Ben only asserts. Watch, you'll see.

What can I say Im an optimistic person.

It's absurd to think that humanity was a group of brutish, evil monsters without empathy before religion was "invented." Many aspects of religion were outgrowths of capacities well advanced by evolution in the human species before they ever decided to link these capacities with supernatural beings.

Empathy came first, religion followed.

But religion got itself all tied up with all kinds of hypocrisies. And, humans just got smarter, and reject fairy tales as fact.

But empathy remains, since we are hard-wired for it.

Empathy came first, religion followed.

But religion got itself all tied up with all kinds of hypocrisies. And, humans just got smarter, and reject fairy tales as fact. — Questioner

Yes, although some religious folk will say that since goodness emanates directly from God’s nature, we are good because it reflects God’s nature, with empathy being a part of the divine character. This would predate religion.

I’ve generally held that theists have no objective basis for moral beliefs. A key indicator of this is that even within a single religion all they can do is disagree on most moral issues. No one can demonstrate which god is real, or what that god believes about morality. It's all contested interpretations. So what we have are vehement disagreements between believers about what’s good. God doesn’t solve any problems when it comes to making moral decisions.

Yes, although some religious folk will say that since goodness emanates directly from God’s nature, we are good because it reflects God’s nature, with empathy being a part of the divine character. This would predate religion. — Tom Storm

But still depends on an external source for empathy - a god - and empathy is not that but something we developed as we evolved as a social species.

God doesn’t solve any problems when it comes to making moral decisions. — Tom Storm

I recall a quote from an 18th century Indigenous person - who said to a colonizer - "You white folk need a Big Book to tell you what is right, but what is right is engraved upon my heart."

What indigenous group/person? I am extremely skeptical of a quote like that from a category of people known to be amenable to superstitions and creator myths.

But still depends on an external source for empathy - a god - and empathy is not that but something we developed as we evolved as a social species. — Questioner

I don’t think that’s right by their reasoning because under this view (Calvin, Anslem, Aquinas) all goodness, in whatever form it takes, is grounded in God’s nature rather than existing independently of it. When we care for others, when we have empathy, we are participating in or responding to that nature as it is reflected in us. A developed expression of this idea is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan, where moral concern or empathy is not confined to one’s own community but is extended even to detestable outsiders.

I recall a quote from an 18th century Indigenous person - who said to a colonizer - "You white folk need a Big Book to tell you what is right, but what is right is engraved upon my heart." — Questioner

Interesting that you wrote it like this. The idea that morality is engraved upon our hearts is a common frame used by Christians, who argue that regardless of the ten commandments, morality is part of God’s nature within us, which is how many of them explain an atheist having capacity for goodness. It's likely borrowed from Paul writing in Romans where he says even of ignorant gentiles that morality is "written on their hearts".

It seems very odd to need a proof that god exists in order to do the right thing.

It seems very odd to need a proof that god exists in order to do the right thing. — Banno

It would be a shame to waste a good sin.

All theists (& deists) deny the existence of some or all gods except whichever one they happen believe in, or worship. Atheists, however, are consistent believing in one less god than monotheists believe in and for (at least) the same reason monotheists reject all other gods – they are false/unreal. As for morality: to the degree any person – atheist or theist/deist – has unimpaired empathy, s/he will tend to 'do no harm' to anyone (i.e. behave morally) even without "commandments" from On High or threats of eternal torture. "God" is neither a metaphysical explanation nor an ethical justification (re: e.g. Plato's Euthyphro, Epicurus' "Riddle", Hillel the Elder's "Golden Rule" ...)

As for morality: to the degree any person – atheist or theist/deist – has unimpaired empathy, s/he will tend to 'do no harm' to anyone (i.e. behave morally) even without "commandments" from On High or threats of eternal torture. — 180 Proof

How did you come to that conclusion? It's not that I don't want to believe it, it's that it seems to me that if you look at our history that seems like a very hard case to make, unless one would also make the claim that an enormous amount of people had impaired empathy. And in that case empathy doesn't seem like something that necessarily comes natural, but maybe needs to be cultivated, by something like a religious tradition, or perhaps a secular tradition.

"God" is neither a metaphysical explanation nor an ethical justification (re: e.g. Plato's Euthyphro, Epicurus' "Riddle", Hillel the Elder's "Golden Rule" ...) — 180 Proof

It's a motivation psychologically, compelling people to follow certain norms without questioning them. Euthyphro was willing to prosecute his father for murder.

