I am not a theist but you clearly have your prejudices towards them and seem to assume I was one with no evidence. — Andrew4Handel

Some evidence; circumstantial; I can't absolutely prove my case. So I will respectfully bow out and let you and whoever wants to, speculate as to what all atheists think and why.

It took humans thousands of years to start understanding reality.

The notion is that we eventually uncover the correct morality which we discover is implanted by the gods or God.

Some people believe we already have god given moral intuitions and that we are just not following them correctly. — Andrew4Handel

Unconvincing (to me). Why would the creator not provide creation with clear unambiguous guidance from the start, to not only make its intentions clear but prevent suffering? Having us slide into wisdom so gradually across the millennia just seems absurd, not to mention cruel. Seems to me that as story telling creatures, we will always invent a narrative to try and provide transcendent meaning.

Of course who says god/s have anything to do with morality. If we are theists how do we know or demonstrate that morality comes from god?

Nihilism is not a good place to be. — Andrew4Handel

Some people find it so daunting and scary they can't even think about it without 'fleeing into the arms of Jesus'. Given that humans are scared little apes, it seems hardly surprising that we seek solace and protection in religions/politics/sport/drugs.

I am someone who left a religious cult — Andrew4Handel

You have my sympathy. I imagine it is a tough road full of terror and presuppositions to overcome and understand. But also rewards and peace. Best of luck.

What makes these "moral issues" instead of political issues?

What I'm trying to get at is what you mean by "moral" or "ethical" because that's where I suspect much of your (or my) confusion lies. — 180 Proof

Morality as in a system of behaviour we expect ourselves and others to follow as if compelled.

I am not pro or anti abortion. I am man so can't have one anyway but I would like to know the answer of whether it is an correct action.

I would like to know what constitues theft and whether it is wrong. Is property theft? Is Capitalism immoral and indefensible is communism likewise?

Is the Government behaving ethically? Do I have any moral obligations? Is punishment justified? How should I treat other people? Is there a best way to live my life. Should I care about my health. Are suicide and assisted suicide right or wrong? And so on.

These questions so far have no answers. So whenever I act on a moral compulsion it is a leap of faith.

We are trying to understand ourselves in the process of that we explore our character in different ways and our limitations and capacities.

Religions have inspired art works and architecture and social systems. People have raised the question of what would existed if religion and beliefs in gods didn't exist.

as I said in a previous post

Science does seem to have to take the position that reality makes sense, is coherent, has laws and responds to human reason.
— Andrew4Handel

We are trying to explain the world under a set of beliefs an assumptions. Some things are explained like the human body and its mechanisms as having a purpose. We don't just accept chaos we believe for some reason in some kind of underlying order.

What reasons would we have believe reality was rational, law driven and explicable prior to religion? — Andrew4Handel

This is all fine and good... but nowhere in this post is an answer to my question, of how theism is explanatory given that explanations account for things we don't know or understand in terms of things we do. Do we know and understand God, and know and understand precisely how God accomplishes things (e.g. creating the world, answering prayers, causing miracles, and so forth)?

Or is it not the case that, according to theists, God's nature and means wholly exceed human comprehension?

Unconvincing (to me). Why would the creator not provide creation with clear unambiguous guidance from the start, to not only make its intentions clear but prevent suffering? Having us slide into wisdom so gradually across the millennia just seems absurd, not to mention cruel — Tom Storm

The religious stance I was brought up on was That Humans are inherently sinful and failing.
We do know the right answer but are disobedient and sinful.
It is like now we have thousands of laws and many people break them and we have high crime rates.

My contention here is that if humans can design morals systems why can't gods?

It does not seem they have and I am not arguing for that. I am arguing for the coherence of a god playing the same intelligent role a human does.

Parents play God creating a new life and choosing this reality for their offspring. Even if a god started creation I don't think he or she or it could be blamed for an intelligent human beings decision to chose this world for their child.

If humans invented religion they are to blame for that and religious atrocities like the inquisition and witch hunts, they are to blame for communist and fascist atrocities and world wars and genocide.

