jlowder

Many theists believe that some type of moral argument shows that God exists. Typically, they will claim that atheists must be relativists or nihilists, so any evidence against relativism or nihlism is evidence for the existence of God. Any theist on this board care to defend this assertion?

Ender

Krilov's logical suicide comes in play here! Man invented God in order not to kill himself.

~WiGGiN~

philechat

I think this argument is something like "denial of the antecedent".

P1. If God exists, then there is a moral standard.
C. If God does not exist, then there is no moral standard.

What's wrong with the argument?

Again I am very close to being a nihilist myself, and therefore I will not be a candidate for arguing about "moral truths".

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

P If it is a collie, it is a dog
C If it is not a collie, then it is not a dog.

I can't recall what that is exactly, but it goes to show that an argument from that style is nonsense.

Also, you could argue that there is no moral standard with God! God's sayso is no different than your sayso, insofar as moral supremacy is concerned. It is not objective if any being must say what is moral or not.

DaveJes1979

Well, jlowder, you are certainly right in pointing out that, historically, atheism has embraced either a form of relativism or nihlism. I see no sensible alternative. Certainly, some atheists have tried to find an object standard for moral norms, but in the end such a search must be abandoned. Consistent atheism is reducible ro nihilism or relativism. If there is no God, where can the atheist find a non-arbitrary standard of good?

Atheists have tried to substitute God with "chance" or "randomness" as ultimate principles controlling the universe. I then ask, "is this chance or randomness an ontological entity with causal powers?" I find such an idea impossible to defend. Not only that, but chance and randomness cannot form a foundation for moral norms. Chance is antithetical to uniformity or norms of any kind!

Sometimes the principle of "survival of the fittest", carried over from the tenants of biological Darwinian evolution, are made to be the universal principle that moral norms are grounded in. But then one has made survival, and not truth, to be the standard. One has to wonder what makes survival intrinsically good to begin with. This is basically what all utilitarianism breaks down into (since they will admit that pleasure is not necessarily ultimate). I think it is also just another form of "might makes right".

So if the materialist tells me that matter is all there is to the universe, I respond by pointing out that this leaves no room whatsoever for abstract concepts, and thus no such thing as "goodness" or "moral rightness". Under these presuppositions, things JUST HAPPEN. Its all matter in motion, with no purpose, "rightness", or "wrongness" about it. One has to abandon morality - indeed all thought - as a result.

So when the world trade towers went down - was this simply the scattering of human protoplasm? Was it just matter in motion, going through fatalistic, mechanical physical processes? If so, then why the outrage? Its survival of the fittest, nature taking its course, or whatever. One cannot find meaning - good or bad - in this.

Of course, the Christian worldview knows that this was a tragic loss, because man is made in God's image. As such, man has intrinsic worth as God's creatures.

I do not believe any other position is philisophically coherent or defensible on this matter.

Dave Gadbois

dangin

The morality of prudence. You follow the laws of your society because it is in your self interest to follow those laws. This is historically accurate with social animals(which we are) because even with no written law there is an individual's need to maintain the protection and acceptance of the society that individual is in. Of course, for nonliterate animals of varying intellect, this will vary even within the society. Yet a standard of behavior can be deduced, which seems natural (even second nature) to the individual raised within the society. This is the preliterate foundation of the morality espoused in all scriptures, not the other way around.

[dangin dusts off hands] What's next?

Datheron

DaveJes1979,

Interesting points you make here, Dave. "Interesting".

Strawman. Evolution is not atheism. Nor is materialism.

It's interesting that you're appealling to emotions - something which you just condemned on another thread.

Also note that "all there is is matter" does not begin to address the abstract concepts that we have. Do you claim to know the limits of matter, or that the scientific quest to discover additional properties of matter is already finished? If not, how can you make any such claim?

More appeal to outrage, plus a huge, waving strawman.

