, "they are wrong, based on God's principles."
([Stereotype bad person] can say they were right, that the theist was wrong about God's principles.)

The atheist can say that in the end, it's all relative to each person's thoughts, feelings, beliefs.

The theist can say no, there are fixed principles, and a person can ignore them, get them wrong, or get them right.

 

[Dan_473]

I guess I should ask... If morality is purely a human construct that only exists in a abstract manner, what would you do? Would you give up on trying to encourage certain ways of living since none of it is backed by some higher entity? Or would you find reason to encourage certain moral behaviors based off of other criteria with certain goals in mind?

I would base it on my own personal well-being: my happiness, fulfillment, thrills.

 

[Cycel]

Q. Is there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?

A. Yes (of course). Then, morality exists.

Morality does exist. Each of us can look around and see behavior in others that we believe was wrong because it transgressed our personal standards of morality.

Ah yes, transgresses our personal standard of morality. That’s the key, isn’t it? Who better defines our sense of immorality in others than the ISIS fighters? These very individuals are, in their own minds, standing at the peak of what it means to be both moral and righteous. We, of the West, transgress their personal standards, and they transgress ours. Such morality strikes me as somehow fabricated by the participants.

Does morality exist? I think it is not an easy question; certainly it does not avail itself of a quick answer, though it may be that it is little more than a jointly agreed upon social construct that varies by culture and through time. Examine, for example, the culture of Joshua. Does it more resemble ourselves or that of ISIS? I think the conclusions are clear.

 

[Cycel]

If morality is purely a human construct that only exists in a abstract manner, what would you do?

I would base it on my own personal well-being: my happiness, fulfillment, thrills.

At the expense of your own family?

I have had some Christians tell me that without God’s laws to constrain them they would run amok, but I believe the majority of people would behave no differently. If morality is a human construct, then human laws would serve to restrain, as they do now, I am sure.

 

[Percepi]

Honestly, I feel like starting a thread about what makes a good driver and what makes a bad driver. I'm sure opinions would vary slightly, but I think we'd find ourselves with numerous overlapping opinions. In the end, I'm sure we could collect everyone's views and create a guide of driving dos and don'ts that would largely reflect most of the participant's views.

The reason it would be a cool experiment is because the Bible says absolutely nothing about driving cars. It does not define what drivers should and should not do. Despite all of this, we could still create our own moral concepts revolving around driving.

Obviously, there would be a large difference between driving don'ts and sins as outlined in the Bible. But my point would be to reflect that one can have a sense of right and wrong without having to rely on supposedly "objective" values - whatever that's supposed to mean. It would highlight what atheists mean when we say morality comes from people, not from some sort of "objective" moral standard.

 

[nl]

At the expense of your own family?

I have had some Christians tell me that without God’s laws to constrain them they would run amok, but I believe the majority of people would behave no differently. If morality is a human construct, then human laws would serve to restrain, as they do now, I am sure.

Honestly, I feel like starting a thread about what makes a good driver and what makes a bad driver. I'm sure opinions would vary slightly, but I think we'd find ourselves with numerous overlapping opinions. In the end, I'm sure we could collect everyone's views and create a guide of driving dos and don'ts that would largely reflect most of the participant's views.

The reason it would be a cool experiment is because the Bible says absolutely nothing about driving cars. It does not define what drivers should and should not do. Despite all of this, we could still create our own moral concepts revolving around driving.

Obviously, there would be a large difference between driving don'ts and sins as outlined in the Bible. But my point would be to reflect that one can have a sense of right and wrong without having to rely on supposedly "objective" values - whatever that's supposed to mean. It would highlight what atheists mean when we say morality comes from people, not from some sort of "objective" moral standard.

These are valid points.

In families ancient and modern, we can apply it personally in a situation like:

Q. Do I make loud noises or turn on bright lights in a dark and quiet room where others are sleeping? A. No. I wouldn't want that done to me by someone else. I can deal with some inconveniences for the sake of others.


In the context of operating a motor vehicle, our local jurisdictions will have their own equivalents of a "drivers handbook" but we can apply the "Golden Rule" in situations like when to make a turn or change lanes or slow down. Some situations can't be anticipated in a Drivers Handbook.

Some may want to try it, but it would be impossible to write a rule book to govern every situation.

Ultimately, individuals need to govern themselves. When individuals govern themselves well, then there is less need to impose rules from the outside via some higher level in a hierarchy.

A universal moral principle like "The Golden Rule" serves well everywhere across both ancient and modern contexts.

A professing Christian who needs outside rules to govern themselves well would be in need of an overhaul on the inside and a new spirit and a new heart so that they could govern themselves well without the externally-imposed constraints.

A supernaturally-renewed and "born again" Christian shouldn't need external government. Ideally, neither would other people.

There are new covenant promises that were given in Jeremiah 31:33-34 and affirmed in Hebrews 10:16-17 that should apply to genuine Christians:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;
After those days, saith the LORD,
I will put my law in their inward parts,
And write it in their hearts;
And I will be their God,
And they shall be my people.

 

[Cycel]

The foundational principles of Islam have not changed over time so they must be true?

I said none of that.

What you said was, "If they are true, foundational principles will not change over time." You had in mind this as a defense of Christianity. I simply pointed out that Islam's foundational principles had not changed either, so according to your thinking it must also be true of Islam. No, of course that is not what you intended to imply, but you did say it, so perhaps you just didn't think things through.

If Islam is not true, and yet its foundational principles have not changed over time, then there is no guarantee that Christianity is true just because its foundational principles have not changed. May it be that the hierarchy of the church did not permit change? Ask the Cathars. Catharism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia