Morality without God is impossible

Sorry to be so slow replying. Life keeps happening. The difference is that with the physical you can objectively say that a foot is longer than inch. However to say that generosity is classified as good and selfishness is bad is a subjective conclusion. OK, but the point is that people intuitively seem to know that generosity is good and selfishness is bad regardless of whether we live by that axiom or not.
Also, I contend with morality it isn’t about comparing specific actions or their outcomes but it is about what motivates our actions. Most of what we do is morally neutral but when it isn’t we can ask whether we are acting from a position of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us or are we doing what we do with the motive of benefiting ourselves at the expense of others.So yes, it isn’t objectively known but I suggest that it is intuitively or subjectively known. But I don’t think it is about whether it works or not. The question is whether it actually is right or not. The Nazi society thought that committing genocide was ok but I suggest that they simply became hardened to what they were doing. I’d suggest that the vast majority of human kind know that to be wrong even if they were anti-Semitic. But again, you are making it about actions and things that are physical. For example we can say that murder is bad but maybe murder is possibly a good thing when it would save several lives. (There was an unsuccessful plot to murder Hitler.) But when you talk about rules you are talking about humans trying to control the actions of others. It may be called The Golden Rule but it isn’t really a rule. It is something that we believe in, and then hopefully having it impact on our thinking, which then results in positive actions. The actions are a result of our moral beliefs but they aren’t morality itself. We agree that morality is important. And I agree that there is no indication that we can perceive of whether or not there is a moral outside influence having an impact on us. It is a matter of belief.If we believe that we are the result of mindless processes then it is clear that we would accept the belief that morality is simply a human construct. However if we believe that we are the result of an intelligent agency then we would reasonably believe that there is a morality that exists regardless of whether or not humanity exists. I’m in the latter camp.

We are evolved creatures and we can see that morality does evolve within cultures. The evolution of cultural traits are the result of cultural replicators which Dawkins cleverly labelled as memes.For example tastes in music evolve within a cultural as we are subject to the various musical memes that we infect each other with. We do the same with morals. However, we also all have part of us as humans that draw us towards the dark side of selfishness, where we are prepared to affect each other negatively for our own benefit. It is my belief that within that mix there is a God meme that also subconsciously tells us that we should live by the Golden Rule. Like all memes we are free to reject it. It is your belief that no such meme exists. It is all belief.

Just as it is about what you believe that is beyond what we actually know. I am simply using the term meme in lieu of the still small voice of God or in specifically Christian terms the Holy Spirit. It is the medium through which God impacts our lives but that doesn’t mean that God isn’t more than just the meme. Our brain interprets what we see with our eyes and paints a mental picture for us but we can only see the functioning of the brain. We can’t look inside the brain and determine what it is the brain is actually seeing. Can you tell me how it is that we can measure morality in the brain? Just as you do with physical evolution you are doing here. You conflate the process with the agency. We can grow up in a loving home and in a loving culture and if our brain gets damaged then we can behave in grossly immoral ways. Just as if we break a leg we can’t walk. It has nothing to do as to whether or not there is an intelligence behind our sense of morality or not.

You don’t use the word belief but for example you say this further down in your post. That is a belief. Essentially just as we have fundamentalist Christians or Muslims you are a fundamentalist atheist. Just as a fundamentalist Christian believes that God brought the world, as we currently know it, into existence ex nihilo you believe that natural processes such as evolution, or even abiogenesis came into existence ex nihilo as a result of natural processes without being able to explain what those pre-existing natural processes are. Fine but you can’t see the moral thinking that is going on. All you can see is parts of the brain working. It is the same as the example of eyesight that I used previously. You can see the parts of brain switch on but you have no idea what it is that is being seen. There is no screen. We both know that I can’t do that, just as you can’t prove the negative. I’m am quite happy to call it belief but you believe I am wrong.My only point, which of course you reject, is that we can reasonably conclude that as I had loving parents there is a good chance that I would become a loving parent. The question is why does love exist at all. If my beliefs are correct that God is a god of love and that we are to reflect His love then God is necessary for morality. If however, you are correct and that love has evolved out of mindlessness then no deity at all is necessary. It's belief. If the god meme is like other memes then it behaves like them. I have never suggested that it isn't subject to brain function. Again, we can look at the parent meme. Loving parents should strongly influence their offspring to be loving people. However brain damage can prevent that from happening.