Piety seems to me like a kind of training in observing the norms of a certain culture. The question is what happens if you do away with that training?

1) That people will naturally default to behaving empathically seems contentious to me and
2) It isn't entirely clear to me that people deciding how to behave based on empathy is necessarily sufficient or even desirable to begin with.

Also, false. In the last 20 years Islam has been the focus of almost all anti-religious thinking. Christianity is a footnote to the harm caused by Islam currently. — AmadeusD

What I've found is a strong tendency to comprehend Islam only by analogy to the same aforementioned WASP Evangelical demographic.

Of course that's not totally universal. Hardly anything's ever truly universal. But that's very common.

A-theism is simply "Not theism" — AmadeusD

That's a lie and has always been a lie. Ayn Rand is not any more welcome in popular atheist circles than Jerry Falwell. It's a very specific ideological stack behind popular atheism.

The entire apparatus of right-wing media outlets is Xtianity-positive. — AmadeusD

Except they don't run popular culture. We've only recently seen some penetration into the mainstream beginning to happen with Angel Studios and a few others. For the most part, Christian media has been siloed off in its own niche subculture with little mainstream impact.

No one (and I mean this quite literally) treats an eight-month fetus as "a clump of cells" — AmadeusD

This contradicts my direct observations. That happens all the time.

I could launch into an argument about the evils of the Sexual Revolution which are still very bad for humanity even from an entirely secular perspective but I think that might be wandering a little off topic. Such a thing would probably need its own thread.

Almost all atheists accept reasonable restrictions on abortion. — AmadeusD

In America, we're dealing with a zero-compromise demand for total absolute abortion on demand at any stage for any reason and that is the mainstream secular viewpoint. I understand that, in Europe, things are different depending on where you go, but that's the situation in America and you shouldn't need to beleive in God to recognize that's apalling yet somehow, you do need to.

If you ever wonder why the religious right in America is so much more panicky about everything than in Europe, it's because that's what they're dealing with as their opposition.

They may equip themselves with atheist arguments but the truth of how they came to be atheist is quite similar to what they mock or look down upon religious folk for. Ive met atheists like that. They are a minority in my experience. — DingoJones

Also here's the thing: Religious people aren't bastions of reason who are making a completely objective assessment either. The vast majority of people are in fact emotionally driven -- not just the vast majority of atheists.

What indigenous group/person? I am extremely skeptical of a quote like that from a category of people known to be amenable to superstitions and creator myths. — AmadeusD

Ten years ago I wrote a novel that took place in pre-revolutionary 18th century New York (then a province, and not yet a state) and did extensive reading about the Haudenosaunee as well as the Lenape of Pennsylvania. I can’t remember the exact source, but the quote is clear in my memory.

Despite popular opinion, the Indigenous people had a sophisticated code of moral conduct – but it was not a written code – “imprinted upon their hearts” – that they followed with constancy.

And their interactions with the colonials showed that even though they had a “Big Book” they often did not practice what they preached.

For some fascinating insights into the Native character of over 200 years ago, I recommend reading History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations, Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighbouring States (first published 1819).

At 346 pages, it is a detailed look. It was written by Rev. John Heckewelder, a Christian missionary who learned their language and lived among them for many years.

You can read the book for free at Gutenberg at this link –

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50350/50350-h/50350-h.htm

All theists (& deists) deny the existence of some or all gods except whichever one they happen believe in, or worship. — 180 Proof

Actually, no. That's not how monotheism works. As C. S. Lewis explained, the pagan gods weren't simply altogether false but are instead to be understood as distorted images of the real one. That's why you'll sometimes find the stories of multiple religions even in Christian works like William Bennet's The Book of Virtues, because not every Christian is so impoverished in their understanding as to simply reject anything not developed within their own social circle.

A developed expression of this idea is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan, where moral concern or empathy is not confined to one’s own community but is extended even to detestable outsiders. — Tom Storm

So, you are saying that goodness comes from God and we know this because the Bible tells us it's so?

I think the more likely explanation is that we evolved something called biological altruism.

