Morality without god

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

I am a theist. However in this discussion we are talking about either the theistic or deistic POV verses the atheistic POV. I see no justification for starting with the assumption that our intelligence and morality evolved from a non-intelligent, non-moral first cause. Just because we can observe human evolution through the fossil record and we can observe our moral evolution through the historical record, (including the Bible), does not mean that we can extrapolate that into evidence for a non-intelligent, non-moral first cause. Many of us in the west send money to help those in the third world who can use a little help. Western society, (our group or tribe) would be better served by eliminating these people freeing up their resources for ourselves, but instead of the we weaken our group for their benefit. I think that I already dealt with that question in this thread. Message 88 or Message 130, and in other posts in this thread as well. My point wasn’t really about morality directly. The point was that in order to have a type of intelligence within computers it was necessary to have an intelligent first cause. I have never claimed that the requirement is guaranteed. I do submit that it seems reasonable to conclude that our intelligence is the result of an intelligent first cause. If we limit ourselves to what we can sense physically then we don’t know what we are missing. Scientists use subjectivity all the time and then hope to prove it objectively, but many times they hold subjective opinions that they aren’t able to resolve. How many scientists have gone to their grave believing in string theory which is still completely unproven and even discredited. I can’t say that I know that my beliefs are correct and I have no doubt that some of what I believe is wrong, however my experiences in life and what I have learned lead me to believe that I am on the right track. If I am wrong so be it.Pretty much everything that I read is either science, (at the Brian Greene level only), or theology and frankly I not only don’t find them contradictory but I find them complimentary. Yes my conclusions are subjective but so is your atheistic position. As you point out I agree that our sense of morality is evolving but I see you shoehorning in your completely naturalistic answer to the question of morals. You then support this by saying that the research isn’t complete which is a science of the gaps argument. In addition you say that racism, sexism, ageism, murder and constant warring in the name of religion is wrong. Well I would suggest that racism, sexism, ageism, murder and constant warring in the name of anything is wrong. People, whether they be religious or not are still morally flawed and many will find any excuse to further their lust for power over others.

I hope this doesn't draw us too far off topic but it seems to me that the question is whether or not morality is possible with God. The question did not ask whether morality is possible without a belief in God. Therefore I think that a discussion about the existence of God and His ultimate purpose is relevant because if God doesn't exist or has no purpose then it would make the question moot.In my view the best Christian scholar around is N T Wright. He talks a lot about life after life after death. Frankly I don’t know. I am firmly convinced that physical death isn't the end. I think however that this is the first level as we have no memory of a previous level. If Wright is correct then at the end of time whenever and however that might occur, then this world will be part of a great re-creation with heaven and earth coming together to form a greater reality.My views on this are highly speculative and are based on the science I have read and from what I have gleaned from the Bible and Biblical scholars. There are a number of scientific theories that indicate that we are part of a greater reality. There is speculation that we are a hologram or a projection etc. The cover story for Scientific American a couple of years ago had the headline an entire universe may be silently interwoven within our own.It is my belief that we are an emergent property of a greater reality. That idea seems to fit with QM. The Bible seems to give a sense of heaven being God’s dimension that in some way, that we can’t readily perceive, interlocks with our own, and that at some point in time will become fully interlocked again.I think that time is a bit of a key to the mystery. Christianity talks about the eternal nature of God. The thing is we only have one time dimension so it is hard to get our head around eternity. Some scientific theories involve additional time dimensions. It seems to me conceivable that the greater reality might have additional time dimensions. If that is true then just as we can move infinitely around our three dimensional planet, with 3 dimensions of time possibly we could move in some similar fashion infinitely in time.Those are just some thoughts but it helps me to envision how it might all might work.

But that isn't evidence. You cite natural history as evidence. That is just a record of what happened but is silent on the point of the root cause of what happened.What is the evidence that our intelligence and morality have evolved from a strictly non-intelligent, non-moral root cause? I'm not claiming that I have evidence for an intelligent moral root cause. I agree that my conclusion is subjective but IMHO it is more feasible than your position but I have a hunch you'll disagree. The argument that morality has evolved because we found that it served our interest best as societies in my view doesn't stand up. In the first place that is only a shadow of morality. It suggests that real morality doesn't actually exist, even though it gives the appearance of what we call morality, as in the end is all about what's good for me or my society.Morality is about choosing the right thing simply because it's the right thing. I would also go further. True morality should bring joy. I think that the vast majority of people are affected emotionally by extreme moral actions. When we read about people giving or risking their lives for others we usually feel a strong emotional response and can even be moved to tears. If we really believed that it was only something done because it was an instinctive response that best served the gene pool or the society then why would we feel such a strong emotional response? For that matter if we are just a product of a random collection of lifeless particles why would we feel an emotional response to anything?

