There is simply no secular basis for morality.

Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective. — Ram

What's a basis? Is it the same thing as saying that morality is objective? So that your second statement is a restatement of the first?

And why would a secular position entail necessary subjectivity? Why not simply say that a secular morality is subjective? What's the difference?


I don't think that atheists are quite as homogeneous as you believe. As if you could just read Sartre and then know what all consistent atheists should believe.

Okay, if you want to argue about semantics, you can argue about semantics. — Ram

Well, there's no point in arguing about semantics by myself. If the issue is semantic, then we could argue about it, or not. It does seem to be semantic, and it does seem to stem from the meaning of "real" in the context of morality. The first step towards some sort of a resolution, it seems to me, would be to clarify your meaning, which you haven't done in your reply, despite the opportunity I gave you. Under the assumption that you only consider objective morality to be real, then I'll just be clear that that's not a premise that I accept, at least without first being convinced of it.

Lots of snark, no substance. How often atheists are condescending without actually having any sort of justification for their condescension. They rely on that gimmick because they lack actual substance and need a smokescreen. — Ram

Speaking of a lack of substance, which part of the above quote addresses my point that subjectivity is the basis for subjective morality?

So I'm out to discredit a position by any means necessary? — Ram

You're surprised at that accusation? Have you seen those videos in your opening post? Talk about dirty tactics! Trying to make atheists appear guilty by association with incest? Real dignified. :clap:

That's no better than making Muslims appear guilty by association with terrorists.

And... pointing out the blatantly obvious- that moral relativism is not a basis for morality is by any means necessary?????? — Ram

Just because it might seem blatantly obvious to you, that doesn't mean that it is so. After all, you are a fervent Muslim, are you not? And I'm a nonreligious atheist. We have a very different set of beliefs. I'm not convinced by the kind of ludicrous claims that you're expected to swallow up as a follower of such a religion.

I mean if you want to deny the blatantly obvious and play a game about semantics, you can do that. If you want to consider moral relativism as a "basis" for morality... if your view of the word "basis" means that one can say "do whatever you want, there is no right or wrong" is a "basis" for morality.... it is what it is.... you're arguing about semantics rather than content. Your argument has no actual substance and you're not addressing any real issue, just harping on semantics like that's a substitute for real content. You are engaging in distraction from real substance rather than engaging in actual substance. — Ram

Again, you're only demonstrating your lack of understanding about what moral relativism entails. It does not entail, "Do whatever you want! There's no right or wrong!". But if you want to waste your time attacking a straw man, be my guest.

You should first understand what you're talking about before you attempt a criticism of it.

Again, you're only demonstrating your lack of understanding about what moral relativism entails. It does not entail, "Do whatever you want! There's no right or wrong!". — S

Actually, that's exactly what it entails.

Yes, I have a combative and critical style. Get over it. If your thoughts and justifications for religion can't withstand that kind of exposure, then they can't be of much worth, philosophically.
— S

If you think philosophical matters are best addressed combatively, then we must disagree. Discussion is a co-operative consideration of matters concerning (in this case) religion. It's not a fight (combat), or it shouldn't be if we hope to gain the most benefit from our discussions. — Pattern-chaser

Ah- now your logical gymnastics make sense. So apparently, it seems you are more interested in "winning" than in a dispassionate and objective search for truth. Such a person is pointless to talk to. I have no intention of responding to you any further.

What's a basis? Is it the same thing as saying that morality is objective? So that your second statement is a restatement of the first?

And why would a secular position entail necessary subjectivity? Why not simply say that a secular morality is subjective? What's the difference?


I don't think that atheists are quite as homogeneous as you believe. As if you could just read Sartre and then know what all consistent atheists should believe. — Moliere

What is a basis?

noun, plural ba·ses [bey-seez] /ˈbeɪ siz/.
1. the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.
2. anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.

I guess you can say moral relativism is a basis for "morality". It's not a basis for morality, though.

Morality is objective. Morality has to do with right and wrong. You cannot deny that there is right and wrong and have a basis for morality. There is no secular basis for morality. A person can degrade the definition of "basis" or degrade the definition of "morality" in a display of logical gymnastics if they like it is what it is.

Like I said- atheists don't want to deal with this directly. They want to dance around the issue and get into logical gymnastics. At the end of the day, they understand, though- even if they might not say it- if there is no God then everything is permissible. This is simply a fact.

People are taking a dishonest approach and denying what is blatantly obvious to any objective, unbiased analysis. Even Sartre understood. If you read Sartre- Sartre explained that he was merely out to follow atheism to its logical conclusions. So not all atheists might be Sartre readers- but atheism logically leads to moral relativism. And a person can try to dress moral relativism up all they want but the bottom line is that it means that people can do whatever they want.

This is from the diary of Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters: "I think, so the f*** what, you think thats a bad thing? just because your mommy and daddy told you blood and violence is bad, you think its a f***ing law of nature? wrong, only science and math are true, everything, and I mean everyfuckingthing else is man made."

All he did was follow moral relativism to its logical conclusion. If you really accept moral relativism, you can't say he was wrong. If you think or say he was wrong then you are denying that morality is relative and implying that morality is objective.

If someone thinks moral relativism is a basis for morality
they can say "you're an irrational Muslim!" all they want
but regardless of whether I'm Muslim, atheist, Hindu, whatever-
they are kidding themselves.

I don't think Nietzsche, Sartre or Foucalt were "fervent Muslims".

The only honest approach is for atheists to go the Postmodern route. Atheism logically leads to Postmodernism and moral relativism. That is the only honest approach from those premises.

People can try to go a different route and people can insult me and try to distract from what is blatantly obvious not only to Muslims but to any unbiased observer- but I have specified the only honest route.

Of course I am a Muslim but I am not engaging in any tortured logical gymnastics here. I am merely adding 1 + 1. It's the fervent atheists here who are engaging in tortured logical gynmnastics for the sake of their predetermined conclusions- really for the sake of PR. They can't just come out into the open about where their beliefs logically lead.

Unless atheists are up-front and honest and willing to follow premises to their logical conclusions rather than merely try to insult me, I don't think a real conversation can happen.

Does atheism necesitate people engaging in logical gymnastics and pretending denying the objective existence of morality is a basis for morality? At least Nietzsche had the spine to follow his premises to the logical conclusions. Hopefully an honest atheist appears and a real conversation can follow.

What is a basis?

noun, plural ba·ses [bey-seez] /ˈbeɪ siz/.
1. the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.
2. anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork. — Ram

I'm guessing that you're not referencing the first definition, because that's just silly.

But if it's the latter then it seems to me that all we need is a single example of a moral theory that is objective, and secular, to counter what you're saying.

By objective you seem to mean...

Morality has to do with right and wrong. You cannot deny that there is right and wrong and have a basis for morality. — Ram

So we must have some fundamental principle of morality that is both secular, and believes there is a right and a wrong -- we might say something akin to the way we know that 1 and 1 make 2, regardless of our belief, we can also know that there are moral propositions which are true regardless of what we believe about them. If we had a theory that fit both of those requirements then it would seem that we could conclude that it is at least not necessarily the case that secular beliefs imply subjective morality.

Yes or no?


I am not degrading you or asking my questions rhetorically. I'm laying a groundwork for meaningful disagreement. I surely disagree with your assertion, but that's neither here nor there. Disagreement isn't interesting unto itself -- else you just end up re-asserting what you already believe in increasingly strong tones.

What's interesting is how and why we disagree -- hence why I'm asking questions about what are seemingly simple words. But usually they are not so simple or innocuous as they might seem at first blush.

Again, you're only demonstrating your lack of understanding about what moral relativism entails. It does not entail, "Do whatever you want! There's no right or wrong!". — S

Actually, that's exactly what it entails. — Ram

That's not an argument. But, anyway, let's skip ahead to why you're wrong, shall we?

Moral relativism entails that morals are relative. That doesn't mean that there are no morals. It means that, relative to so-and-so, it's right to do this, and it's wrong to do that. Therefore, moral relativism does not entail that there is no right or wrong, only that what is right or wrong is relative. (The clue is in the name).

Just semantics, again? Hardly. More like using terms correctly and not in a misleading way which suits your agenda.

I suspect that your confusion arises as a result of interpreting right or wrong in a blinkered way, so that whenever you look for right or wrong, you look only for objective right or wrong, and when you don't find objective right or wrong in a place where it shouldn't even be for obvious reasons, you rashly conclude that there is no right or wrong there.

Also, because moral relativism entails that morals are relative, it doesn't follow that moral relativism entails that you can do whatever you want. On the contrary, if that were the case, then it wouldn't be relativism, but a kind of absolutism. There would be absolutely no morals to adhere to at all, instead of there being a variety of morals associated with various cultures, individuals, and groups. That's a gross misunderstanding. In reality, for example, relative to the culture of the United Kingdom, as in other places, it is not considered acceptable to do whatever you want. It is not considered acceptable to rob an old lady, bomb a school, or a rape a baby. Very much the contrary to, "anything is permissible".

Ah- now your logical gymnastics make sense. So apparently, it seems you are more interested in "winning" than in a dispassionate and objective search for truth. Such a person is pointless to talk to. I have no intention of responding to you any further. — Ram

You can't derive that from what you quoted of me. That is just speculation, and speculation which you're now using as a pretext to avoid having to back up your unsupported claims. But I understand why you'd do that, given that your position is untenable.

Fortunately, I don't depend on you continuing to reply to me in order for me to refute what you've already said.

So we must have some fundamental principle of morality that is both secular, and believes there is a right and a wrong -- we might say something akin to the way we know that 1 and 1 make 2, regardless of our belief, we can also know that there are moral propositions which are true regardless of what we believe about them. If we had a theory that fit both of those requirements then it would seem that we could conclude that it is at least not necessarily the case that secular beliefs imply subjective morality.

Yes or no?


I am not degrading you or asking my questions rhetorically. I'm laying a groundwork for meaningful disagreement. I surely disagree with your assertion, but that's neither here nor there. Disagreement isn't interesting unto itself -- else you just end up re-asserting what you already believe in increasingly strong tones.

What's interesting is how and why we disagree -- hence why I'm asking questions about what are seemingly simple words. But usually they are not so simple or innocuous as they might seem at first blush. — Moliere

I'm fine with discussing with you and I enjoy it. You're free to your own beliefs and I'm fine with disagreement as long as it's respectful. I try to be respectful as well. It's about ideas, not people.

Now as far as definition- yes I was going more with the second definition which was presented.

Now as far as what I've quoted from you... "we must have some fundamental principle of morality that is both secular and believes there is a right and a wrong".

I don't agree with that. Now I do respect that there are atheists who try to preserve morality.

However, such atheists are on an insecure foundation. Morality has to have a solid foundation.

I think atheism necessarily implies moral relativism. I am a Muslim but I am also a theist (specifically a monotheist).

According to Islam, sovereignty belongs to God. Allah is Al-Malik- sovereignty belongs to Allah. I think this flows logically from monotheism.

I think the essence of morality is submission to Allah. Allah commands what is just, what is good.

I think your post implies that the Euthyphro dilemma has already been answered and that there is some Good which is independent of Allah. Is that which is just, just because Allah commands it? Or Allah commands it because it is just?

I think what is just is what Allah commands. I don't think "just" or "good" should be conceived as independent of or prior to God. I don't like that at all.

I don't believe there is some Good independent of Allah. Submission to Allah is I believe the basis of morality.

I will give an example. The sun comes out in the morning and lights the earth. Imagine if the sun was to rebel against God! What if the sun told God "I don't want to get up" and refused to rise and light the earth. It would be chaos!

What if the rain said "I don't want to come down to earth and bring water upon earth. I am going to stay here in this cozy cloud"? It would be chaos.

Because Allah is All-Knowing and All-Wise and because Allah is Just and Good and because Allah is Allah... we must submit to Allah. The sun submits to Allah by rising in the morning. Our shadows prostrate to Allah. I think the rain submits to Allah by coming on to the earth and watering the earth- so plants can grow, for example. I think the essence of good is submitting to Allah and the essence of evil is being like Iblees and refusing to submit to Allah and rebelling against Allah.

