Moral Argument for God

You can use a statement like this to rationalize any immoral behavior.For example,
Hitler did nothing wrong because it was just (a split-second in the whole course of) natural selection and evolution. Tearing down the rainforests or burning up the o-zone is a natural result of our all-natural actions, its not our fault and we’ve done nothing wrong, just nature taking its course.So, even though atheist are not necessarily immoral, you can use the atheist view to explain immoral behavior as being natural, which can take the immorality out of the behavior. Not making it moral, but making it not immoral.Which is similar to what So, you can explain morality naturally, without god, but you can also show that looking at it naturally can remove immorality from actions. Still though, we continue to impose immorality, which seems to suggest, to me, that there is some unnatural reason for the comparison. Does that make since? It’s probably some logical fallacy but as I type it makes since to me.

You can do the same thing with Christian teachings. Racial segregation, the Holocaust, the Crusades, the Inquisition, homophobia, televangelism ( ), and a hundred other crimes can be laid at the feet of those who did these things "in God's name."CS, there are immoral people in this world. Some of them are atheists, yeah. Some of them are Christians, too. But the fact that you can use "atheistic views" as a rationalization for immoral acts is irrelevant, since you can do the same with some "Christian views."Certainly Christians who are moral people would not agree with the Christians who committed the atrocities I mentioned. Atheists who are moral people would not agree with atheists who rationalize away immoral acts. Sure. But you can also show how selectively quoting from the Bible out of context can lead to the worst atrocities humanity has ever seen. Doesn't mean it's a fault of Christianity as a whole, just the individual immoral Christians who used their religious dogma to justify existing prejudices and solidify their own power.In any case, you are going on a tangent. I don't see how any of this shows how morality proves the existance of God. You've already admitted that morality can be described in the absence of a deity - Occam's Razor takes care of the rest.

Thank you for your reply. Your welcome. One of my best friends is an atheist. She is a moral person. I don't think atheists are inherently immoral or amoral. Morality and spirituality are two different things. No. It is not logical to assume anything. Assumptions are what logical arguments are founded upon. We make assumptions and use logic to draw conclusions.So... if you want to assume that everyone has the same basic rights, that's great. I fully support you in that, but you are reaffirming my point that this is not a "logical conclusion" by saying that it must be an "assumption". Logic has little if anything to do with these feelings. These are natural feelings that are the result of evolved traits and conditioning.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-25-2005 10:52 PM

But in order to use christian views to rationalize immoral acts, you have to misuse the christian teachings(position). I don't think I've misused the atheist position to rationalize the immoral acts. This isn't saying that the atheist position is an immoral one, just that it can be used to justify immorality. The christian position cannot be used to justify immorality, and if it is being used that way, then it is being used improperly.So, if you can justify immorality, then you cannot deem certain actions as wrong. You can say that something is moral, because it benefits society or whatever, but to say that something is immoral is illogical, because it is just a natural effect, just nature taking its course, its not necessarily a bad thing.

Double standard. Of course Christianity is being used improperly if it is used to justify atrocities. If atheism is used to justify atrocities, it also is being misused. The issue is immoral individuals, not immoral ideologies. You're reaching. This entire paragraph could be altered only slightly and describe Christianity."So, if you can use the Bible to justify immoral acts, you cannot then you cannot deem certain actions as wrong. You can say something is moral, becasue God says so or whatever, but to say that something is immoral is illogical, because it is a command from God, and God is always right, so even mass murder in the name of God is not necessarily a bad thing."Only immoral individuals can "justify" immorality. The specific ideology they use, whether Christianity, atheism, or Islam, is simply an additional victim.Again, you are providing no evidence or even argument that morality proves the existance of God.

This discussion isn't atheism versus morality. It's Christianity versus morality.If the Christians stopped trying to knock down ideas of morality and actually produced a concept of morality worth following they might have a case.Until they do, all they are doing is arguing against morality.

It's neither, PaulK. This is a discussion about whether morality's existance proves the existance of God. While I would agree that some Christians are morally bankrupt, not all of us are.

LB, why do trees grow so tall?