That would be one way but I don't even think it works like that. By right thing I don't just mean it to be just applicable to what we say or do. I see it more as a case of the motivation or what it is that drives us. I would say that the right thing is the kind thing, the merciful thing or the just thing and discerning what that is isn't always clear. Two different people could come to opposite conclusions and yet both could be choosing the right thing as they both had a sincere motivation or heart to choose what was loving and without thought to the consequences for themselves. I think it goes deeper than that. As humans we even experience an emotional response to acts of fictional sacrificial kindness in our entertainment. I don't think we should be ashamed of it either but on the other hand if I go around thinking what a wonderful person I am, then I think I'm missing the point.

I just wanted to comment on this. I don't see it that way. I envision a greater reality to be something that is essentially a part of our current universe that is imperceivable to us, although science seems to be getting closer interestingly enough.

My small church raises money for a home for street girls in Uganda. They get fed, housed and educated. We give up our resources, (time and money), in order to support the strengthening of a different society who are in turn using up their resources. My society would be better off if the African societies would be wiped out freeing their resources for us. How do you see that form of morality revolve around the self.? You talked about how when you do the moral or altruistic thing it makes you feel good. I’m saying that when someone else does something notably moral it can bring about a positive emotional response from u and that either further fictional accounts of moral sacrifice in our entertainment can bring a strong emotional response. It is more than just feeling good because we did the right thing. I can’t properly respond to that because it is not how I understand morality. What you are talking about are actions that are a result of a person’s morality. If I don’t commit murder only because I’m afraid of getting caught and punished then from a moral perspective I’m no better than if I had actually committed the murder.Essentially though I suppose that the difference is in the heart. If the murder is committed for selfish reasons then I think it is safe to be considered immoral. If I kill in self defence it is more of an open question. Who knows what is in a person’s heart at a time like that.

The Africans use up their resources that we could use. We have the weapons so if we wanted we could enslave them. (again ) We don’t send aid to Africa because it makes us feel good. There is something instinctive inside us that makes us want to choose what is right, and helping people in dire need just seems right to most of us. It seems to me that our basic instinct is to be selfish but at the same time we seem to have a knowledge that we can, and actually should, rise above that. In the end the matrix would the question of whether our action is one of self interest or is it kind, merciful and/or just. Again, it isn’t the action that is in question. It is the motivation or the heart that drives the action that constitutes the morality of any particular action. I’m sure that there are those who don’t murder because they might get caught, but that would be a small minority. However, I don’t think that your answer is correct either. I believe that most people don’t commit murder simply because they know in their conscience that it is fundamentally wrong.

I might feel bad when we can’t go our for dinner with the money we sent over. As I said earlier. It isn't about what we do, it is about our hearts. If it makes us feel uncomfortable then it seems to me that is our heart telling us that we should take a different course of action. In spite of this though we all seem to be able to easily overcome our uncomfortability, (how’s that for a word ) and look out for number one at someone else’s expense. Our instinct is one of self interest but I believe that we are called to rise above that. (I know I'm repeating myself here but we are covering the same ground.) But co-operation isn't always beneficial to the individual and sometimes it is just the opposite. Well this of course is the question. IMHO it is the metaphorical still small voice of an actual intelligent moral god that speaks into our hearts.

..and so is any other explanation for the origin of morality I agree that it has evolved incrementally but that still tells us nothing about the impetus for it and whether we believe that it is rooted in non-intelligent non-moral sources or in if it has an external intelligent and moral first cause is the starting point that we come to from other reference points. Sure science has done things that draw us closer together. Just look at the internet for example. But once again we have to go back and look at the root cause of the intelligence that developed the science. Is the root cause of that intelligence, intelligent or non-intelligent. As I have stated before, I view science as another form of theology and in fact it has brought the world closer together in the ways that you mention. Sure, but the question is, with or without religion, is it God that has given us the ability to make moral choices. It seems to me that the physical evidence is the appearance of design in creation. Non-physical evidence would be intelligence and morality. We have to come to different conclusions about what the evidence tells us but that is often true in the scientific realm as well. Science of the Gaps happens when you make the claim that something is true but that as yet science hasn’t found the degree of scientific proof to be able to come to a confident conclusion. When I say that God is responsible for intelligence and morality I’m not suggesting that any limitation be put on scientific research any more than you are. No problem with any of that. Evolution keeps bring us closer and closer.

I don’t think I do. Life is about choices. It isn’t what happens to us or what is done to us that is important, but it’s our responses that matter. My favourite theologian says that if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win. I believe that we are called to rise above that and always respond from a position of love. Personally, I’ve got a long way to go. I’m not sure indifference is very much different than evil. I would agree that there is considerable nuance to our choices. I don’t think I am. Morality includes the ability to choose good or evil. Just the fact that we can choose evil seems to me to point to something beyond our particle world.

