The Worries of an Agnostic

[KingMerv00]

Hey guys i'm new here.

As a skeptic, the thing that bothered me that most has always been religion. I am a very serious non-believer but I have concerns about the idea of a godless universe.

I strongly believe that my beliefs are correct but I don't think the majority of the world could handle them. If people don't fear eternal pitchfork-stabbings, they would, well....stab each other with pitchforks.

Let me be clear...I personally wish the best for everyone. Murderers are bad...dictators are insane etc. But I'm not exactly sure why. I've read M. Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil and he says morally is an evolutionary trait. Ok, I buy that. But that doesn't really matter. By what means do I condemn murderers and puppy smashers? Evolution is not an authority on morals last I checked. What if in 50 million years murder is considered moral by some other species?

Basically, I don't see how the Constitution can be any kind of standard WITHOUT God.

That sucks too cuz I know plenty of moral atheists.

Oh btw, forgive my type-o's, I'm sure they are in here.

Edit: I forgot to mention...I'm new here but even I can tell 1inC is a troll.

[c4ts]

Well, there's Plato's Republic, which is all about morality as a system of human interactions preventing the collapse of a society, Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics on the subject of virture, and then there's Nietzche refuting the whole thing because most people know morals when they see them, and only when you look closely at them do they disappear. Thus Spake Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil are partially about this. Also Comte and Freud wrote volumes on the subject. But if you are looking for an easy answer, too bad. Instead, try looking for answers that make sense. And, of course, you can always present your own theory of morality if you have one.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Hello and Welcome.

To me, God doesn’t seem like an out for this problem anyway. God, being the last word on morality, can tip morality on its head on a whim and still be moral (as, troll or not, 1inChrist has shown). God could have preachers bemoaning their sinful culture’s reluctance to rape, or have good Christian parents putter their children in special church programs to develop their kleptomania.

At least with the calculus of stuff like cooperation in social species and zero sum games there are some apparent rules that follow from observations of our species. The problem seems to be that those rules don’t end in simple or obvious results, and indicate no consensus will be reached in evolution, as the more moral, more cooperative and selfless people you have, the more pressure there is to make a sinner to take advantage of all those trusting dupes. :)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Hello and Welcome.

To me, God doesn’t seem like an out for this problem anyway. God, being the last word on morality, can tip morality on its head on a whim and still be moral (as, troll or not, 1inChrist has shown).

And if he can't that means morality is a power higher than God.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Or we could save you the trouble of reading twenty books and just tell you that humans survive better in a group of people that work together and a tribe won't survive for very long if you can kill whoever you want just for the heck of it. If you lie all the time eventually no one will trust you with anything(boy who cried wolf).

[Stimpson J. Cat]

KingMerv,

I strongly believe that my beliefs are correct but I don't think the majority of the world could handle them. If people don't fear eternal pitchfork-stabbings, they would, well....stab each other with pitchforks.

What do you mean "if"? They pretty much do that already. As far as a deterrent against hurting other people goes, the threat of Hell seems to be pretty ineffective. Of course, that may have to do with the inconsistency of it. Pretty much, if you want to hurt somebody, you probably will not have a hard time finding a religion that says it is OK.

Basically, I don't see how the Constitution can be any kind of standard WITHOUT God.

What do you mean? The Constitution does not mention God even once. It is a standard because it is enforced as a standard.

Morals don't come from religion, or from evolution. They come from people. In any society, regardless of what its superstitious beliefs may be, and regardless of whether it even has any such beliefs, there will be moral standards. Your post seems to indicate that you are questioning the authority of the constitution to say what is and is not OK in society. Where does that authority come from if not from a God?

Well, in the real world, authority does not ever come from God. It comes from people with power. Sometimes those people say that their authority comes from God, but that is just propaganda. Take away their swords or guns, and their God-granted authority means about as much as a puddle of warm spit. The Constitution's authority comes from the fact that it is enforced by the people who are in power. Take away that enforcement, and no amount of "God supports the Constitution" pleading is going to save it. The Constitution neither has, nor needs, the endorsement of God in order to be the law of the land. All it needs is for the people with the guns to say that it is.


Dr. Stupid

[KingMerv00]

To clarify btw I'm an agnostic only because of the nature of knowledge, not because I'm undecided. I believe in God (capital "g") as much I believe in the idea of an an evil version of Randi living in my lower intestine.