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures –

For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own—so have personal fitness of zero—but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Intuition seems to suggest that to behave altruistically is to reduce one’s own fitness, but with social animals, it increases the fitness of the group, and therefore is a behavior selected for.

This idea led to the development of the theory of Kin Selection and Inclusive Fitness

No doubt, we are much more likely to help someone we are related to, but if we see a stranger drowning, the instinct apparently kicks in, in some of us. We can get into other explanations, too, like how we mirror the behavior and emotions of others. Mirror neurons – which help us to understand the emotions of others - indeed do play a role in empathy.

https://positivepsychology.com/mirror-neurons/

It's likely borrowed from Paul writing in Romans where he says even of ignorant gentiles that morality is "written on their hearts". — Tom Storm

No, as a people of oral traditions, their history and moral codes, ideas of justice, etc. were engraved on their hearts long before the Europeans came along. They did not need to "borrow" the phrase from the Europeans.

In fact, we can look at different cultures, too, and find that the Christians are not the sole possessors of morality. The following passage from The Tao, written around 2500 years ago, hints at the Golden Rule.

Did the Christians "borrow" these ideas from Lao-Tse?

Heaven is long-enduring and earth continues long. The reason why heaven and earth are able to endure and continue thus long is because they do not live of, or for, themselves. This is how they are able to continue and endure.

Therefore the sage puts his own person last, and yet it is found in the foremost place; he treats his person as if it were foreign to him, and yet that person is preserved. Is it not because he has no personal and private ends, that therefore such ends are realised?

The highest excellence is like (that of) water. The excellence of water appears in its benefiting all things, and in its occupying, without striving (to the contrary), the low place which all men dislike. Hence (its way) is near to (that of) the Tao.

The excellence of a residence is in (the suitability of) the place; that of the mind is in abysmal stillness; that of associations is in their being with the virtuous; that of government is in its securing good order; that of (the conduct of) affairs is in its ability; and that of (the initiation of) any movement is in its timeliness…

When gold and jade fill the hall, their possessor cannot keep them safe. When wealth and honours lead to arrogancy, this brings its evil on itself. When the work is done, and one's name is becoming distinguished, to withdraw into obscurity is the way of Heaven.

When the intelligent and animal souls are held together in one embrace, they can be kept from separating. When one gives undivided attention to the (vital) breath, and brings it to the utmost degree of pliancy, he can become as a (tender) babe. When he has cleansed away the most mysterious sights (of his imagination), he can become without a flaw.

In loving the people and ruling the state, cannot he proceed without any (purpose of) action? In the opening and shutting of his gates of heaven, cannot he do so as a female bird? While his intelligence reaches in every direction, cannot he (appear to) be without knowledge?

(The Tao) produces (all things) and nourishes them; it produces them and does not claim them as its own; it does all, and yet does not boast of it; it presides over all, and yet does not control them. This is what is called 'The mysterious Quality' (of the Tao).

You can read The Tao online for free at this link -

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/216/216-h/216-h.htm

In fact, we can look at different cultures, too, and find that the Christians are not the sole possessors of morality. The following passage from The Tao, written around 2500 years ago, hints at the Golden Rule — Questioner

I know I quote or reference C. S. Lewis a lot, but he's just way too relevant to this whole topic. In "The Abolition of Man" (1943) Lewis actualy uses the term "The Tao" to refer to the universal moral concept of the natural law, referencing Laozi. Christianity -- and even the Israelite religion before it -- has never claimed to have a monopoly on knowledge of morality. You're not disagreeing with Christians here -- you're agreeing with them.

I think the more likely explanation is that we evolved something called biological altruism. — Questioner

That could potentially work as an immediate material explanation -- saying how it happened -- but it cannot work as a teleological explanation -- saying why we should obey this particular biological impulse and not other less apparently noble but much stronger biological impulses.

After all, our unreflective sexual impulses absolutely do not have words in them, especially not political words like "consent." Many atheists seem to think that if they believe hard enough, then humanity will have evolved to make "consent" part of their biology instead of being a very conscious political choice but in fact, that is a fantasy. Humans sexual impulses are in fact way, way stronger than their altruistic ones and it is only by keeping their sexual impulses tightly under conscious discipline and control that people -- men in particular -- aren't absolute monsters. The same goes for aggression and numerous other impulses we have. Why should we obey altruism and not these?

