jlowder

No one claims that atheism itself is the "sound foundation for morality." Rather, the claim is that atheism is <strong>compatible</strong> with the "sound foundation for morality." I have defended that claim over on the "<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000328" target="_blank">Can Atheists Have Morals?</a>" thread.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

Sigh. I really wish that if someone wants to proclaim this point of view, they would at least bother to refute the arguments against this point of view. As I have shown on the "Can Atheists Have Morals?" thread on this very board, there is no logical incompatibility between atheism (or even metaphysical naturalism) and moral realism (or even moral objectivism).

I also see no reason to believe that "any moral law is in the same epistimelogical (sic) boat as the existence of God." Quite to the contrary, I can think of one very good reason to reject such a view. Belief in God's existence requires belief in a supernatural disembodied mind, a being unlike anyone (or anything) we have ever known. In contrast, belief in a moral code (even a realist or an objectivist conception of morality) does not require one to posit any new kind of entities in one's metaphysics. Again, I refer interested readers to the "<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000328" target="_blank">Can Atheists Have Morals?</a>" thread on this board.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

jlowder

Earlier in this thread, luvluv had written:

Note the nature of Luvluv's claim. In his earlier post, he didn't claim (as William Lane Craig does) that atheism is incompatible with objective morality. Instead, Luvluv made the much broader claim that atheism is incompatible with <strong>any</strong> moral law, no matter how it is construed (e.g., objective vs. intersubjective vs. subjective). But very clearly atheism is compatible with subjective and intersubjective approaches to moral laws. The only item that is even somewhat controversial is whether atheism is compatible with objective moral laws. Again, I have already answered the claim that atheism is inconsistent with an objective moral law over on the "Can Atheists Have Morals Thread?" I refer Luvluv to my detailed arguments there.

However, Luvluv claims more than just the incompatibility of atheism with moral laws. In a recent reply to Vork, Luvluv wrote:

I find absolutely no argument to support the sweeping claim that atheistic morality must necessarily "come down to brute force." Moreover, I do not see how theism escapes the exact same charge. Isn't the whole point of theistic ethics that one had better obey God's commands or face God's wrath (including eternal, NON-ESCAPABLE damnation in Hell)?

And again:

<strong> I recommend Luvluv take an introductory course in metaethics or moral philosophy, for he demonstrates absolutely no familiarity with the works of contemporary moral philosophers, including both nontheists and theists, who recognize that moral objectivism does not in any way depend upon God. The only form of moral objectivism that requires God is the divine command theory, which is almost univerally regarded as bankrupt by moral philosophers. All other forms of moral objectivism are compatible with atheism. Hence, Luvluv's allegation (that atheism entails moral relativism or subjectivism) holds very little weight.

Please present an ARGUMENT--not a mere assertion repeated over and over again--showing that atheism is inconsistent with moral objectivism.

William Lane Craig has ignored the work of contemporary nontheistic moral philosophers who defend moral realism. He might score debating points by making such a claim, but he is not impressing any moral philosophers. Here are just 2 of the many problems with Craig's argument:

(1) Even if it were true--it isn't--that atheism were inconsistent with an objective meaning of life, it wouldn't follow that a "consistent atheist" would have to be unhappy. A "consistent atheist" could still be quite happy with a subjective meaning of life.

(2) Quentin Smith has argued in his book, Ethical and Religious Thought, that if moral realism is true, then life has an objective ethical meaning. I find no refutation (or even an awareness!) of Smith's argument anywhere in Craig's writings or debates.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

Jamie_L

So the theist response to the OP seems to be that atheists can be moral, but the foundation for that morality is inconsisteant with atheism.

Okay...

Well, first, that still indicates that the theists who insist people must believe in God to be moral are wrong. All those people who say we're in moral decline because people are turning away from God are full of *&%$. Moral behavior can be maintained just fine with or without God.

Secondly, I've yet to hear anything that convinces me that this assertion is really true. My own personal moral foundation has nothing to do with God, isn't about brute force, and doesn't seem inconsistent (to me) with my atheism. Admittedly, I'm no scholar on moral philosophy and the writings of moral philosophers. But the way I look at it:

People live together in groups. Certain types of behavior harm the group or individuals. Furthermore, harm to the group often also lead to harm to individuals. Morality is a short-hand system to avoid doing things that will have harmful repercussions, without having to think through all the potential consequences.

Thus, raping children could be argued as morally wrong because it can result in harm to one's own children (which, by association, harms you) and which also leads to children growing to adulthood with psychiatric problems that cause them to harm other individuals and potentially the group as well.

Jamie

ManM

Jamie_L,
Your moral foundation seems to be that harm is morally wrong. What if harming another will minimize the harm you or your group has to endure? What if harming those of a certain race will maximize you or your group's welfare?

This is not always the case. It is the nice guys who finish last, not the bad guys.

luvluv

I apologize folks I have been very busy lately, and still am, so this will be brief.

My only contention is that one cannot come up with a rational justification for any moral principle given atheism.

Pomp I agree with you that values differ from ethics. It is true that humans usually value their own life and their own, as you call it, self-interests, but there is no RATIONAL reason for them to do so. They simply happen to value their self-interests, but it is impossible to come up with a sound argument in favor of self-interest without begging the question. Therefore, that people tend to favor their own interests is on the same level with the fact that an abnormal percentage of the human race likes the color blue. You could not rationally justify or create a sound argument in support of either belief, which is why simple self-interest is a nice DESCRIPTIVE TERM for morality, but it is not a RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for it.

Briefly, there are a few reasons why God's fiat would make morality have truth to it. First if God is truly omniscient and omnibenevolent (or all-good, as I prefer) then it follows that what Omniscient Omnibenevolence values is rightly valuable, and what Omniscient Omnibenevolence deplores ought rightly to be deplored.

Part of the definition of Omniscience is that it is impossible, for an omniscient being to hold a belief that is false. Therefore if a being were truly omniscient, and he declared certain valuables to be the correct ones, those values would indeed be correct by definition.

I really apologize about my lack of participation in this board across the forum. It's a busy time for me. I'll do better around the holidays, I promise.

jlowder

You have not yet responded to any of my posts which refute this sweeping claim.

To say that God is "omnibenevolent" is to presuppose an ontologically prior standard of what constitutes moral goodness, in which case moral goodness does not depend on God's existence.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Plump-DJ

JJL..

How can sometihng exist prior (Ontologicaly or otherwise) to an eternal being? If 'omnibelonovlence' (all good i take it) is part of God's nature then it has existed for the same amount of ontological 'time' as he has. God *is* The Good in otherwords, surely this is what LuvLuv is saying.

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

Plump-DJ

Vork...

Says who mate? Sounds like an unsupported opinion to me. I mean who gets to decide what's a 'good' & 'rational' reason anyway?

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

Nataraja

I'm evil, are you evil?