If you dumbify every other position and worldview down, maybe. If you are preaching to a congregation of believers, perhaps.

Before you can make an argument that relies on assumptions, be sure to show that those assumptions are valid. Considering that you're trying to label us with properties, it would be nice if we knew why we are so misrepresented in your version of the same old argument.

anarchocyclist

DaveJes:

Nothing has to be "intrinsically good" about survival; those organisms which express traits which happen to make them more successful live long enough to pass on those traits. There is a whole field of study which attempts to determine the origins of a human ethical code using the evolutionary framework erected by Darwin, and I think they've done a fairly good job.

Robert Trivers came up with the idea of "Reciprocal Altruism," cooperative behavior between organisms more complex than cooperative hunting, where the benefits are immediate. (1) The behavior is costly to the performer, but beneficial to the recipient; food sharing/donating, risk of grievous bodily harm in order to defend allies, etc. (2) There is a lapse in time between the act and an act which repays it. (3) Giving is contingent on receiving.

Where does this behavior come from? Wouldn't it be naturally self-defeating, i.e. the organisms who exhibited such behavior would enable other members of their own species (their "competitors") to survive while limiting their own chance for survival?

Frans de Waal defines three conditions for the evolution of morality: (1) Group value: organisms find that sticking together offers them a better chance for survival. (2) Mutual aid between organisms, i.e. reciprocal altruism. (3, the big important one) Conflict within the group, the successful mediation of which enables the group to spend more time on food procurement and less on territorial/sexual disputes between males, etc.

Rightness and wrongness are concepts which humans have extended from natural behavior evolved to enable survival. The complexity of these concepts today reflects the complexity of human society and interaction.

God has nothing to do with it. We do just fine without him.

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: anarchocyclist ]</p>

Philosoft

Couple of things Dave,

<strong> What makes God a non-arbitrary standard of good? Simply because he says so? Heck, half the time his decrees don't even align with our inherent motivations and desires.

<strong> Excellent point. That's why atheists don't rely on these things for moral guidance.

<strong> And this is different from God's decrees how?

<strong> Well, you can't exactly qualify intrinsic worth. We either have it or we don't. If it's contingent on God's issuance, then it's not intrinsic. If we have it independent of God's issuance, then you've got a logical problem.

jlowder

For the record, I didn't point out that atheism embraces relativism or nihilism. I pointed out that some theists (apparently including you) feel that atheism embraces relativism or nihilism. I, for one, deny that atheism embraces relativism or nihilism. I see no evidence for either the conceptual claim (atheism logically entails relativism or nihilism) or the historical claim (the majority of atheists have embraced relativism or nihilism).

Why? Which atheists are you referring to? Why was their objective ethics unacceptable?

You've made an assertion. You've asserted that atheism is logically incompatible with objective ethics. Now please provide an argument for that conclusion.

Easy. Here's one way: atheists can affirm ethical truths are necessary truths. As necessary truths, they are in no need of explanation.

This is a caricature of atheism. Chance or randommness are not the ultimate principles controlling the universe, on the atheistic view.

This is another caricature of atheism. Atheism does not justify "survival of the fittest" as the supreme ethical standard.

Who said anything about materialism? I'm an atheist but not a materialist. Atheism (and, by extension, metaphysical naturalism) have plenty of room for abstract concepts.

No. When the world trade towers went down, thousands of people were directly and indirectly harmed from their internal point of view. The fact that humans are sentient beings capable of experiencing physical and emotional pain is enormously significant, morally.

The outrage is easy to explain, even on the assumption that materialism is true. (Note: I am not a materialist. I'm just pointing out that the outrage is easy to explain even on a materialist view.)

If humans are intrinsically valuable, then they just are intrinsically valuable. Their value does not depend on any external factors, including creation in God's image. In fact, to say that humans are instrinsically valuable because they were created in God's image is self-contradictory.

You've asserted that several times. Now please provide an argument for that view.

jlowder