I can't blame a god for anything at this moment I can blame human for things so to me if a god turned out to exist it would not be worse than what we are already stuck with.

I believe there is evidence of atheists literally blaming a god for human failings even whilst claiming one doesn't exist and pushing the idea that without god and religion (despite copious counter evidence) we suddenly become rational and moral.

Exactly. Aliens with vastly superior technology and inscrutable motives are explanatory in precisely the same way that God/theism is explanatory. Which is to say, they are not. Either/both is always and necessarily going to be just as (if not more) poorly understood as whatever they're being invoked to explain in any given instance.

believe there is evidence of atheists literally blaming a god for human failings even whilst claiming one doesn't exist and pushing the idea that without god and religion (despite copious counter evidence) we suddenly become rational and moral. — Andrew4Handel

Of course it looks that way because atheism - especially in America - is dealing with literalist apologetics and has become stuck in the refutation of hypothetical theisms. Most Christian fundamentalist views make god look like a cunt.

My contention here is that if humans can design morals systems why can't gods? — Andrew4Handel

Sure, but why not aliens? You can keep the list of suspects coming, or does 'the magic man' theory help the buck stop somewhere in a way aliens do not?

Do we know and understand God, and know and understand precisely how God accomplishes things (e.g. creating the world, answering prayers, causing miracles, and so forth). — busycuttingcrap

I am saying we just need to believe the world makes sense and then ask why it makes sense and has laws and coherency.

It is like Paley's watch maker. We know watches and computers and stuff are made by humans. To give a complete causal explanation of a watch or computer we would have to explain their entire history of development and human mental states. What thought processes the first watch maker was having etc.

My basic position is that I could accept it if it turned out there was a creator deity behind reality and it could explain things like laws physics otherwise, moral intuition, mental representation and structure.

One thing In do believe is that morality cannot survive in a purely physical, design free world where we are just an another animal. — Andrew4Handel

Unless morality is adaptive. Which is exactly what many scholars think is the case. So not only can morality survive in a "purely physical, design free world", its entirely possible, even probable, that the reason morality exists at all is because it helped contribute to survival.

Sure, but why not aliens? You can keep the list of suspects coming, or does 'the magic man' theory help the buck stop somewhere in a way aliens do not? — Tom Storm

Because like I said a deity would have extended versions of powers humans possess. We have done a remarkable job of exploring and explaining and creating so do you believe we are the highest intelligence and have the final say? or do you believe there are more intelligent alien species?

I am saying we just need to believe the world makes sense and then ask why it makes sense and has laws and coherency. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, but I'm focusing on a very specific question here: is theism explanatory? Does invoking God actually explain anything?

And since explanations by their very nature analyze and account for things we don't know or understand in terms of things we do, in order to say that theism is explanatory, we have to claim to know and understand what God is and how he works. But no theist is going to agree to that, being beyond human comprehension is a pretty basic presupposition for virtually all extent theistic traditions. But that means theism isn't explanatory (and so, for instance, cannot explain "why the word makes sense"). It might be comforting, beneficial, or even true (though I highly doubt it), but not explanatory.

Unless morality is adaptive. Which is exactly what many scholars think is the case. So not only can morality survive in a "purely physical, design free world", its entirely possible, even probable, that the reason morality exists at all is because it helped contribute to survival. — busycuttingcrap

Just because something survives doesn't mean it is adaptive but nevertheless by that standard religion has been more popular than atheism and has encouraged mandatory procreation
has condemned other forms of sex and given people motivation to carry on against the odds so it could also be described as favourable and adaptive.

But it would the naturalistic fallacy to say something was good just because it occurred in nature. I can't see any reason why humans must carry on and person don't have children or favour other people having them. I find moral calculations condemn a lot of human behaviour including procreation.

I am concerned with the truth and making up systems on false premises to me is nihilistic.

I am concerned with the truth and making up systems on false premises to me is nihilistic. — Andrew4Handel

Agreed, like theistic religions, based on imaginary deities (i.e. fictions), which are nihilistic.