Thus, by rising and setting at its appointed time I think the sun submits to Allah and I think pretty much everything submits to Allah. Imagine if the earth or the sun moved a little in one direction or the other. If they moved a little further apart, earth would become frozen. If they moved a little closer, we would melt. Therefore there is a natural order and we need to play our role by submitting to our Creator.

This is why, for example, it is wrong for people to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse. It goes against our Creator. Allah gave us free will but Allah wants us to wait until marriage. However, we have free will. This makes us different than the angels- who serve Allah but who don't have free will.

So therefore the premise that there is some independent Good existing independent of Allah I do not believe. Allah knows best. Allah is our Creator. We should obey Allah. Just as the sun rises in the morning, the earth keeps a certain distance from a sun, we have to play our role. This is good. When we disobey Allah and when we go against what is the natural, innate law is when things go bad.

So obviously, I am thinking from different premises than you- or at least maybe so. I already am a believer in the premise that there is a God. Maybe you are thinking from another premise.

However, I do not agree that morality is secular. I don't believe reality is secular. I don't think from a secular perspective nor do I think from the perspective of the so-called "Enlightenment" which I oppose.

I think you are presupposing that the Euthyphro dilemma has already been answered and that it has been answered in a certain direction. However, I think we have different responses to the Euthyphro dilemma and I don't think our premises lead in the same direction. If my premise is theism and your premise is atheism, these premises lead in very different directions.

There is no secular basis for morality. There is no secular basis even for presupposing the validity of morality itself. From a secular perspective, there is no basis for accepting morality as an end at all.

Atheism leads to moral relativism. Now from a moral relativist perspective, a person is free to do as they like and they can construct an elaborate system of morality if they like- but this whole elaborate system of morality is merely an extension of them doing what they like.

Furthermore, an arbitrary morality which is meant as a replacement for the morality of Christianity or Islam has an extremely weak basis. Morality is tested when times are hard. It is therefore necessary that morality has a firm basis which can withstand tests. A morality with a weak basis will be blown away when the wind blows.

I think I misinterpreted your first sentence but I leave this for now. I thought you were saying there is a secular morality. I think I understand now. Okay.

Now if we accept that atheism necesarily leads to moral relativism and we from that position construct an elaborate system of morality so as to fill a gap which is left empty without religion- obviously, we haven't disproven my thesis that atheism necessarily leads to moral relativism. I think you would need to both come up with some system of morality which is secular and which is not relative. However, I do not believe this is possible. I do not believe that you can demonstrate the validity of a secular system of morality- or even secular morality at all- in the same way as you can demonstrate a math problem. From a secular perspective, there is no reason why one should even accept morality as an end at all. There would be no reason not to follow Nietzsche in simply dispensing with morality. If you can demonstrate an objective, secular morality which disproves moral relativism that you can demonstrate like math or science- I would like to see it.

You still haven't answer my suggestion that convention or agreement in a given group is the basis for a non-objective morality. It isn't necessary that everybody literally agrees with it, it's enough that most do, tacit or explict, or that this happens via representation...

To take your example, it doesn't matter that the Columbine Shooters personally believed that what they did was not immoral. They would be put into jail anyway, not because God ordained it, but because (the large majority of) people collectively agree on the rule that murder is wrong.

Now if we accept that atheism necesarily leads to moral relativism and we from that position construct an elaborate system of morality so as to fill a gap which is left empty without religion- obviously, we haven't disproven my thesis that atheism necessarily leads to moral relativism. I think you would need to both come up with some system of morality which is secular and which is not relative. However, I do not believe this is possible. I do not believe that you can demonstrate the validity of a secular system of morality- or even secular morality at all- in the same way as you can demonstrate a math problem. From a secular perspective, there is no reason why one should even accept morality as an end at all. There would be no reason not to follow Nietzsche in simply dispensing with morality. If you can demonstrate an objective, secular morality which disproves moral relativism that you can demonstrate like math or science- I would like to see it. — Ram

Well, it really depends on what you want from a demonstration I think. I believe I have a hint at what you're wanting from a moral system when you say . . .