I think the more likely explanation is that we evolved something called biological altruism. — Questioner

You think altruism is a brain mechanism? You dont feel that it is in your best ‘selfish’ interest to help people you care about and need in your life? In that case altruism wouldn’t be a matter of choosing others over the self but being motivated to expand and enrich the boundaries of the self. We would also need to clarify that the self isn’t a static thing but a system of integration assimilating the world into itself while accommodating itself to the novel aspects of the world. Altruism can be seen in this light as belonging to this enrichment of the self’s capabilities.

I because an atheist because post-theistic philosophical and psychological models appeared to me to offer more powerful insights into how to understand and get along with others. It wasn't a matter of whether God exists, but of whether that hypothesis was as useful in becoming an empathetic and caring person in comparison to the secular alternatives I discovered. I don’t see my atheism as a reaction of the noble ethical goals of theism, but as a better way of achieving those goals. The key challenge for theists and atheists is to answer the following question :
What are people thinking when they do things we consider wrong, and why are they doing them? I’ll go with whichever approach answers this question more effectively.

That could potentially work as an immediate material explanation -- saying how it happened -- but it cannot work as a teleological explanation — BenMcLean

For the teleological explanation, we ask, "What is it good for?" Does it produce a good outcome? Well, in the context of natural selection, we can say that any traits that are selected for, have the effect of increasing fitness - improving the chances of survival and reproduction.

saying why we should obey this particular biological impulse and not other less apparently noble but much stronger biological impulses. — BenMcLean

You are correct in that science does not ask the "should we?" questions - only describes the traits that appear in a species, and how they might have come to be.

There is of course an element of culturally-driven mores that influence behavior - but the biology comes first. Biology precedes culture, Mix in a bit of "free will" and the directions taken by different cultures, with different histories, acting under different environmental factors, can diverge.

Many atheists seem to think that if they believe hard enough, then humanity will have evolved to make "consent" part of their biology instead of being a very conscious political choice but in fact, that is a fantasy. — BenMcLean

I don't think anyone with a basic knowledge of natural selection and evolution thinks this.

As the concept of "consent" has its roots in self-determination, and personal autonomy, I don't think we would be hard-pressed to find a biological, evolutionary origin of it. We are a social species. You want to stay in the group? Then you had better respect boundaries.

Any culture that does not recognize "consent' as an unimpeachable cap on behavior is operating under a different set of biological instincts. Culture is fluid, and human behavior is complex.

Humans sexual impulses are in fact way, way stronger than their altruistic ones — BenMcLean

There is no way you can make such a generalization.

And I do not buy that these two instincts are mutually-exclusive.

You think altruism is a brain mechanism — Joshs

Not "a" brain mechanism - but the result of the interplay of several brain regions -

Key structures that may be involved during altruistic decision making and subsequent altruistic behavior include regions within the mentalizing network such as the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and temporoparietal junction (TPJ), reward regions including the ventral tegmental area (VTA), striatum, specifically the nucleus accumbens (NaCC), and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and regions of the emotional salience network including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), insula, and amygdala

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5456281/

You dont feel that it is in your best ‘selfish’ interest to help people you care about and need in your life? In that case altruism wouldn’t be a matter of choosing others over the self but being motivated to expand and enrich the boundaries of the self. We would also need to clarify that the self isn’t a static thing but a system of integration assimilating the world into itself while accommodating itself to the novel aspects of the world. Altruism can be seen in this light as belonging to this enrichment of the self’s capabilities. — Joshs

Yes, it feels good to help other people!

So, you are saying that goodness comes from God and we know this because the Bible tells us it's so?

I think the more likely explanation is that we evolved something called biological altruism.

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures – — Questioner

If that's true, why do we need moral rules? Of course all female mammals are altruistic toward their children. If they weren't, the children wouldn't survive (until human practices like adoption and orphanages).

Anthropologists claim that the incest taboo is the one universal human moral code. But moral codes wouldn't be necessary if people didn't desire to break them. Moslems have a taboo about eating pork; Hindus about eating beef. Nobody has a taboo about eating dirt, or shit. That's because pork and beef are tasty and healthful. We have moral bans on behavior people would otherwise want to do, not on behaviors for which we have a biological abhorrence. Many of us might want to steal, covet, commit adultery, or forget to keep the Sabbath holy (especially this last). We are enjoined from doing so by the Ten Commandments, not by "biological altruism".