Morality as in a system of behaviour we expect ourselves and others to follow as if compelled. — Andrew4Handel

This is more like "Law" – permissible public conduct / practices – than the three predominant moral concepts of virtue ethics, utilitarianism or deontology, all of which begin with the idea of well-being (i.e. happiness) and none of which are practiced "as if compelled".

As I said, the "prominent issues" you've mentioned are neither "moral" per se nor "unresolved" but rather political-juridical (i.e.policy); they are resolved differently in different societies as practical compromises of the moment by the relevant, competing interests, and to the degree these resolutions mostly produce peaceful compliance they suffice.

These questions so far have no answers.

I'm afraid like the rest of your post, Andrew, "these questions" are quite confused.

Most Christian fundamentalist views make god look like a cunt. — Tom Storm

:halo: :up:

:100:

Science does seem to have to take the position that reality makes sense, is coherent, has laws and responds to human reason. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, this is a good way to characterize the dawn of modern science in the era of Galileo and Newton. But there has to be more to it than this , doesn't there? Because Enlightenment scientists believed in God. I would argue that they had to. Their understanding of the metaphysical underpinnings of scientific rationality implied a divine source. Only when reason and ‘laws of nature’ became relativized after Darwin, Marx and Freud could atheism begin to make sense. In other words , sciences of pure reason( like 18th and 19th century physics) require a God. Sciences ( evolution, ethnology, quantum physics, psychoanalysis) which put reason’s command of itself into question unravel the coherence of God.

I have no commitment to aliens existing. And the notion of highest intelligence is a human construct which for me doesn't carry much more than a poetic meaning.

Just because something survives doesn't mean it is adaptive but nevertheless by that standard religion has been more popular than atheism and has encouraged mandatory procreation has condemned other forms of sex and given people motivation to carry on against the odds so it could also be described as favourable and adaptive. — Andrew4Handel

That's correct. And that's not why anyone thinks morality is adaptive. People who think morality was adaptive/evolved generally do so because it is potentially advantageous in the relevant evolutionary sense (i.e. increases reproductive fitness), and because non-human animals (including/especially primates) exhibit various stages of moral behaviors (e.g. mutual cooperation/reciprocal altruism), among other reasons. Further reading, if interested:

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0167-7
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origins-of-human-morality/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

(And as it happens, many people also think that religion is adaptive as well, and very possibly is connected to the evolution of morality)

But it would the naturalistic fallacy to say something was good just because it occurred in nature — Andrew4Handel

Indeed. But no one said that something was good just because it occurred in nature. You said that you can't imagine morality surviving in a purely physical design-free world, and I pointed out a mechanism by which morality could exist in a purely physical, design-free world: evolution.

:up: :up:

I have partial recovered and become an agnostic not trusting any human absolutes. — Andrew4Handel

I'm an atheist and don't trust in any absolutes period. I think any notions of 'absolute truth' are just remnants of Greek philosophy (idealism) which infiltrated Christianity. For many former believers, this notion of an absolute truth or transcendent value is the last thing to be left behind. It is also a kind of trap door which can lead people back to theism.

In mathematics, an infinite regression can be thought of as an infinite composition of the form
$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{\mathop{\Re }}}\,{{f}_{k}}(z)={{f}_{1}}\circ {{f}_{2}}\circ \cdots \circ {{f}_{n}}(z)$ in which evaluation is by backward recursion and n can be as large as one wishes.

This is a causal chain that may ultimately have little to do with the "original" value or values of z occuring in the distant past. So, a specific first cause may be unnecessary for a current situation.

Theology botches it all up, IMO.

:cool:

Indeed. But no one said that something was good just because it occurred in nature. You said that you can't imagine morality surviving in a purely physical design-free world, and I pointed out a mechanism by which morality could exist in a purely physical, design-free world: evolution. — busycuttingcrap

What I don't think survives in morality is truth value. My notion of morality is not just rules humans invent for various reasons but the notion of moral ought's.