Morality is tested when times are hard. It is therefore necessary that morality has a firm basis which can withstand tests. A morality with a weak basis will be blown away when the wind blows. — Ram

There are clearly atheists who believe they have such a basis. Moral realism is a position which at least a plurality of atheists hold. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I've come across it enough to see that there are those who believe as much. In fact I'd say that as long as there exists a person who believes two things to be true they'd count -- as long as there exists a person who believes God does not exist, and believes that at least one statement is both a moral statement and true, then I'd be inclined to say that it's at least possible to hold both beliefs.

But you want a demonstration, and not just an example. And you're interested in not just consistency, but whether or not the foundational principle of morality is strong, rather than weak.

Am I right so far?

If so -- it'd be helpful to hash out what counts as a demonstration, what makes a moral foundational principle strong rather than weak, and how what you currently believe actually fits those criteria in a way that does not assume its conclusion.

Because if submitting to Allah is good because submitting to Allah is good then clearly no atheist will be able to meet that criteria, but it will also just sort of assume the belief from the outset in a way that rational disagreement or discussion couldn't take place.

You still haven't answer my suggestion that convention or agreement in a given group is the basis for a non-objective morality. It isn't necessary that everybody literally agrees with it, it's enough that most do, tacit or explict, or that this happens via representation...

To take your example, it doesn't matter that the Columbine Shooters personally believed that what they did was not immoral. They would be put into jail anyway, not because God ordained it, but because (the large majority of) people collectively agree on the rule that murder is wrong. — ChatteringMonkey

That's interesting that you bring that up. The Quran actually addresses that in Surah Al Kahf. It's also a theme which runs throughout the Quran.

In Surah Al Kahf, this rich, impious man mocks a pious man who has less. The rich man has more in terms of wealth, children and followers among the people. However, in the end God rewards the pious man and punishes the rich man. It's an interesting story. I hope you read it sometime.

At the time the Quran was revealed, it was a common practice that people would bury their infant daughters. The Quran forbade this. If the majority thinks it's okay to bury your infant daughter, is it wrong to tell people not to bury their infant daughters?

There are clearly atheists who believe they have such a basis. Moral realism is a position which at least a plurality of atheists hold. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I've come across it enough to see that there are those who believe as much. In fact I'd say that as long as there exists a person who believes two things to be true they'd count -- as long as there exists a person who believes God does not exist, and believes that at least one statement is both a moral statement and true, then I'd be inclined to say that it's at least possible to hold both beliefs.

But you want a demonstration, and not just an example. And you're interested in not just consistency, but whether or not the foundational principle of morality is strong, rather than weak.

Am I right so far?

If so -- it'd be helpful to hash out what counts as a demonstration, what makes a moral foundational principle strong rather than weak, and how what you currently believe actually fits those criteria in a way that does not assume its conclusion.

Because if submitting to Allah is good because submitting to Allah is good then clearly no atheist will be able to meet that criteria, but it will also just sort of assume the belief from the outset in a way that rational disagreement or discussion couldn't take place. — Moliere

Okay. Hmm. Glad to be talking to someone interesting.

I don't deny that there are atheists who believe in objective morality- in moral realism. I deny that they are being consistent, though. I think they are sentimental people who are willing to accept atheism but unwilling to accept what it entails.

Well I mean Christianity tells it somewhat differently but Islam and Christianity both talk about how Iblees (Satan) rebelled against God.

I mean so humans can follow the path of Iblees and join in his rebellion- or submit to God. Imagine if the sun or the earth behaved like Iblees and rebelled against God. If the sun or the earth moved slightly in the wrong direction, chaos would ensue.

We have to live in harmony with the natural law.