Let’s go away from the meme thing for now and refer to it as an influence as maybe it is easier to think of it that way. We are all bombarded with influences in our lives. For example if someone accidentally cuts us off in traffic and we give them a friendly wave instead of the finger then we increase the likelihood that they will respond to someone else the same way in the future. As I said previously loving parents influence their kids to be loving parents.
I am simply saying that there is a god influence in all of us, calling us to love and treat others as we would have them love and treat us. That is the same question as why does God allow cancer. As I have said before it is the toughest issue that Christians have to deal with. Also as I have said before, I have to assume that it is a necessary aspect of an existence subject to entropy and decay, but that ultimately God is a god of perfect fairness and justice. Fair enough. The physical pathway is necessary for all that we do. External memes or influences of any sort aren’t physical. A loving or an abusive parent has indirectly effects the physical process, not directly. I suppose so, in the same way that we can see it processing any other influence in our lives.

Yes, we can't see it. It is a matter of faith that it is there. From an atheistic position of course it doesn't exist. If one is a theist then it makes it possible and I suggest that it even makes it likely.It all depends on our starting point or our beliefs.

I’ll answer this instead of Tangle’s post as I feel I did what I could to answer his question, although he contends that I haven’t. ..or a Muslim finger etc. I’m trying to approach this from a theistic POV and not just from the Christian perspective. I’m not suggesting nor do I believe that this god meme is strictly given to Christians. It is my belief that it is universal. Just a thought on the ID movement. I see it as being consistent with either deism or theism.
We would agree that we are affected by cultural memes, whether it be family, friends or our specific culture. We also know that all cultures are able to give examples of those who are fundamentally altruistic or fundamentally selfish. In other words we essentially choose which memes that we will have an impact on our lives Our minds are affected by external influences and I don’t see it as such a stretch to believe that a deity able to bring about life as we know it can’t be one of those influences. I don’t deny that morality does evolve. It also seems to me that morality in other animals is more prevalent among those that are subject to the loving care of humans. If I am correct then it seems to me that the evolution of morality is what we should expect. As it would be one influence among many it would be something that would grow within a culture over generations. I don’t see the evidence that points to it evolving rules out either view.

You seem to be claiming that as you can see moral impulses acting on the brain that it explains everything.Tell me how on reading those impulses on the brain you can tell which impulse is influenced by a parent’s love and which is influenced by some friend influencing him/her to go shoplifting. In the same way how can you tell the difference between a god influence, if it exists, or any other influence. I’m saying that I don’t believe you can.Parental influence is with us for life and it is my contention that the same is true for divine influence. I suppose in either case it is not intervening directly but indirectly.

In the same way that we are influenced by other relationships. I don't disagree with that. I said more prevalent in animals influenced by the loving care of humans. Exactly. Fairness appears to be a universal morality.

But it is those external causations that we are talking about. Good old Dad may in early life told young Tangle that stealing is wrong. That meme has been there ever since, and now you are years later out with a group that is encouraging you to shop lift. You have a decision to make. What dad said years before is still influencing you but you now have this new influence. What do you do. You can look at your brain functions all you want but that isn't going to tell you which choice you made. It is only your subsequent actions that give the answer.Also of course, if I am correct, then there is a god meme in there as well that is influencing you not to shoplift. Once again that influence along with dad's influence can be overridden, and again you aren't going to be able to ascertain your decision but observing a brain scan. That is one way of putting it. The "still small voice of God" is an influencer not a director, just as is parental guidance. I'm not sure what you mean though by directed evolution. I don't see it as being a part of physical evolution but actually much closer to Dawkin's ideas of social evolution.For example somewhere along the line a parent has learned that honesty is a positive attribute that we should adhere to. That parent influences his/her children with that gene and maybe passes it on to others as well. Hopefully that gene is then passed on exponentially through others around them. I am saying that it is the same for a god meme. None of this can be determined by a brain scan.The different conclusions that we have come to actually are simply the fact that you hold atheistic beliefs as opposed to my theistic beliefs.If your atheistic world view is accurate then obviously no deity is needed for morality. If however my theistic views are correct then a deity is required for morality to exist, and even for us to exist at all.As I said earlier, it all goes back to our basic beliefs.