Did I just type that last sentence? That's a creppy thought.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Or we could save you the trouble of reading twenty books and just tell you that humans survive better in a group of people that work together and a tribe won't survive for very long if you can kill whoever you want just for the heck of it. If you lie all the time eventually no one will trust you with anything(boy who cried wolf).

I think what you're saying is a given in these parts. However, it doesn't really address the question, because it doesn't say anything about what factors promote cultural attitudes that make a society work well together -- what if it turns out that religion is a prerequisite?

Now, I don't believe that's true, at least in modern times, but it needs to be established, not just assumed.

Jeremy

[El Greco]

Smashing puppies and murdering humans of other groups has probably been considered moral by our early ancestors. Morality is just a set of rules which allow collective flourishing of a society. These rules can change rapidly should need arise (eg eating humans in order to survive after a plane crash). Furthermore, even if we asume that it is the absence of God that makes people less moral, this still doesn't make Him any less imaginary.

[KingMerv00]

I guess what I'm trying to say with this thread is this:

If someone (present day) says murder is ok. On what basis can you disagree of him? Utilitarian views would work to a certain extent but they are relative. If you try to say it's good for society, that doesn't work either because the value of society is relative too. Basically all we have is majority rules.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
If someone (present day) says murder is ok. On what basis can you disagree of him? Utilitarian views would work to a certain extent but they are relative. If you try to say it's good for society, that doesn't work either because the value of society is relative too. Basically all we have is majority rules.

Passing the buck to a god doesn't really change anything, though. Religion-derived morality is essentially "might makes right" taken to the furthest extreme. Is that a more useful answer than the utilitarian or pragmatic views?

Jeremy

[KingMerv00]

Well religion MIGHT be better. I mean if you believe you will boil in the lake of fire for all time, killing someone is just stupid.

From the other points of view murder can have long term benefits.

Man this post makes me seem insane.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Well religion MIGHT be better. I mean if you believe you will boil in the lake of fire for all time, killing someone is just stupid.

From the other points of view murder can have long term benefits.

That's a common position, but the data just doesn't back it up. There's certainly no evidence that atheists/agnostics are "less moral" than religious people, and there's even some (relatively weak) evidence that the opposite is true.

I think the only answers to your question will prove unsatisfying. My gut feeling is that people are moral simply because they are wired that way -- either by growing up in one of the societies which became successful by having a strict code of behavior, or even because we're biologically tilted in that direction.

Jeremy

[Anathema]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Utilitarian views would work to a certain extent but they are relative. If you try to say it's good for society, that doesn't work either because the value of society is relative too. Basically all we have is majority rules. You appear to be invoking Utilitarianism, and immediately redefining it with unnecessary limitations. To exactly what "certain extent" do you see Utilitarianism going before it runs into limitations? You seem to be citing it's "relative" nature as being a limitation, but others regard this as its greatest strength.

The center of your argument seems to be:

Some form of absolutism is a must.
Utilitarianism is not absolutist
Utilitarianism is an inadequate solution for society.

I'd suggest that "minimizing harm and maximizing freedom" is a pretty straighforward template, and has few limitations. It's ability to evaluate situations as they arise is, IMHO, vastly superior than top-down absolutism. The Utiliarian/Consequentialist model provides the best of the Golden Rule, and none of the baggage of the 10 Commandments...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Well religion MIGHT be better. I mean if you believe you will boil in the lake of fire for all time, killing someone is just stupid.

From the other points of view murder can have long term benefits.

Man this post makes me seem insane.

Murder is great for pissing people off and compelling them to kill you. So much for long term benefits.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by c4ts
Murder is great for pissing people off and compelling them to kill you. So much for long term benefits.

Well sure if you get caught.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Well religion MIGHT be better. I mean if you believe you will boil in the lake of fire for all time, killing someone is just stupid.



Since whan has ' Stupid ' been a reason for anyone not to do anything immoral?


If a set of morals from a God ( along with a threat of a lake of fire ) are necessary for peace and good will on earth, just when is this suppose to take effect?

[KingMerv00]

I don't know. Seems to me the fiction of being buried in feces (thank you for the image Dante) should be for effective than logic.

I just say a commercial for the Q-Ray. Clearly, fiction always wins.

Hmmm...well Q-Ray has a patent. It MUST be true.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Well sure if you get caught.