Now as far as what makes for a good foundation- if we accept a set of rules come from God- that's a good foundation. If the rules were made up by... some dude... I am also some dude... if he just made stuff up, I can make stuff up too. I mean so for me Islam is a good foundation because it comes from God. I think that is a good foundation. I don't know of any other foundation for morality. What other foundation for morality can there be? I'm aware that there are atheists who are... sometimes even rather dogmatic... believers in objective morality (SJW extremists who try to terrorize anyone who thinks differently are a sort of extreme example).... however, I think they are inconsistent and that whatever morality they try to pretend is objective is something someone made up. Either we accept that morals come from God or we have to accept that morality itself is something made up, I think.

At the time the Quran was revealed, it was a common practice that people would bury their infant daughters. The Quran forbade this. If the majority thinks it's okay to bury your infant daughter, is it wrong to tell people not to bury their infant daughters? — Ram

From an atheistic perspective, I wouldn't say it's wrong to tell people not to bury their infant daughters, it would just not be a moral rule if the majority disagreed... and people would ignore it.

Of course some people will have more (moral) influence (and power) then others, and may change peoples minds on that issue. Like Jesus or Mohammed did, from a atheist perspective that is.

And to answer more generally, as to the basis of non-objective morality, you just have think of sports, any sport will do. People invent the rules, yet everybody playing the sport follows them. That's because a system of enforcement and arbitration is put into place. People follow the rules ultimately because they will be punished/penalized otherwise.

The same basicly holds for secular morality.

The flaw with any religion or individual claiming a moral basis that applies to a group is obviously evident when you understand how a human experiences 'life'.

Your body gathers raw input through its senses which your subconscious translates into concepts using the knowledge and experience you have available. You are only aware of the end product, the subconciously translated concepts, not the raw input.

When you discuss Islam, you discuss your own personal understanding of it which is derived from fundamental aspects such as your society and family culture, your language and all sorts of experiences you've had. That knowledge is from where? Your teachers taught you based on their understanding which was taught to them by others and so on. The very religous texts your belief is based on was written in a culture which no longer exists in that exact form and is translated by other humans using their own understanding to decide the correct wording.

If you follow this to its inevitable conclusion, you end up in a place where each individual lives according to their current understanding of the universe and everything in it. No two individuals understanding of a religion or its moral code is going to be exactly the same. And that understanding is subject to change every second you experience life unless you go to great lengths to isolate yourself from anything new or different.

Hence why religions in general always include some form of isolation policy.

You think atheists who are moral realists are not consistent -- but the only reason you give here is that because moral realism can only come from God. That is just begging the question in favor of your position -- that it is whatever God happens to say that makes something good or not. That's not a demonstration of inconsistency, that's a statement of implausibility: you find it difficult to believe that it's possible. But, at least logically speaking -- meaning the three basic rules of logic -- there is nothing logically inconsistent about the belief that God does not exist, and there is some moral statement that is true.

So logical necessity isn't at play. So far all that I can see from you is that as long as something comes from God, then it is good.

But why should I believe that? Why should you? What supports this belief?

So far it just seems like you're asserting it over and over again. So it would seem nothing supports this belief. It's just something you happen to believe. Which, from an outside perspective like my own, who does not accept this belief just because you said it, appears to be much like the belief of some dude making stuff up.

After all, it may be good to accept what God says. But surely it is possible that some dude just made that up. At the very least, if Allah is the one and true God, then there are religions that exist which amount to much the same thing -- since they do not submit to Allah, they submit to another God, clearly they are just following what some dude made up one time, rather than submitting to Allah.

What gives your belief more credence than what someone else is making up? Why should anyone accept it at all?

Knowledge of right and wrong are innate. Humans are born knowing right and wrong.
...
As far as defining morality.... I would say morality is "right and wrong". — Ram

Atheists are human and according to your beliefs humans have an innate moral base. Problem solved. :smile:

Another way to put what I'm getting at --


If all you have is assertion P -- that whatever Allah says is good -- then that's not much different from assertion Q -- that there are some true moral statements. Where you say "What if the sun and the moon were to not follow the will of Allah", another person could say "What if the sun and the moon were not to follow the laws of nature?"

The answer being -- all would be chaos.


So we can say that both positions meet this bare minimum threshold for being accepted as believed -- all you have to do is tell a story about your beliefs that ensures that everything would not fall into chaos, and repeat the foundational principle over and over again.