Once again you're confusing process with agency. Yes natural processes exist but you assume that natural processes came about by other natural processes that came from other natural processes and on and on.Also the question again is whether or not our universe and the processes that have resulted in life, are the result of an intelligent creator or not.
it is all belief However, the concept of empathy or the golden rule is pretty much universal in all religions. None of that though has anything to do as to whether or not there is a god meme in the mix of the myriad of other memes in our lives. Firstly, it has nothing to do with profit margins. Secondly if serving others is being done for some kind of reward in this life or the next, then it isn't done from a positive sense of morality. Once more you're calling the process the agency. Yes, the process exists. The question is the what is the cause for its existence. How am I inflicting my theistic beliefs on others anymore than you are inflicting your atheistic beliefs on others?I think I have made my point.

Maybe one of the things that is driving you at the time is the god meme. You wouldn't know.It's a choice and for some good behaviour is more natural than bad and the opposite for others. Whether anyone is watching or not is just another influence. No problem with that. The question is whether or not there is a god meme involved in the "learnt" part. No, the god meme would just have been ignored in the same way that the parental guiding meme was ignored. It is heard in the same way that you hear parental advice years after it has been given. It becomes part of who you are. IMHO it speaks to everyone. People don't have to work co-cooperatively with those in far flung societies. There would actually be more resources for me if those far flung societies ceased to exist. IMHO this god of mine created a process that evolved people capable of loving others even to their own detriment. You have never been able to objectively show why it is that someone in the western world will spend their whole life ministering to someone in the third world. I have a friend who is a doctor and his wife a lawyer, and they have spent the bulk of their adult lives in the third world serving others. He works at healing disease and teaching others to do the same, while she is involved in improving the lot of women in the third world.

Once again, you confuse process with agency. Maybe it does all happen naturally but what is the agency for that natural process to exist at all.We are all susceptible to a wide variety of influences. Yes, as humans we have a responsibility to raise our kids in a loving manner that hopefully winds up producing an adult that will raise their kids the same way. I agree that the world isn't always fair. However, for those that have brain damage as humans we are called to exhibit sacrificially love in caring for those that need help. It can also work in an anti-social way. There are many that are brought up in loving homes who are essentially selfish and those that are brought up in abusive homes that are essentially altruistic. Just because people don't respond positively to a god meme does not mean that it isn't there. That is a stereotypical view that was at least somewhat true decades ago and is only true within certain religious communities today. As I have said before our church along with others have sponsored numerous Islamic refugee families without trying to convert them, and none have to the best of my knowledge. We are just trying to give them a better life in Canada.Also as you know most of us don't hold to the idea that it isn't about our religious beliefs that get us on the right side of the equation in the next life anyway.You provide a link to an article in Psychology Today.

quote:

---

Darwin’s classic theory of evolution, natural selection, paints a bleak picture of life (see The Wire, HBO). Life is simply a struggle to survive and reproduce. The individuals who are best suited to their environment survive and mate and thus pass on their genes and become immortal. Everyone else is just a chump.

​

It’s easy to see how survival of the fittest can select for selfishness. If I horde food and don’t share with anyone except my immediate family, that’s better for me and my genes. If I’m out hunting in a group and another hunter gets gored by a buffalo, great! More women for me. I should lie, cheat, and steal, anything to get ahead. And we certainly see those features of human behavior. But we also see people helping out their friends with whom they share no genes. We see people helping complete strangers, and giving to charity. Shouldn’t evolution have made us all selfish, just out for ourselves? How does altruism fit in?

---

He says in that quote that evolution on its own should have made us selfish, which also answers your question about a selfish gene.He then goes on to say this.

quote:

---

The evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson offers an explanation in his book The Social Conquest of Earth. He points out that a key change in our evolution happened when we started living in groups. In groups, genes that promote positive social behavior like empathy and communication (i.e. pro-social genes) are more advantageous. Natural selection states that genes that are advantageous tend to propagate throughout a population. So pro-social genes began to spread.

---

So we are saying that when we started living in groups that it was to our mutual benefit to work cooperatively and behave empathetically for the betterment of the group. If the group does better then so do I. The motive is ultimately selfish.However humans can and do go much further. They can display empathy and ultimately display sacrificial love for members of other groups including those they haven't met and maybe live on the other side of the world. We also see some sacrificing their own life to save the life of others.I am not saying that this proves my views, but it is IMHO a very good indication that there is more going on that what is obvious.