I can't know whether my actions are morally correct or meaningful. I can read the article "Morality and Evolutionary Biology" and comment on it if you like but I need to know how to act now and not after reading the numerous tomes of moral argument.

Humans exhibit a wide range of behaviour we have recently had two world wars, genocides and communist atrocities. In the past we had slavery among other things. All these behaviours altruistic and extremely harmful have coexisted happily.

I don't see the point of a system that allows these behaviours to coexist in equal measure ad infinitum.

I think if you want to be rid of an intelligent creator God type thing than you have to be prepared to explain everything without reference to it.

For example we can do away with Father Christmas because we know our parents brought us our Christmas presents. But if our Christmas presents appeared and no one took credit for them we would need to find out where they came from.

Likewise if you came across a watch and decided humans didn't create it you would then have watch existing for no reason or you would have to give an explanation for the watches creation that didn't invoke humans. This would obviously be very hard.

I left my family religion at 17 after a traumatic time but I didn't think everything suddenly made sense. I used to think a created world made sense with a designer and purpose, then the first question I asked myself is why does anything exist? What am I doing here? To me the brute existence of reality was inexplicable.

Leaving religion freed me from religious dogma and hypocrisy, abuse etc but it didn't answer any questions. I appreciate the question why is there something? The existence of even just only one atom would raise questions for me. if things can appear for nor reason then causality breaks down and reality makes no sense.

Leaving religion freed me from religious dogma and hypocrisy, abuse etc but it didn't answer any questions. I appreciate the question why is there something? The existence of even just only one atom would raise questions for me. if things can appear for nor reason then causality breaks down and reality makes no sense. — Andrew4Handel

You wouldn't be only one who thinks this. I suspect most metaphysical questions are likely to be unanswerable and often don't even make sense outside of a human frame of reference and values. A question like Why is there a universe? is of little interest to me and I suspect people who have grown up with fundamentalist religions, where everything around them is imbued with deliberate meaning, are probably left with a thirst for transcendence which is hard to quench.

The problem with the explanations of theism is their lack of predictive power, instead merely taking something already known and offering a reason for it. Narrativising, characterising and explaining something one already knows happened doesn't come under any stress unless it's identifying a pattern that should repeat. If the logic for why that thing happened is accurately described, it should not only be true in one isolated incident, it should be repeatable.

Theism can offer many explanations for things, but these explanations cannot accuratelypredict outcomes. For hundreds of years, theistic religions have been forced to give up various explanations as they were proven incorrect. Still, there are things such as "where did the universe come from?" but again, notice that the universe's existence is already known to us, and it's that fact that makes offering any number of explanations possible.

Theism can offer explanations for things where science can't, it's just that those explanations exist in environments where they can go untested. If you already know the outcome, it's easy to offer with absolute confidence all kinds of explanations for why. You see the same thing with commentators in all kinds of fields, it's not because it's "obvious in hindsight", but because the explanation exists in a place where it's safe from having its validity tested.

Once something has already happened the theists can rush in to explain why it happened, but it's not the same as a scientist who can repeat their experiments with accuracy. Scientific understanding can be used to make predictions in the real world, and scientific understanding becomes invalidated when those predictions fail. It's truly difficult and challenging to have a correct explanation that can survive rigorous testing, especially in cases where there's only one correct answer.

A madman can explain why his delusions are real, an egomaniac can explain why they're god's gift to Earth, and whatever else. What good is an explanation by itself? Where's the value? What does it matter if theism can explain something or not? From reading your OP, I'd argue you already understood this and so I'm probably just saying the same thing as you.

The problem with the explanations of theism is their lack of predictive power ... — Judaka

:100:

To me the brute existence of reality was inexplicable. — Andrew4Handel

Yeah, like "the brute existence" of g/G ...

... if things can appear for no reason then causality breaks down and reality makes no sense.

Keep in mind these few bon mots while reading what follows:

The only answer to the ultimate Why-question which does not beg the question is that there is no ultimate Why.