It wouldn't be the same argument though. My view is that God created a world that was designed to be good but with free will the possibility of evil was left open. Evil is a necessary evil so to speak so that goodness is possible. I believe that ultimately with the renewal of all things those that have freely chosen unselfishness over selfishness will live in a world where unselfishness is always the norm. No we are responsible for those things in a world where God has made the choice of those things possible. I'd also point out that as Robert Wright says our morality is evolving, so that over time we have become a kinder society. In light of that I would also say that God has provided through some mechanism a system that has established a trajectory towards a kinder and more just human race.So I would also say that in one sense we are responsible for the good things but that God is also influencing us in that direction. No, for the reason I cited above. I agree that if God has made it possible for evil to exist then He is responsible for it, but IMHO He influences us in the other direction. I continue to protest. Well thought out and well stated points of debate by the way.

It seems to me that you are kinda making my point for me. Remember the old adage out of sight out of mind. Frankly I send money overseas but I also go out for dinner, and when I do I still enjoy the meal. I just see no benefit for me, my gene pool or my society to deplete my resources by sending money overseas to sustain life there. A number of years ago I was staying in a hotel in downtown Winnipeg. It was winter and about 30 below. I went over to a cheap diner for a bite of breakfast. As I was going in this guy stopped me and told me that he hadn’t eaten for a while and could I spare a couple of bucks for breakfast. I looked at the menu on the wall and figured that he wouldn’t get much of a breakfast for 2 bucks, so big hearted me I gave him 5 and patted myself of the back for being such a good guy. As soon as I gave this guy the money he left and being the cynical jerk I am I figured that he has gone out to buy booze or drugs. I had just sat down to eat my breakfast and the guy came back and had a friend with him. They both dined on the 5 bucks I had given him.So there I was considering that I had given up 5 dollars which meant very little to me even back then, but that this guy had given all the money that he had to his friend. It was a very humbling experience. My point is, that I disagree with your point. People are prepared to share when they are starving. Maybe your conscience is the voice of God. Somehow I’m afraid I don’t see that instinctive responses like the urge to go to the bathroom are the same as believing that we should help the less fortunate. The choice between punching a bully or loving your enemy is the type of choice that we all have to make in our lives, (although flight always worked well for me ,) and you are right, it is conscience but the question is what is the root cause of our conscience. Once again, it is a case of which is more plausible. Do intelligence and morality have an intelligent moral first cause or did they somehow evolve from a chance combination of non-intelligent non-moral particles. I would say that it is the same thing. I want the best for my kids because I love them and it brings me joy to see them happy and doing well.

Why is doing the right thing a benefit? When we send our money to, or spend our time on behalf of people that we will never see or have any relationship with, I am only depleting the resources that I have for myself, my gene pool or my own society. Because I give money to various causes, means not only that I will have less time and money for myself but also that my kids inheritance will be smaller.The question about what makes it the right thing to do is what this thread is about. It is my contention that it is our natural instinct is to look out for number one. If we sense a benefit in serving the community by apparently selfless behaviour then it isn’t really selfless at all.In spite of that we seem to have a somewhat fuzzy sense of morality, in that we know that there is a right and wrong even though we won’t always agree about which is which. My belief is that morality isn’t specifically about what we do or say or don’t do and say. We shouldn’t IMHO confuse morality with our legal systems. In my view morality all boils down to whether or not our actions are selfish or unselfish.The right thing then is when given a moral choice we choose the unselfish answer. Yes, I agree that there are benefits to co-operative behaviour. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that, but there very often are often disadvantages to co-operative behaviour and yet as humans we often seem to be able to rise above that. Yes, we really do socially reinforce co-operative behaviour in our societies because we gain a sense of security but that has nothing to do with what is moral. The fact that we have laws against murder has nothing to do with morality but everything to do with keeping me safe.I agree that the development of our understanding of God has evolved and very much continues to evolve. This would be what I would expect if I am correct that we have a god who has given us the free will to make moral choices. Our understanding of moral choices would evolve over time as our societies grow and build relationship. As our understanding of our moral choices develop we gain a clearer picture of a perfectly moral god. How do we know that inanimate chemicals can spring to life without so-called supernatural input? For one thing the chemicals had to form from cells and molecules, which had to form from what are essentially non-dimensional particles in the first place so that point of view just continues to be more implausible all the time. In addition what we call supernatural now might not be supernatural if we had sufficient knowledge to discern other universes or dimensions around us.How do we know what the only source was? Just because we have a desire or a need to identify causes does not in any way negate the actual existence of such a cause, and IMHO the fact that we have that desire is subjective evidence that there is an actual basis for the desire. I don’t completely agree with that but it isn’t the point anyway. What you are describing is not morality. What you are describing is how we have worked things out as humans for our mutual benefit. Morality is not about what we do, it is about our heart. It is about the basic drive or motivation that defines who we are as human beings.

I don't have time to answer your post with the respect it deserves but I just want to reply to this one statement. I think this is the key to where we differ. I don't see morality being what people do. What people do is a result of their morality or their lack of morality. In other words, morality is not an action but a state of heart and mind.Good well thought out post by the way.