So you claim but you have no way of objectively knowing that. It is simply your subjective belief which IMHO doesn’t make any sense. As I have said before, the idea that the incredible process of the evolution of life could come from mindless chance stretches all credibility. I claim that agency is responsible for life and the natural occurrences such as you describe, so of course I do. No. I am claiming that agency is responsible for the natural processes that we experience. However, I also contend that this agency has given us as part of our consciousness an innate sense of empathy and the compulsion to act on that sense that we can either repress or respond to. That does not preclude in any way that within that mix is the still small voice of a deity nudging us to do the loving thing. I am defending my beliefs not that of others. There have been terrible things done in the name of Christianity and other religions. There have been terrible things done in the name of atheism. That is your belief. It isn’t mine. I honestly don’t know how it makes me feel. For me it is just about trying to do the right thing. I suppose it is more the other way around. I feel badly when I don’t do the right thing which happens way too often. I’ll quote again the article that you linked to.

quote:

---

Darwin’s classic theory of evolution, natural selection, paints a bleak picture of life (see The Wire, HBO). Life is simply a struggle to survive and reproduce. The individuals who are best suited to their environment survive and mate and thus pass on their genes and become immortal. Everyone else is just a chump.
It’s easy to see how survival of the fittest can select for selfishness. If I horde food and don’t share with anyone except my immediate family, that’s better for me and my genes. If I’m out hunting in a group and another hunter gets gored by a buffalo, great! More women for me. I should lie, cheat, and steal, anything to get ahead. And we certainly see those features of human behavior. But we also see people helping out their friends with whom they share no genes. We see people helping complete strangers, and giving to charity. Shouldn’t evolution have made us all selfish, just out for ourselves?

---

The explanation is that it seemed to be better for us as individuals when we cooperatively worked together within a group. However the things you talk about such as risking one’s life to save a dog does not benefit either the individual or the group. It seems clear to me, though obviously not to you, that there is more than simple evolutionary forces behind such actions. They both come from God IMHO but in different ways. The nasty part is the part that is there because of the way the evolutionary process is driven towards looking after number one. The good part comes in the form of the still small voice of God that enables us to overcome the evolutionary forces. I guess the simplest answer is that it is my belief that God is always there nudging us into doing the right thing. However that nudging can easily and usually is ignored, and it can also be bypassed, as can all memes good and bad, by mental illness.

We just keep going over the same stuff so I am going to try and present a summary of where we are. First though, I’d just like to quickly respond to this which is actually off subject anyway. I agree that there is no Christian requirement to risk your life for a dog. I would go further and say that there is no such thing as a Christian requirement for anything in particular.Firstly it begs the question of requirement for what purpose. When you say it is a requirement it strongly implies that you would rescue the dog with the idea of doing it with a purpose beyond just saving the dog’s life. If you mean that it is going to get you in God’s good books and that you will ultimately be rewarded then I suggest that is exactly what the Gospels don’t teach.The Gospel message is just that we are to love others, presumably including dogs, as we love ourselves. It is simply about doing the loving thing as we perceive it. It might even mean that by putting your own life at risk because of the pain that you might feel with the loss of a beloved dog, while ignoring the pain and suffering that your own death might cause your own family, that you have actually been unloving.It isn’t about what you do but how you love and your desire to do the right thing. Yes, it is easier for those who grow up in a loving environment then for those brought up in abusive homes. But we are called, IMHO, to do the best we can with the hand we’ve been dealt. You do the same thing as you find the idea of a theistic deity unbelievable in the same way that I find your atheistic views unbelievable. This is the crux of it all though. You want me to show scientifically how it is that God works through our consciousness to influence us. I can’t do that. I agree there is no scientific way of demonstrating it.I contend that there is a great deal that we can learn empirically through the scientific method. I however contend that we can learn about mankind through centuries of philosophy and theology although we can’t come to know things objectively as we can often do with science.It appears to me that you see the scientific method as the only means by which we can rationally believe something. It sounds like Descarte who is quoted as saying, I concluded never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such.Yes, I have accepted things as true that I cannot objectively know. I can’t prove them, or even support them, using the scientific method. I am left with having to use the philosophical and theological understandings from over the centuries and try and reason my way through those understandings, and see how they fit within my own life experience and observations.Personally I very much relate to this quote from C S Lewis.

quote:

---

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

---

I realize that you view that as absolute nonsense, however it does resonate with me. We will never agree as we come from very different starting points and, including our very basic conceptions of the meaning and purpose of life.Edited by GDR, : Hit submit instead of preview and having to clean it up