In other words, there is no sufficient reason for 'the principle of sufficient reason'.

And so "why there is something rather than nothing" must be because nothing stops something from happening. — excerpts from Proofs by 180 Proof

Besides, Andrew, why must reality as whole "make sense" to us when, in fact, we can make sense only of tiny parts of reality, proximately, in order to survive and thrive in our daily lives? We swin and sail and fish the oceans without ever reaching the deepest ocean floor, so what practical or existential difference can getting to the very bottom of it make to us?

Gaps in our knowledge or understanding do not contradict what we actually know or understand – we learn more, make better sense, by acknowledging what we do not know – without filling-in those gaps with "gods" – than what we think we know. Does the lack of a greatest number entail that the real numbers "make no sense"? Of course not. Reality makes limited sense to limited minds like ours; as Zapffe/Camus point out, we become absurd whenever we deny or ignore the (human) limits of reason.

Not satisfying? Not comforting? Not ultimately meaningful?

:death: :flower:

Certainly, if morality is natural and adaptive and not God-given then moral norms/judgments don't have the sort of grand cosmic seal-of-approval they otherwise would. And people might find that unsatisfying. But being unsatisfying is not the same thing as being untrue, and your original concern was how morality could survive in a physical design-free world: evolution provides a means for that. This being unsatisfying is another matter.

Its also worth noting, though, that God/theism doesn't actually solve the problem of whether (and which) moral norms or judgments are *really* moral or correct- even if God exists and has handed down moral guidelines (via divine revelation/inspiration -> scripture, presumably), one could still ask whether these guidelines are right or correct. So even theism doesn't solve this issue, this is a more generic problem that is going to apply to most if not all moral systems as far as I can tell.

Its also worth noting, though, that God/theism doesn't actually solve the problem of whether (and which) moral norms or judgments are *really* moral or correct- even if God exists and has handed down moral guidelines (via divine revelation/inspiration -> scripture, presumably), one could still ask whether these guidelines are right or correct. So even theism doesn't solve this issue, this is a more generic problem that is going to apply to most if not all moral systems as far as I can tell. — busycuttingcrap

That is a very good, and important point i think not often considered by theists.

I do not think a morality from a Creator deity/God is arbitrary.

Take for example the human built watch. We built a watch for a purpose, we designed it, it has a purpose and it has a maximum function and the same can be said of numerous human inventions.

We are the authority on how our inventions best work and have some strict guidelines to follow to maximise or simply realise their function.

So I think if a god created humans and the world he or she or it would be in a position to set non arbitrary guidelines for our flourishing. A bit like with pets we tend to try and maximise their wellbeing non arbitrarily based on our goals for them.

I think the godless position is weaker because it has a universe that exists for no reason which does not seem to have purpose or telos and so why should it have laws and be subject to reason or rationality?

For example a frogs tongue flicks out when a small dot moves past its visual system. This is a reliable way to catch flies but the frog doesn't need to know what a fly is it just has to have a mechanism with a probability that most of what its tongue touches will be edible. So heuristics for human survival need not be truth preserving.

Another issue is subjectivity where we end up just having a society focused on individual preferences, viewpoints and theories. This is what we seem to have now especially in modern western democracies. But this can descend into solipsism. We treat the whole world like our own and try and make it fit around our own preferences and values and just detach ourselves from groups that don't share our principles. We individually become the final arbiter of truth. I am semi solipsistic myself and my values is that I have to trust my own judgement or have faith in a high power.

I do not think a morality from a Creator deity/God is arbitrary. — Andrew4Handel

Of course it is. To begin with, no one can demonstrate what this morality consists of and everyone interprets their god's morality differently. In the end, humans cannot avoid morality as an expression of personal preference.

Saying there's a god which guarantees morality is essentially pointless since unless you can - 1) identify which god is real 2) identify that morality originates from that god 3) identify what that god's morality consists of - you are screwed. Here's a hint - god never shows up to explain morality, there are only old books which say a thing and humans who interpret the books or their understanding of god's will.