Atheos
Veteran Member
I was going to let Ed have the last word as FRDB gasped its last breath, but his final post left me with an unsatisfied feeling. I just can't seem to let go and leave this unchallenged. It is of course up to Ed whether he wants to join the discussion here and continue it, but here is my rejoinder if he wants to continue defending.
I guess my first question is, "How is 'General agreement on certain morals worldwide' evidence that an objective moral standard exists?" General agreement on certain morals is not the same nor does it approach an objective moral standard. The second question is, "How is this general agreement not in complete compliance with the dynamics of natural selection as described in evolutionary theory?" If it is completely explained via evolutionary theory then it is not evidence of an objective morality from elsewhere.
My third question (and the successive ones) are more direct. Are you saying that this objective standard of morality applies to murdering a member of my tribe but does not apply to murdering a member of another tribe? God's objective moral standards break down at the tribal level? Is it objectively wrong to lie? Human beings do not have a problem with lying, they have a problem with lies that end up with adverse consequences. From parents telling children that Santa Claus delivered their presents all the way to the President of the United States rattling sabers and threatening military action he has no intention of following through with, the entire gamut of human interaction runs on a steady diet of lies. There is no evidence that anyone anywhere considers lying to be objectively wrong, and there is no evidence that anyone anywhere considers truth to be objectively right. All of us constantly hide truths and tell lies to lubricate the mechanisms of social dynamics.
Regarding adultery, not all human societies have laws or morals that encompass that concept. As but one example, the Mosuo tribe, an isolated culture in the Himalayan Mountains, developed a matriarchal society that is very different from cultures familiar to most of us living in western civilizations. They do not use marriage or pair bonding to form family structures. A young woman will have a sexual relationship with one or more males whom she finds attractive. When she becomes pregnant her immediate family (including her brothers) take care of the resultant child / children. This arrangement has served that culture well for thousands of years, and it eliminates all the hardships involved in broken homes, custody battles, etc. It is several orders of magnitude more efficient than the forced pair-bonding we use and it accommodates the sexual needs and behaviors of young people without causing stress on the children. You'd think a god would be wise enough to have figured that out rather than hand down non-negotiable laws that undermine the fundamental changing needs of people as they age. Short answer, "No. Laws about adultery have nothing to do with a moral imperative, the evidence suggests they are entirely man made and relate more to property rights."
Regarding stealing, the man-made laws that protect property are completely consistent with individual desires to be able to have some help protecting their ownership of said property. Everyone wants to be able to keep their shit, so it makes sense that large groups (societies) would be eager to work together towards that end by enacting laws and providing means to punish those who disobey said laws. You don't need a god to explain that.
In fact you don't need a god to explain any of the generally accepted moral behaviors. Natural selection explains all of it with much greater succinctness. The selection pressure for those who protect and nurture babies was extremely intense during harsher periods of our heritage. Those who neglected or mistreated their young did not propagate.
On the other hand, one cannot defend the moral principles of the Judeo/Christian god as objective. At one time it was an abomination to eat shellfish. Later it became perfectly acceptable. At one time it was perfectly acceptable to buy, sell and breed human beings as if they were just another form of livestock. One could beat their human livestock to within an inch of their life and so long as the human livestock didn't actually die under their hand they would not be punished. And if the human livestock died a day or two later (even if it was obvious that the death was directly due to the injuries sustained in the beating) the owner could not be punished because (as god's law said) "He his his money." The loss of the monetary value he had invested in that bit of human livestock was enough punishment. The bible never addresses the subject of slavery in any manner other than to sanction its practice. Never once in all of the bible is slavery condemned. Yet modern societies have all realized that the practice is barbaric and immoral.
The god of the bible ordered at least one man to kill his son on an altar for no other reason than as a human sacrifice. This god sat tacitly by while another man killed his daughter as a human sacrifice to himself. This god ordered 6 men to be hanged for no other crime than being sons of Saul. This god ordered the brutal extermination of many towns full of people including women and children. This god sanctioned the pillaging of some towns, including taking the virgin daughters for themselves (wink, wink) and summarily killing all the mothers and young boys. This god is a horrible example of atrocity after atrocity, no standard by which humanity should take example. In fact is is only because we are civilized enough to realize how horrid some of those moral principles are that we have developed societies that ignore them and accept only those principles that actually do make sense.
Ed said:Atheos said:I see why you think that is an argument for the christian god, but the actual evidence indicates that this is the result of evolutionary development. During harsher periods such as ice ages the only way for small pockets of our ancestors to survive was to work together to their mutual benefit. Those who were predisposed to be uncooperative either failed to survive because they didn't willingly join the group or were possibly killed for the greater good by the group itself. A combination of natural and artificial selection ensured that over time our ancestors became more and more predisposed towards social cooperation. This became the dominant survival strategy.
If all people were created in the image of god and were freebasing a set of absolute objective morals inherited from god himself then there would be no variance in those moral standards. Slavery would still be perfectly acceptable (after all, God obviously approved of it, why shouldn't we) and stoning people for working on the Sabbath day, committing adultery or practicing witchcraft would be commonplace.
But more importantly not one of us would lack this moral blueprint. It would be as fundamental a part of our nature as the need to breathe.
Yet approximately 4% of the human population are born without the capacity to appreciate social norms (morals). As adults such individuals feel no more personal remorse for maiming a child than most of us would feel for squashing a cockroach. They cannot develop a conscience anymore than the rest of us can grow a third arm. The capacity to feel empathy is lacking in these people in the same way that the capacity to solve relativistic equations is lacking in people who suffer from severe mental retardation. These people have a very real and genetically programmed condition that has been named "Antisocial Personality Disorder." Behavioral training can help such an individual coexist in society but it can never give him the ability to feel remorse for atrocities.