And I suppose you won't think about what you did if you aren't caught? Have you no understanding that other human beings exist and live as you do?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Utilitarian views would work to a certain extent but they are relative. If you try to say it's good for society, that doesn't work either because the value of society is relative too. Basically all we have is majority rules.
You say "but they are relative" like that somehow invalidates them. One hears this all the time from the "absolute" crowd.

What is wrong with relative morality? What works for one individual/one society may not for another. So what? And by "works" I do embrace the utilitarian perspective. That which promotes the individual and societal good and minimizes pain and suffering is defined as moral.

You may object that that is a somewhat vague and fluid definition. Right you are. And that is exactly how the world is. Morality is not clear-cut and precise, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

ETA: Oops, I see Anathema already said this better than I did.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Well religion MIGHT be better. I mean if you believe you will boil in the lake of fire for all time, killing someone is just stupid.




Just re-interpret or re-write your religious texts to make your evil of choice 'moral'. That's what's been done historically.

And now you're back to 'morality is relative' again. You've only added a step.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I don't know. Seems to me the fiction of being buried in feces (thank you for the image Dante) should be for effective than logic.

I just say a commercial for the Q-Ray. Clearly, fiction always wins.

Hmmm...well Q-Ray has a patent. It MUST be true.

You don't know ' what ' ?


Could you possibly reword this so it seems relevant to a response or a point you tried to make..

[evildave]

I'm an apathetic agnostic. I don't know, and I don't care.

Defining 'moral' as behaving in a matter that contributes to society, people are moral by habit, and they are amoral or immoral by habit.

If the proper habits are not instilled into people when they're young, it will be nigh impossible to instill those habits into people when they're older.

What is 'moral' is wholly dependant on the society in which a person lives. It was once thought that duels were honorable and good. This is no longer widely thought to be the case.

What could seem the height of morality in one situation could be the depths of cruelty in another. Two equally moral people could be for and against euthanasia. Heck, individuals are willing to put down a beloved pet who could be saved with a $500 vet bill, but will mortgage the house to prolong the life of a human in far more agnuish, and in an utterly hopeless situation.

By what reason do you condemn murderers and puppy smashers? Because they're things your society do not tolerate. In other societies, dogs are good eatin', and in America, killing people is well tolerated as long as they are creeping through the window, or in an automobile, or in the wrong place at the wrong time when the president says 'launch'.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by SezMe
I see Anathema already said this... ...and you'll also see, he breezed right past it. KM? Comments?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Well religion MIGHT be better. I mean if you believe you will boil in the lake of fire for all time, killing someone is just stupid.

God as keeper of all morality may appear to work, but all it does is take away the concept of morality by saying "Might makes right, God is almighty, therefore God is always right!" At this point morality becomes nothing more than a status quo, which is capable of both good and bad depending on who is the interpreter. Morality is not as simple or as easy as following someone else's laws out of fear of the lawmaker. There is a certain amount of foresight and empathy known as conscience which the system you describe lacks.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Excuse me just a minute... evidence for God?

(Cricket sounds)

Doesn't seem like God is influencing morality all that much.... seems like it's a human concept. The few religious books on the subject are filled with contradictions and immorality (dash the infants upon the rocks and all that).

So if God is setting my moral agenda, can I kill Wiccas? homosexuals?

[c4ts]

And the best/worst part is the terrible things they say about you, as if they knew you better than yourself, the great myth that you would run around without any regard for morals whatsoever if you didn't believe in God.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You don't know ' what ' ?


Could you possibly reword this so it seems relevant to a response or a point you tried to make..

Forgive me, I wrote that just before I went to bed. Pretend that post doesn't exist.

I want to clarify my position here. I agree with everyone here who thinks that a belief in a supreme being is logically unsound. Relative morals, while unstable, are aleast based on the material world. Thanks to your posts, I feel I can defend my views more effectively than I could before.

Anyway, I have to admit this thread has gotten alittle away from my intended goal. I didn't really want to get into a debate about the LOGIC of morals, but rather how effective they are.

Do you think that if the majority of the world were atheists, there would be less "sinning"? My gut instinct tells me no. What is my gut instinct based on? Nothing :D

Would we be better off just letting people keep their religious placebos?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

Do you think that if the majority of the world were atheists, there would be less "sinning"? My gut instinct tells me no. What is my gut instinct based on? Nothing :D

I think the world would be pretty much the same.

