Morality without god

I can demonstrate how and why the God concept snuck into our brains by natural processes. You can only make the claim that he put himself there. While I can not prove that he didn't it seems to me that your position requires an assumption that mine does not.

Yeah don't lets confuse the issue.The elements that cause you to make sacrifices that benefit your son are the elements that make you, you. I think this is the diversion point. The point at which my perception of self and my conscious desires are recognized as being different from the natural 'goal' of my existence. It sort of all comes down to answering the question, 'What is the point of life?'
I have been trying to figure out a way to start that thread. I agree and those instincts are based on actions that benefit the individual. Misfiring instinctive behaviour is a much better description of what is happening than calling it selfless behaviour.

Do you think that if I was perfectly genetically cloned the resulting clone and me would be the same person? The flaw in your argument here is the assumption that our genes and our personhood are one and the same thing. They are not. I think I have illustrated that our selfish genes are quite capable of making us act in ways that are not good for us as individual persons at all. It is the misfiring of behaviour that would be genetically (but not necessarily personally) beneficial in our ancestral environment that results in acts that can legitimately be described as selfless.Selfish genes result in (at times) selfless persons.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So, let me get this straight... we have a simple example about ice-cream, and your explanation to make it "clearer" is to change it into a philosophical issue over an appreciation of general, overall freedom?I certainly understand how it makes sense, and I agree that it's really the same thing.
I just don't think that's "clearer" at all.I think it's much simpler to understand "treat others the way they want to be treated."
This gets the point across very quickly that the right thing to do is to let other people choose their own ice-cream.To say "treat others the way you want to be treated, and here we're talking about freedom of choice, so therefore we should respect the free choice of others..." just seems so much longer.
This takes a bit of a round-about way to get around to showing that the right thing to do is to let other people choose their own ice-cream.Maybe you think that the round-about way is "clearer" and if so... um... okay.
But my phrasing just seems so much clearer and simpler to me. Especially for this sort of every-day, basic scenario. I'm not really concerned with personal motivations here. I'm just talking about getting the point across to other people. For me, if we want to explain something to others, it's best to keep it as simple and short as possible. (KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid... I apologize for the insult, I didn't invent the acronym, but the idea of it is sound when attempting to do something for other people... be it an explanation or building a piece of equipment)

My position does not require an assumption that non-intelligent non-moral particles can somehow combine without any intelligent interference to produce intelligent creatures capable of making moral decisions.

That is true that your position does not require that. However, your position requires the assumption that there is an almighty creator of everything, who knows everything, and can do anything. This God chose to leave the world alone until approximately 5,000 years ago and then only chatted with us for about 2,000-3,000 years. Then, he magically vanished leaving us with tales written down for him by imperfect men and women that deny all of the evidence that we see with our own eyes.I would say that this is quite a large assumption to make especially with the lack of evidence. At least with the idea that morals stem from altruistic ideas that help the group or population survive better as a whole we are basing it upon evidenced ideas. We can witness random mutation taking place, we can see basic altruistic behavior in other social creatures. Is it quite to the level humanity takes its morals? No, but it speaks to a possible route for research into how these moral ideals arrived in our minds.As it stands, your assumption relies far more upon a lack of evidence than does the assumption that evolution is somehow responsible for morality. Unless you bring the Bible in as evidence (which is not a good idea since much of it can be proven wrong) there is little to go on that would merit making the assumption that you must start of your entire premise on. Without having a reason to start where you do (that is evidenced), it is irrational to state that this is where morality comes from.Now, is it possible that there is an ultimate rule-giver? Yes.
Is it possible that this rule giver is the Christian God? Yes.
Is it possible that the evidence is there, but the Bible is wrong so we looked in the wrong areas for evidence? Yes.
Is it possible that without this ultimate rule giver humanity would descent into lawlessness? Yes.However, are any of these ideas plausible, or only possible. To determine plausibility we must look to the evidence to see how it could support the idea. This is where the problem arises, in that the evidence we currently have should not make God the moral rule giver the primary assumption. Much more of the history of this world exists without God even making an appearance. In fact, God only has a presence on this Earth for .00011% of the entire history of the Earth. With the evidence currently available Morality from God is not the base starting point. Instead, the evidenced idea of evolution seems a much more likely basis to begin with to determine the arrival of humanity's morality.

How is It an assumption to invoke evidenced naturalistic causes for morality and intelligence?Do you think that selfishness, our warring instinct and the ability to lie evolved naturalistically or do you also hold some creator responsible for those things as well? Does your position require the assumption that non-intelligent non-aggressive non-selfish particles can somehow combine without any intelligent interference to produce intelligent selfish creatures capable of making aggressive and selfish decisions?Is God responsible for all aspects of human psychology in your view or just some of them?

Neither does mine. I can see that it actually did happen that way. I can produce a great deal of evidence that supports the theory that it happened that way. I can get from the non-intelligent particles to me without a God.