Is it surprising that social controls are similar from one culture to another? Prohibitions against stealing, murdering, coveting one's neighbor's wife, and taking the Lord's name in vain (OK, maybe not this last) are important forms of social control. The universality of the Tao (if, as is not the case, it is universal) proves neither that morality comes from God nor that it comes from "biological altruism".

By the way, Questioner, if you're interested in Indigenous American philosophy, I recommend The Dawn of Everything by Graeber (a cultural anthropologist) and Wengrow (an archaeologist). The authors argue that the traditional liberal European philosophers (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, et. al.) were influenced by Native American philosophy. Some American philosophers came to Europe, and books about their philosophy were popular, promoting individual freedom, rights, and equality.

For the teleological explanation, we ask, "What is it good for?" Does it produce a good outcome? Well, in the context of natural selection, we can say that any traits that are selected for, have the effect of increasing fitness - improving the chances of survival and reproduction. — Questioner

IN his book Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches Marvin Harris (a neo-Marxist anthropologist) offers economic "explanations" for the taboos on eating pigs and cows. They are complicated and abstruse. (They may also be dated, I studied anthropology several decades ago.)

I don't buy it. You needn't taboo rational economic behavior. Instead, the taboos (if nothing else) communicate that an individual is willing to give up something valuable to assert membership in the group. Membership is more important than eating cows, pigs, or fish on Friday.

Correct, clearly. It is a group affirmation. As for morality, it is of course a necessary code for organizing society, in which social animals like humans live. There clearly is no universal morality; just look at different human societies. (I.e. is all life sacred, or do you get rewarded for killing apostates? --- you can not have both.)

If that's true, why do we need moral rules? — Ecurb

I'm not sure why a biological basis for behavior would preclude the need for moral rules.

Of course all female mammals are altruistic toward their children. If they weren't, the children wouldn't survive (until human practices like adoption and orphanages). — Ecurb

I remember reading once that a mother's love is the evolutionary origin of all other forms of love.

But moral codes wouldn't be necessary if people didn't desire to break them. — Ecurb

Yes, a human brain is a very complicated thing and variation exists. And evolution is an ongoing process. I remember reading something about how not all of us are at the same stage of brain evolution, that some possess a more ancient form of connections between the amygdala and cognition.

Many of us might want to steal, covet, commit adultery, or forget to keep the Sabbath holy (especially this last). We are enjoined from doing so by the Ten Commandments, not by "biological altruism". — Ecurb

The evolution of moral codes developed from concepts of morality, not the other way around.

By the way, Questioner, if you're interested in Indigenous American philosophy, I recommend The Dawn of Everything by Graeber (a cultural anthropologist) and Wengrow (an archaeologist). The authors argue that the traditional liberal European philosophers (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, et. al.) were influenced by Native American philosophy. Some American philosophers came to Europe, and books about their philosophy were popular, promoting individual freedom, rights, and equality. — Ecurb

Thank you very much for the recommendations!

Membership is more important than eating cows, pigs, or fish on Friday. — Ecurb

Now you're thinking like a biologist

The evolution of moral codes developed from concepts of morality, not the other way around. — Questioner

Maybe. Maybe not. "Thou shalt not steal", for example, depends on a theory of property rights that did not exist in many simple societies. So the moral code and the notion of "property" developed together.

When Eve ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, this may represent the transition from simple, hunting and gathering societies (like Eden) to more complicated civilizations in which morality must be codified (because it is less "natural").

Maybe. Maybe not. "Thou shalt not steal", for example, depends on a theory of property rights that did not exist in many simple societies. So the moral code and the notion of "property" developed together. — Ecurb

Even chimpanzees know what belongs to them, so the idea of ownership goes back millions of years.

As does the concept of punitive behavior. The idea of justice is not solely a human trait.

Here' some interesting reading about research involving chimps -

Chimps don't just get mad, they get even

When Eve ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, this may represent the transition from simple, hunting and gathering societies (like Eden) to more complicated civilizations in which morality must be codified (because it is less "natural"). — Ecurb

I do not believe in Adam and Eve as historical figures.

All human behavior is "natural"

"Though shalt not steal" is simply another rule that holds society (regardless of primitive or developed) together. Verymuch included in Kants categorial imperative. Nothing mysterious there. That is why all societies have a rule like that.