But, in fact, almost any position would meet this bare minimum threshold -- in which case it's not really all that different from saying that everyone can do whatever they want.

Is there anything in your belief that we should submit to Allah that makes it something more than what Ram wants? If you say Allah, then I'd submit that this isn't very convincing, at least -- not anymore convincing than the atheist who says he can be good without God in some sort of objective way without saying much more than that other than repeating himself. In which case, from my perspective at least, you're applying different standards to different claims and asking more from the atheist than what you ask from yourself.

With all due respect for my fellow atheists here, I don't think you are helping the argument.

Moral realism, innate morality etc... is no real justification for morality. All i have to say to you is, like he's been saying all along, I feel/think differently, and we are back at moral relativism. Why should I put my moral beliefs aside for yours?

There is no objective morality without god, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

There is no objective morality with God, either, from what I can tell.

If you believe in God there can be... it brings a teleological element into the picture.

If you believe there is no God, you could believe that there is a teleological element to the universe, if that's all that's required to establish objective morality. It's not logically inconsistent, at least.

You could, say, observe that the universe is naturally ordered, and so there is a fair inference to say that the universe has a kind of telos to which it is going -- naturally. There's nothing inconsistent in this. You could follow Aristotle, in some way, and say that the human being has a natural telos which it should fulfill, and that this way of living is what ethics consists in, and is also independent of what an individual happens to believe. A person may happen to believe that drinking every day is good for them, but their telos wouldn't change because of that.

That's my point. If you put aside your morals for his, they'll be similar but not identical. Speaking in general it's easy to say 'do not steal'. But the practical application of those morals are much more complex and only the individual can 'act' based on those beliefs which is the true form of morals.

Yeah but such a teleological element doesn't inform us about the details like say the word of God does.

I also believe that we are not blank slates, and that there is some telos to human beings, but it's not detailed enough for an applicable moral code. We do have innate moral feeling etc... but we can take those in different directions when it comes to the details, it seems to me.

Given the diversity of sects within particular religions, and how they develop through time, I'd say that even with an explicit set of instructions we can go in different directions when it comes to details.

You do make a good point... still the word of god is a little bit more detailed, even if not enough, then innate moral feelings.

That's probably true, but they all can believe their particular version comes from God, making is justified objectively in their view.

And an athiest can believe that a human being has evolved to fulfill a particular role, making it justified objectively in their view. It appears objective to the person who holds to belief, whether it is objective or not, just as in the case of the theist.

I think if you apply the same standards to either belief you'll largely end up with the same outcome -- if one standard yields an objective morality for theism, it will probably do the same for atheism.

More detailed, yes but never definitive except within the mind of the individual who chooses that a particular moral code is absolute. Belief that it comes from God is a supportive belief made by the individual. As you rightly point out, it can not be proven or dis-proven, just accepted or rejected as a concept

Maybe, though it would seem a bit of a strange atheist to me... rejecting revelation and being sceptic on the one hand, and having a sort of faith on the other.

And how does he deal with the naturalistic fallacy... even if we are evolved to behave a certain way, does that necessarily mean we should? I mean should we start living in tribes again for instance?

The key concept behind religion and moral code is a choice by the individual to accept them. Bit this decision is not a once off deal. Every relevant bit of data causes a reassessment and new decision.

Every decision to accept builds on the original belief, possibly strengthening and subtly changing it

Well, it seems a bit strange to me whenever a human claims to know what God wants of not just themself, but of everyone -- but alas it's not logically inconsistent.

I'd say that the naturalistic fallacy is just as damaging to the theists case as it is to the atheists case -- or, at least, the open-question argument from which said fallacy derives. So before we were appealing to teleology to make a case for objective morality, right? But does it not make sense to ask "Is this end-goal good?"

And if it does make sense, then goodness must be something other than teleology, whether said teleology is rooted in evolutionary biology and psychology or whether that teleology is rooted in God.


On the other hand, Casebeer has an interesting take on the naturalistic fallacy and the open-question argument. I don't agree with it, but it is a kind of scientific response to your question that's worth reading.