My position does not require that. My position only requires that there is an external moral intelligence that is responsible for our intelligence and our sense of morality. This isn’t about specifics. The question asks if God is necessary for us to be moral.However, to be more specific it does not require a creator who knows everything and can do everything. It requires a creator who knows enough and can do enough to give us an existence where intelligence and morality exists. The rest of your statement is strictly a strawman that I don’t believe either. Sure but so what? All of that tells us nothing but the underpinnings for the human intelligence that is able to conceive of the idea of altruistic behaviour. The Bible has nothing to do with this. We live in a world that has the appearance of design. We live in a world that gives us intelligence. We live in a world where we can make moral choices.We now have, at least by our terms, highly sophisticated computers that have a type of intelligence. They required an intelligent creator. Why do you think that intelligence could be the result of random combinations of particles forming intelligence at all, let alone an intelligence capable of understanding morality. How do you know God isn’t present all the time. We can’t see an idea or thought but it exists just the same. We only know things as we experience them. Science tells us that we only perceive 4 to 5 % of all that there is. I don’t know what else is out there. QM tells us that everything is made up of what are probably non-dimensional particles, which is certainly non-intuitive and not what we perceive. In other words as there is so much that we can’t perceive that we shouldn’t just rely on physical evidence to form our conclusions IMHO. I’m quite happy to accept the theory of evolution but that is not the same thing as the evolution of our morality. On the other hand I agree that we are evolving morally which is consistent with my belief that God continues to work through our hearts, minds and imaginations to be more loving, more forgiving, more just and less self-serving creatures.

In my view yes He is. Two points about that however. Firstly if we weren’t free to choose selfishness we would not be free to choose unselfishness and we could no longer be moral creatures. Without the free will to make those choices we become no more than what our computers are. Secondly, and this goes beyond basic theism I believe that what we are experiencing is only the first stage of life and that it only gets better from here on in.

If there is a great deal of evidence I'd like to see it.

My fault for not understanding your opinion correctly. However, you are still adding an entity that has no evidence for it. Could there have been a super advanced race that came and gave us morality? Yes, but without evidence leading us that way it is irrational to even suggest it. Could there have been a not perfect God that gave us morality? Yes, but with zero evidence why should we trust that? I am pretty sure this is the assumption you are beginning with (correct me if wrong) and I do not see any justification for starting with adding in an unevidenced entity or entities. That is not all that these situations of altruism show us. We see the beginnings of a moral code within the social structures of animals and we see the willingness of individuals to help one another. The more of the group that is able to survive the better chance for the group to control territory, have individuals to mate with, and locate food to sustain the group. Working together is an advantageous behavior for social animals and basic morality is extremely helpful toward keeping the group whole.
http://www.livescience.com/...chimps-humanlike-altruism.htmlI have many questions about this section:
Removing the Bible, what is the purpose of a rule giver who does not tell us the rules? Or is it your thought that we naturally have these morals only becasuse we were given them?If it is your thought that the Bible is not the code, but rather our hearts tell us God's Moral code, why is God so poor at ensuring that so many people act within the moral good? This is where the inconsistency with the code lies. Everybody's God is telling them different things within their hearts....where is the objectivity?Also, on your point about computers, yes we have designed computers with intelligence, but not morals, correct? Could we design a computer with morality? It is possible I'm sure, but just because we can does not mean that morality cannot arise through natural means as well. This is not required to be a one way or another. After all, many of the appearances of design in nature are just superficial and do not really look designed when thought about in any engineering sense.Also, on computers, they do require a designer because they do not have random mutation and natural selection acting upon them. The same requirement is not guaranteed for reproducing, biological organisms. I have never been a fan of using inanimate objects as metaphors for something that reproduces an inexact copy which is then subject to selection. How do you know that God is? Through objective experimentation or through subjective personal experience? Science tells us that our five senses can only perceive a small portion of the Universe. However, we can determine the nature of a lot that we cannot perceive (such as your mentions of dark matter, dark energy, and QM). We can verify that these items do exist, even without being able to perceive them. Why can the same not be said of God? IMHO, we should rely solely on physical evidence, because that allows for objectivity to remove our biases. Without this, all tests are relegated to being subjective to an interpreters whims, so that the answer conforms to the researchers previous thoughts.Finally, your last statement is simply an attempt to shoehorn a god into the explanation. You claim morals could not have evolved, yet then state that we can currently see them evolve. After which, you determine, without evidence, that it is God responsible for this evolution of morality. You are putting God into the answer before the topic has even been fully researched. Just looking at the last thousand years, it seems like it was society that began to determine that racism, sexism, ageism, murder in the name of religion, and constant warring were not right. People got fed up with poor treatment of others and themselves and began to look for a better way. This seems to be a perfect example of our species realizing that the tribe is slightly bigger and evolving morality to incorporate the entire new tribe. The next step in this would be considering the entire world our tribe and working for the benefit of everyone.