All of this evidence is completely consistent with the robust theory of common descent. It is not consistent with the claim that an all powerful god created us "in his image" with an exact copy of his objective moral standards. Your argument is defeated.
On a side note, as posting to this forum concludes I'd like to say that in spite of our differences it has been enjoyable arguing with you. Not everyone here obviously feels that way, but I've always been of the opinion that it's the open exchange of radically different ideas that helps one sharpen one's wit and examine the reasons one holds the beliefs one does. You've always remained civil in spite of the not-so-subtle wisps of acrimony wafted in your direction, and I think all of us can admire that.
No, actually there is general agreement on certain morals worldwide, it is wrong to murder a member of your tribe, it is wrong to lie to a member of your tribe, it is wrong to torture babies, it is generally wrong to commit adultery, it is generally wrong to steal from members of your tribe and etc. The reason it is more general now is because of man's sinful nature, originally our moral conscience was perfect and perfectly matched God's moral laws but over time our consciences have become corrupted. But if you become a Christian and the Holy spirit lives in you, your morality gradually starts returning back to its original state but we never reach it in this life, only in the next life does it fully return. As far as that 4%, because of our presently fallen and abnormal world there are people that are born both physically and mentally mutated, and that is the case with the 4%, they are spiritually damaged to the point that they don't have a conscience, though with God's help I believe God can create them one and they can become more normal like the rest of us, though all of us still have a sinful nature, theirs is just much worse. Thanks for the small compliment. I have generally enjoyed our discussions but there are few here that are not as enjoyable as others and it becomes a little frustrating but I am used to it.
I guess my first question is, "How is 'General agreement on certain morals worldwide' evidence that an objective moral standard exists?" General agreement on certain morals is not the same nor does it approach an objective moral standard. The second question is, "How is this general agreement not in complete compliance with the dynamics of natural selection as described in evolutionary theory?" If it is completely explained via evolutionary theory then it is not evidence of an objective morality from elsewhere.
My third question (and the successive ones) are more direct. Are you saying that this objective standard of morality applies to murdering a member of my tribe but does not apply to murdering a member of another tribe? God's objective moral standards break down at the tribal level? Is it objectively wrong to lie? Human beings do not have a problem with lying, they have a problem with lies that end up with adverse consequences. From parents telling children that Santa Claus delivered their presents all the way to the President of the United States rattling sabers and threatening military action he has no intention of following through with, the entire gamut of human interaction runs on a steady diet of lies. There is no evidence that anyone anywhere considers lying to be objectively wrong, and there is no evidence that anyone anywhere considers truth to be objectively right. All of us constantly hide truths and tell lies to lubricate the mechanisms of social dynamics.
Regarding adultery, not all human societies have laws or morals that encompass that concept. As but one example, the Mosuo tribe, an isolated culture in the Himalayan Mountains, developed a matriarchal society that is very different from cultures familiar to most of us living in western civilizations. They do not use marriage or pair bonding to form family structures. A young woman will have a sexual relationship with one or more males whom she finds attractive. When she becomes pregnant her immediate family (including her brothers) take care of the resultant child / children. This arrangement has served that culture well for thousands of years, and it eliminates all the hardships involved in broken homes, custody battles, etc. It is several orders of magnitude more efficient than the forced pair-bonding we use and it accommodates the sexual needs and behaviors of young people without causing stress on the children. You'd think a god would be wise enough to have figured that out rather than hand down non-negotiable laws that undermine the fundamental changing needs of people as they age. Short answer, "No. Laws about adultery have nothing to do with a moral imperative, the evidence suggests they are entirely man made and relate more to property rights."
Regarding stealing, the man-made laws that protect property are completely consistent with individual desires to be able to have some help protecting their ownership of said property. Everyone wants to be able to keep their shit, so it makes sense that large groups (societies) would be eager to work together towards that end by enacting laws and providing means to punish those who disobey said laws. You don't need a god to explain that.
In fact you don't need a god to explain any of the generally accepted moral behaviors. Natural selection explains all of it with much greater succinctness. The selection pressure for those who protect and nurture babies was extremely intense during harsher periods of our heritage. Those who neglected or mistreated their young did not propagate.
On the other hand, one cannot defend the moral principles of the Judeo/Christian god as objective. At one time it was an abomination to eat shellfish. Later it became perfectly acceptable. At one time it was perfectly acceptable to buy, sell and breed human beings as if they were just another form of livestock. One could beat their human livestock to within an inch of their life and so long as the human livestock didn't actually die under their hand they would not be punished. And if the human livestock died a day or two later (even if it was obvious that the death was directly due to the injuries sustained in the beating) the owner could not be punished because (as god's law said) "He his his money." The loss of the monetary value he had invested in that bit of human livestock was enough punishment. The bible never addresses the subject of slavery in any manner other than to sanction its practice. Never once in all of the bible is slavery condemned. Yet modern societies have all realized that the practice is barbaric and immoral.
The god of the bible ordered at least one man to kill his son on an altar for no other reason than as a human sacrifice. This god sat tacitly by while another man killed his daughter as a human sacrifice to himself. This god ordered 6 men to be hanged for no other crime than being sons of Saul. This god ordered the brutal extermination of many towns full of people including women and children. This god sanctioned the pillaging of some towns, including taking the virgin daughters for themselves (wink, wink) and summarily killing all the mothers and young boys. This god is a horrible example of atrocity after atrocity, no standard by which humanity should take example. In fact is is only because we are civilized enough to realize how horrid some of those moral principles are that we have developed societies that ignore them and accept only those principles that actually do make sense.