Would we be better off just letting people keep their religious placebos?

Hm. Not on grounds of teaching morality. If you can't lean morals without religion, you won't learn them from religion. that's my gut feeling.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Do you think that if the majority of the world were atheists, there would be less "sinning"? My gut instinct tells me no. What is my gut instinct based on? Nothing :D

I agree with you here. Practicing ones religious beliefs, is just another form of behaviour. Evil religious people will be evil regardless, just as moral Atheists will continue to be so.


Would we be better off just letting people keep their religious placebos? No. Not better. Probably just the same; for the reasons mentioned above.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Do you think that if the majority of the world were atheists, there would be less "sinning"? My gut instinct tells me no. What is my gut instinct based on? Nothing :D

Would we be better off just letting people keep their religious placebos?
I'm going to chime in with the others and say no. I think good people make good religion, not the other way around. Similarly, lousy atheists make, well, lousy atheists - and religion wouldn't do a thing to change that.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Do you think that if the majority of the world were atheists, there would be less "sinning"? My gut instinct tells me no. What is my gut instinct based on? Nothing :D

Would we be better off just letting people keep their religious placebos?

There would absolutely be less "sinning"... it would be gone!

Would there be less law breaking? Nope. Not a bit.

Really what it eliminates is the silliness of religion.... no meat on Fridays... pray to God for everything.... homosexuality is a disease... Earth is <10,000 years old... etc. etc.

[Anders]

Originally posted by SezMe
I'm going to chime in with the others and say no. I think good people make good religion, not the other way around. Similarly, lousy atheists make, well, lousy atheists - and religion wouldn't do a thing to change that.
You are most likly correct. But it sure is more convinient to blame those pesky [add whatever religion you don't like at the moment]s for every mishap or violent upraisning in the world.

[Aussie Thinker]

Merv,

I used to worry a bit about the same things.

We DO have a NATURAL set of morals. These stem from our relatively high intelligence and our ability to empathise.

We KNOW what hurts us would hurt others just the same. We therefore KNOW these things are wrong.

While this entirely natural moral code exists it is not always followed.

Some humans have the ability to “ignore� their natural empathy by either “convincing� themselves that what others feel does not matter or actually not possessing natural empathy.

So Societies band together to enforce morals and rules to protect themselves from these sociopaths.

God makes no difference as he is a made up concept so any moral code stemming from God is just man made anyway.

The Moral rules can only be enforced (over a long period)only if most people agree (empathise) with them.

[Phil Spiderman]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Well religion MIGHT be better. I mean if you believe you will boil in the lake of fire for all time, killing someone is just stupid.
Is this to say that any threat of likely punishment is a good way to enforce morality, or just the threats that come from those who say they speak for intangible entities?

[riverlethe]

I don't think the problem is so much whether we should be "moral," but what to do with those who aren't moral, and why. In other words, we need a justification to behave immorally. I suspect it's an elaborate house of cards, and "God" fits in somewhere.

Edit: "Punishment" could be seen as genocide - unnatural selection (Of course humans are natural. Forgive my use of the word.)

Example: Prisons are more humane to us. I personally feel that they inflict more long-term suffering and psychological damage than, say, cutting someone's hand off.

2nd Edit: Maybe we'll get it right eventually.

[riverlethe]

Originally posted by Phil Spiderman
Is this to say that any threat of likely punishment is a good way to enforce morality, or just the threats that come from those who say they speak for intangible entities?

Those who claim to communicate with intangibles are perhaps more likely to exact corporeal punishments.

[Phil Spiderman]

Originally posted by riverlethe
Those who claim to communicate with intangibles are perhaps more likely to exact corporeal punishments.
Especially if they say those intangibles convey tangible authority.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Phil Spiderman
Especially if they say those intangibles convey tangible authority.

They'd have to; otherwise, you'd be trying to administer intangible noncorporeal corporal punishment. "Okay, Suzy, I'm going to spank you with my thoughts! Take that!"

[Phil Spiderman]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
They'd have to; otherwise, you'd be trying to administer intangible noncorporeal corporal punishment. "Okay, Suzy, I'm going to spank you with my thoughts! Take that!"
Well, I wasn't talking about the punishment itself, but the authority to punish.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
By what means do I condemn murderers and puppy smashers?
Have you tried saying: "They are murderers and puppy smashers"? Sounds pretty darn condemnatory to me.