I do not believe in Adam and Eve as historical figures.

All human behavior is "natural" — Questioner

Neither do I. But the story was probably first told during the transition from small, hunting and gathering societies (represented as "Eden") to civilizations based on agriculture and animal husbandry (represented by Cain and Abel).

Human behavior is "natural" in one sense, but in some uses of the word "cultural" is distinct from "natural".

Chimps may know what "belongs to them". But for humans it differs from culture to culture. In most hunting and gathering societies, the hunter who kills an animal doesn't "own" it; he is required by custom to distribute it among the group.

Of course non-human animals have a sense of morality, as the experiment with capuchin monkeys clearly shows.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=capuchin+monkey+morality+experiment&mid=C8EB1E689CAA032DFE8DC8EB1E689CAA032DFE8D&FORM=VIRE

What non-human animals don't have is moral "codes" (because they lack sophisticated language). The "knowledge of good and evil" may (my interpretation) refer to moral codes, rather than "morals".

seems very odd to need a proof that god exists in order to do the right thing. — Banno

That completely inverts the issue in the question of the OP, which is, it seems odd (or pointless/non-rational) to speak of notions like “the right thing” without any reference to objective, moral facts, like God’s goodness, or inherent value of things outside of the subject.

It seems odd to view the world as a secular, physical place only, where all human convention and all things of the mind, such as knowledge, truth, value, and subjective experience, are all flashes in the pan and of less practical import and application than the fossil record of extinct dinosaurs. And with this secular view, bother to judge the “rightness” of other people, discuss “morals” and “doing the right thing.”

When I was an atheist, it was precisely because I came to believe that “the right thing” had nothing objective to it. All things human were like regurgitations and secretions of brain and chemical processes. Everything was “the right thing” because nothing could be otherwise, unless I pretended there was something more than the brute facts in my face.

“Proof that God exists” has nothing to do with the question of the OP as I see it. It’s simply a logical coherence issue within the concept of atheist morality. If no objective truth, then no moral truth. Maybe there is, or maybe there is not, any moral truth. That’s another discussion. But It is incoherent to invoke morality and think anything has been said when someone says “he is a bad person” if one does not think there is an objective measure all such moral judges can measure against. Morality just doesn’t work wholly within a subject and bereft of third party perspective. Belief in God makes it easy to skip ontological questions about what is objective, what is true, and what is the moral law, but that is not the philosophical point - we still need a system of fixed truths and values to then apply them to individual actions in order to determine morality and talk about morality. How we come up with fixing those truths and what those truths are is why we fight (fraught with peril). But if you come to conclusion that there is no objective truth, playing moral games is always a loser, and incoherent.

What are people thinking when they do things we consider wrong — Joshs

Shouldn’t the atheist answer be, they are thinking like a fantasy, fictional novel writer? They make up contexts, make up players in that context, make up actions, throw in biology and psychology to claim some semblance of “science” or actual knowledge, pretend rules and laws and human speech can direct physics and human choices (as if we are not mechanistic followers of biological necessity), and call this “morality” until the next time when all variables may be thrown back up in the air where they belong and never actually left.

To the atheist, like Nietzsche, isn’t having a morality itself maybe the only possible immoral act? Because it’s an utter lie? To the atheist, shouldn’t the one moral choice we make be the choice to resist all moral judgment, particularly of our own impulses and actions? I think so. That is coherent.

not every Christian is so impoverished in their understanding as to simply reject anything not developed within their own social circle. — BenMcLean

That is the problem with most philosophical debates that incorporate God, even if by implication when referencing atheism. All “theists” as we are called are simple caricatures of whole human beings. To many atheist debaters, there is no such thing as rationally functioning, psychologically well-functioning, whole person once they are known to “believe in fairy tales”. Which is ironic here, because secular morality is precisely an attempt to make one’s private fairy tale something others need to treat like a hardened fact.

In my view, the question of morality does not necessarily (or initially) turn on whether God exists or not, but it does turn on whether objective truth, known by a free actor, exists or not. So maybe an atheistic morality can be developed, but I’ve never seen one that is based in any kind of convincing objectivity, let alone some kind of axiomatic, absolute truth. God is too simple a solution for a philosopher. But “doing the right thing” is too naive a phrase for a secular philosopher.