Interesting.
I've considered this many times. Moving on to another universe/world, or alternate dimensions, or different planes of existance, or even "simple" reincarnation here in our reality.I just kept running into too many different things to try and explain. That always gave me the feeling of "well, I'm really just using my imagination now... maybe this whole idea is simply imagination..." Different things like:Let's say that this is "the first level." How many levels are we talking about? 2? 50? 845,791? Infinite? Why are there multiple levels? I thought that there would either be a low number of levels (like 2) or a very high number of levels (possibly infinite).Then the low number of levels didn't make sense to me... if it's "manufactured" (set up by God to be that way...), then why? Like a training ground? If a training ground is required, why not just include it as a separate area of the "Final Level" anyway? Why a completely cut-off level of existance? It seemed... unlikely.If it's not manufactured (natural... somehow...) then why only 2? Was there originally just 1 and it split? Why wouldn't it split again?
Just 2 levels also makes me think of long-ago human ancestor's trying to deal with life and death... this idea makes me think that any "2-level" idea is more likely some sort of wishful thinking or over-active rationalization for simply being afraid of death.Which leads me to thinking of multiple levels, perhaps uncountable. But then, if there's lots and lots of levels... isn't it naive to think that we're actually in the first one? Wouldn't it be more likely that we're at some random middle-level somewhere? If I'm in a middle level, why do I have no re-collection of being in/at previous levels?This led me to begin thinking of "life" as some sort of "meta-consciousness" which kind of gets bored and sets pieces of itself out into the levels (whatever they are) to experience "life." These lives (when completed) add their experiences to the meta-consciousness which does, actually, remember everything....which then gets a bit too sci-fi and imaginary-sounding to me to take seriously anymore
And, of course, I don't have any evidence to lean my thoughts one way or another... so, to me, they remain "fanciful thoughts" until such a time when there may actually be something that indicates the possibility of their actual existance.But I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.How many "levels" do you think there are?
What makes you think we're in the "first" level?Or is it all based on a biblical view of earth and then moving onto heaven (which could even be a metaphor for some other 2-stage level of existance)?

12ft writes Bertot writes: Since that is not the essence of my argument, it follows that your above statement is not applicable12ft writesBertot writes:I know you are new to this website and quite possibly new to critical thinking in general. I say that with the greatest respect. You first need to in logical and rational fashion demonstrate that an actual morailty existsIll give you the example again. Explain why murder is immoral, wrong or right, not from a human perspective, but from the standpoint of all species and from the standpoint of reality (existence) itself. Now i dont need examples of humans doing things, selfless or selfish acts. I need a well reasoned logically set out argument that demonstrates from the standpoint of reality, why murder is wrongThis is your task Ok, but you still havent explained why its ok to exterminate (murder) a colony of ants, because they seem to be INSECTnificant. Do you see how your "morality", changes, when it suits your purposes. Morality cannot both exist and not exist. It either does or it does not Thats the point friend, there is no testable hypothesis, from a logical standpoint that will allow you that luxury. If you think there is, then present it to me. If you think you have the evidence or that it can be gathered, then simply present it. In actuality, there is no evidence in a logical or rational way that will aliviate you of this problem. no amount of information will make your position anything but subjective. No, its a simple logical problem that can be tested against realiy and reason. No more information will come in to demonstrate that "morality" is not morality actually without an absolute standard to judge it against.Its a logical proposition, not a lack of evidence. Seriously, do you not see what you are trying to advocate. Simply present the information in some logical argument.Here is an illustration. At one point in time, the taking of life by the gladiators was viewed by them as valid and right. We on the other hand would say it was atleast wrong, if not immoral.Now who is right?You cant demonstrate whether morality exists by examples, it has to be done from what reality and reason will allowChicken srites Actually you could have saved your time, this is not my current position and I dont need the existence of God argument, presently to demonstrate that you have no actual objective morality, without an objective standard.You do understand that a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time, correct? If morality needs thinking to exist, then it would follow that the all "morality" whereever that is and whatever that is would need an ultimate thinking process for it to be valid as moralityDawn Bertot

I may be misunderstanding you but I can't agree with this. I am the sum of my parts. Where does your personhood come from if not from your genes? How can I have a motivation that is different from what my genes dictate me to have?An engine is not a car but a car is not a car without an engine. (abe; even though an engine is still an engine without a car, who builds an engine without a car to put it in and furthermore, an engine doesn't want to go anywhere that a car does not want to go first. OK sorry.) So I have some genes that cause me to feel empathy towards my kin. This benefits me and I have a greater chance of living long enough to propagate. A side effect of this genetic quality is that I will, upon occasion, jump on a grenade and sacrifice myself. That side effect does not benefit the gene more than my living long enough to propagate benefits the gene.What benefit does the gene get from throwing me on a grenade? Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.