HRG

No. Goals are abstract concepts: i.e. patterns in the brains of humans, and those brains are quite material.
Ridiculous. Rocks do not come from a long line of ancestors who were just a bit better at surviving and reproducing than others. We, and ever other recent organism does.
So what ? All cultures also have the concepts of weather, temperature and color.

Of course, the fact that all cultures have the concept of morality doesn't make the concept objective, since its contents differ from culture to culture.

Regards,
HRG.

Normal

And that's where the "faith" element comes into play. People have "faith" in materialism the same way other people have "faith" in god. I think the point theophilus was getting at is that people who have faith in materialism "borrow" the ideals of the Xian (or Muslim, or X religion) worldview to account for their morality.

Spenser

That's like saying people have 'faith in science' yet part of science is realizing that some theories can be wrong. And again, I think materialism explains concepts such as 'instinct' and 'morals' just fine. Because so many peoples morals are so different, I don't see 'borrowing' them from a 'standard set' as making much sense at all, hence I think his argument is very narrowly focused on his own presumptions. I know that the same will probably be said about me but you must realize, his final conclusion is a large leap from his premise. God cannot be observed, yet evolution of morality and natural selection can. Electric and chemical signals from the brain can. The things I use to draw my conclusions have been demonstrated in the 'material' world.

It can be said that being 'happy' cannot be explained by matter, but take some ecstacy (pure MDMA of course) and I guarantee you'll feel 'happy'...

Wiploc

I don't agree with making explainability the test. Perhaps "compatability" would be better. Theophilus'
argument seems to go something like this:

- 1. If you can't explain morality,
- then
- 2. that makes my alleged basis for morality correct.

That's no better than, say:

- 1. If you can't explain quantum mechanics,
- then
- 2. You have to give me five dollars.

We could beef up the argument by styling it this way:

- 1. Materialism is incompatable with morality.
- Therefore,
- 2. Either materialism or morality is untrue.
- 3. Morality is true.
- Therefore,
- 4. Materialism is untrue.

The OP challenges #3. Where I stand on that issue would depend on what is meant by "objective," or "absolute," whatever term is used to distinguish morality from anthropology, to make it prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Christians love the moral argument because it makes us squirm. Most of us don't want to challenge #3. "There's nothing really wrong with rape? No behavior is really better than any other behavior?" Even if you believed that, you could hardly win over the audience of a public debate by claiming to be a sociopath.

That's why I like to make the theists go first. They've taken the affirmative position that religion explains morality better than materialism does. Let them put up or shut up. If they don't explain why rape is bad, why some behaviors are better than others, then they get to be the sociopaths. "You're saying you don't personally have anything against rape? The only reason you avoid rape is because god tells you to? Your morality is entirely based on 'just following orders' like a Nazi extermination-camp guard? Aside from these 'orders,' you really believe that no behavior is preferable to any other? And this is the attractive morality that you want us all to adopt?"

Maybe Theophilus will respond to this challenge, but usually the theists just fall silent. When they do respond, however, whatever they say can be exactly parodied without the use of god.

"You say we should avoid rape because otherwise god will punish us? Well, if fear of punishment is the basis of morality, then even if there is no god we should avoid rape out of fear that the law will punish us."

After the atheist thus refutes the first-offered theistic basis of morality, the theist will switch to a second. There are only four that I know of, all of them as easily refutable as the example above. The theist won't really defend any of them. He'll just jump back and forth between them. The atheist's job is then to simply point out that the theist is two-stepping, dancing back and forth between incompatible positions.

Two-stepping never works if you call audience attention to it: One cannot defend the claim that morality is based on fear by claiming morality is really based on god's authority as creator; one cannot justify morality as based on god's authority as creator by claiming morality is really based on god's rules being secretly for our own benefit; etcetera.

crc

Normal

But your assuming the existence of morality is based on fear of punishment, which it's not. At least, that isn't where I would claim morality comes from. Subjective morality is "It is wrong for me to rape someone". Your reasons for this don't have to be fear, just the fact that your morals are telling you not to rape. The objective morality leap is when you say "It is wrong for someone who is not me to rape someone".

The fact that anyone makes this leap is what is the basis for morality.

Spenser

Not wanting other people to be 'raped' can be justified by not wanting to be 'raped' yourself. If more people in society do not want to be 'raped' and a law is created dubbing 'rape' illegal, you as well as them are less likely to be 'raped'. This doesn't stop some people from wanting to 'rape' you but it stops many from going through with it. Natural selection once again explains this very well. If saying it is wrong for some one else to do something betters society around you and lessens the chance the same 'subjective moral' happens to you then it fits perfectly into a material world...

Normal

Now you're explaining morals with empathy, which seems to me to be circular.

If you're saying morality is embedded in natural selection, I'm not well versed enough in that field to make any constructive statement about it. I assume there are a wide variety of theories about this that I don't know about.

Darth Dane

I have been told that the law is thus:

Everything is allowed
Not everything is advisable to do


If God is Love as it says in John 4:7-8, then in Love everything is allowed, but not everything is advisable, you are allowed to touch red hot iron, but if you don't believe me, when I say that you will get burned if you touch it, then go ahead test Reality for yourself. Many have tried before you, but if you want to be sure test and check reality.
Love is for me not to deny you the choice to do it, Love gives freewill, Love doesn't imprison you it sets you free.







DD - Love & Laughter

Spenser

Not really empathy. The more rape you see around you the more likely YOU are to get raped. If you think it is wrong for others to get raped, and others think it is wrong for others and YOU to get raped, rape lessons in the amount of occurrences in society. You now live in a society in which YOU are not as likely to get raped because others view rape as wrong as well. This agreed upon moral from your society will be gladly accepted from other people in other societies who do not want to get raped. This type of moral strengthens the society making this society more likely to survive into the future over societies that don't condemn rape and hence the thinking that rape is wrong has gone through the process of natural selection. When a consensus of subjective moralities were instilled upon their society (perhaps in the form of a law) the society strengthened, appealed to others and that original moral consensus continued to grow. All because we don't want to get raped ourselves...

Normal

That's a reasonable enough explaination for rape, and murder, I suppose, but it doesn't account for some of the other non-violent morals that people have. For example adultery, stealing, lying, protecting one's friends, etc. Empathy is a pretty wide-ranging phenomenon.