The tendency to follow such principles was selected for. You speak with the certitude of the non-scientist.Evolutionary psychology is an interesting discipline, but there are enough valid issues with its quantitative rigor, and underdeveloped demonstration of physical correlates to its hypotheses, that it is safer to regard its conclusions as tentative, at best.All that aside, your example does not vitiate the contention that what we label "moral" behavoir is at least partially empirically determined, and not completely relative.

quote:

---

You speak with the certitude of the non-scientist.

---

Not at all.You raised the idea that where moral principles come from is something seperate from scientific investigation.I simply provided a plausible, logical scenario in which some moral principles could be selected for.In addition, there sre studies which show that our primate relatives have a sense of fairness and reciprocity, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint in an advanced social species.So, it is not at all a given that where "moral principles" come from has to include a supernatural explanation. It is more plausible, given that we see evidence before us in nature, that a tendency to adhere to basic moral principles like fairness and reciprocity is a result of evolution.No God required.(Doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Just that god isn't required)

quote:

---

Evolutionary psychology is an interesting discipline, but there are enough valid issues with its quantitative rigor, and underdeveloped demonstration of physical correlates to its hypotheses, that it is safer to regard its conclusions as tentative, at best.

---

All scientific conclusions are tentative, at best.Care to critique the particular study I cited? What are it's flaws?It seemed pretty well-designed to me.

I disagree. With atheism, there is no need to justify anything because nothing can be said to be inherently wrong. No action is inherently moral or immoral. It is only so if someone decides to say it is so for whatever reason. Right and wrong are labels that we have attached to positive and destructive behavior patterns. It is entirely subjective, and as such can be overturned by someone else's subjectivity. If on the otherhand, there is God, then morality is more like an external object that we subjectively percieve rather than something we subjectively create for practical purposes of survival and pleasure.So... (feeling I should get back on topic) if you believe that something is absolutely wrong or absolutely right... then you practically believe in God already. If you believe that Hitler's or Stalin's actions were some almost palpable evil rather than mere neutral actions labled as such by our conditioning and evolution, then you practically believe in God.

quote:

---

If on the otherhand, there is God, then morality is more like an external object that we subjectively percieve rather than something we subjectively create for practical purposes of survival and pleasure.

---

Why is this? Why is my accepting God's morality as the "universal standard" any different from accepting Hitler's?

I don't get this either - whatever God's law is support to be the practical outcomes is as subjective as anything else.Or didn't christians own slaves?

Actions are defined as inherantly wrong by human beings. Only human beings can attach values such as "right" or "wrong." You're right - morality can be subjective on certain points. Christianity's morals about sex and homosexuality would be an example - those are hardly universal. Not all Christians even hold to those. On others, like murder for instance, acts can be nearly universally defined as "bad." This fact still does not require or imply the existance of God. This is bull. Atheists will believe that genocide, theft, torture, and other crimes are absolutely wrong. They are certainly NOT halfway to believing in God. Hitler and Stalin horrendous atrocities. Our conditioning and evolution may have given us the sentience required to label those acts as atrocities, but that in no way allows them to be "justified" with an atheist mindset. To say you "practically believe in God" becuase you have the intelligence and empathy to understand that murder and genocide are wrong is wholly false.

Not especially. I asserted that moral principles are amenable to empirical investigation (which is a superset of scientific investigation in the sense a physical scientist would understand the term), but also that they are not completely relative. Not sure why we are arguing this point, sicne we both seem to agree to it. Yup. What quantitative metrics were used to measure "fairness" and "reciprocity" ? What is their basis ? What external evidence (e.g. from other studies ) is there that these metrics measure what they purport to measure (after all human IQ is still critiqued as a valid metric on this basis) ?Do the metrics work with other species? When don't they work,and why not ? Is there any possibility of unintentional bias on the part of the experimenters (e.g clever Hans effect ) ? Are there any physical correlates to the asserted observations of "fairness" or "reciprocity" (e.g molecular evidence, gene sequences) ?None of this says the studies are wrong, but if I was reviewing the
paper, I'd need good answers to these questions.