On Remorse

[Christian]

Before anyone continues, please read the warning:

Warning:

1. This is an intellectual *assault* on atheist's morality, if you feel you cannot answer objectively without feeling personally insulted, please do not engage in this discussion.

2. The discussion is strictly on intellectual grounds (logical conclusions or philosophical implications), but do to the identification of the atheist's position, it can be perceived as a personal attack. It is not.

3. I will accept an intellectual attack on the Christian position without thinking it is an attack on me.

I have placed the warning above specifically so that no one accusses me of setting them up.

ON REMORSE


Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?

Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?

Let's get started ;)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Christian
Before anyone continues, please read the warning:

Warning:

1. This is an intellectual *assault* on atheist's morality, if you feel you cannot answer objectively without feeling personally insulted, please do not engage in this discussion.

2. The discussion is strictly on intellectual grounds (logical conclusions or philosophical implications), but do to the identification of the atheist's position, it can be perceived as a personal attack. It is not.

3. I will accept an intellectual attack on the Christian position without thinking it is an attack on me.

I have placed the warning above specifically so that no one accusses me of setting them up.

ON REMORSE


Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?

Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?

Let's get started ;)

OK, first of all you must explain what remorse has to do with specifically atheism, because everybody feels remorse for doing something wrong (one they understand what they did was wrong), atheist or otherwise. I don't see any attacks here, just an appeal to emotion. Why would the feelings of an atheist differ from those of another human being? When you prick them, do they not bleed?

[Uncertainty]

I guess this is my first post. I hope I don't waste too much time on these threads...

I think I feel remorse because of basic empathy. If I do something to make someone else feel bad, I tend to feel bad. Much like laughter is contagious, I think other things are too.

I don't fear punishment for my past actions, but I would like to think of myself as a person who adds to the positive aspects of the world, not the negative aspects.

I suppose I should think of a witty signature now.

[Mercutio]

Yeah, what c4ts said. I'm an atheist, and I feel remorse virtually any time I have hurt someone--even when they deserve it. It could be argued that an atheist has more reason to feel remorse. After all, to the extent that I have hurt someone, I have damaged the only life they get. No eternity for them to lord it over me, for them to get their reward and me my punishment. Nope, just this one, and here I go and hurt them. Life is precious--what is rarer than something you only get one of?

If, perhaps, you are implying that we should only feel remorse if we are expecting punishment (like a dog that got into the garbage--sorry, that just happened here today), well, I think Kohlberg (Moral development theorist) would easily see that most of us (adults, not merely atheists) are beyond such simplistic reasoning. If I have wronged somebody (by my rules, not god's), I feel remorse. And it has happened, despite my best attempts to the contrary.

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
OK, first of all you must explain what remorse has to do with specifically atheism, because everybody feels remorse for doing something wrong (one they understand what they did was wrong), atheist or otherwise.

Excellent point. Everyone feels remorse, yes. But this is my question. Why would an atheist feel it? I see no intellectual reason why he or she should.

What is the conection here between atheism and remorse? Well, remorse is based on passed actions. There is nothing an atheist can do about the past, absolutely nothing. Why would there be a reason for remorse? Why feel bad about something you can't do anything about?

I don't see any attacks here, just an appeal to emotion.

Just stick around.

Why would the feelings of an atheist differ from those of another human being?

Based on an intellectual understanding of the situation. Atheists can come to a very simple logical conclusion: If there is nothing I can about it, why feel remorse? Let me just skip the remorse and not repeat the mistake again.

When you prick them, do they not bleed?

:D

[c4ts]

Excellent point. Everyone feels remorse, yes. But this is my question. Why would an atheist feel it? I see no intellectual reason why he or she should.
"Empathy" has been suggested twice. Whether or not this reason is intellectual is something else. I say it is, because the the human intellect seeks discovery of itself, so you identify with others in searching for it. Remorse, being caused by empathy, is the inevitable consequence of the human intellect.

What is the conection here between atheism and remorse? Well, remorse is based on passed actions. There is nothing an atheist can do about the past, absolutely nothing. Why would there be a reason for remorse? Why feel bad about something you can't do anything about?
Again, these questions do not apply to atheists in particular, but to the overall human condition (assuming humans can't travel back and forth through time and change the past). Again, empathy seems like a suitable explanation for the reason.


Based on an intellectual understanding of the situation. Atheists can come to a very simple logical conclusion: If there is nothing I can about it, why feel remorse? Let me just skip the remorse and not repeat the mistake again.
Based on the actual situation, some very nice evidence has already been offered. Hopefully, a better intellectual understanding of it will follow. But, from what I can tell, remorse is what causes a person to avoid making the same mistake twice, so you should not be able to skip it and move on. It is part of the process of learning from one's mistakes.

[Mercutio]

If you are serious about wanting a real answer, look in a social cognition book.

quote:"Excellent point. Everyone feels remorse, yes. But this is my question. Why would an atheist feel it? I see no intellectual reason why he or she should.

What is the conection here between atheism and remorse? Well, remorse is based on passed actions. There is nothing an atheist can do about the past, absolutely nothing. Why would there be a reason for remorse? Why feel bad about something you can't do anything about?"

The heuristics by which we make decisions (e.g., confirmation bias) have arguably arisen from millions of years of evolution. That atheists think using these heuristics simply verifies that we are human. The "intellectual reasons" have little bearing--it's the same as with food: no matter how much we know it is not good for us, our biology loves ice cream.

[Christian]

Mercutio wrote:
Yeah, what c4ts said. I'm an atheist, and I feel remorse virtually any time I have hurt someone--even when they deserve it. It could be argued that an atheist has more reason to feel remorse. After all, to the extent that I have hurt someone, I have damaged the only life they get. No eternity for them to lord it over me, for them to get their reward and me my punishment. Nope, just this one, and here I go and hurt them. Life is precious--what is rarer than something you only get one of?

How can you argue more? According to you, the damage is irreparable. There is nothing you can do to take it back. It it totally useless to feel remorse. From your perspective, I would the best course of action is to skip the remorse (waste of time) and concentrate on analizing how not to repeat the mistake. Yes, an appology is in order, but not remorse.

So, it is useless to feel remorse. Why feel it? I see no intellectual reason why you should feel it. Unless feeling it makes *you* feel better.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Christian
Mercutio wrote:
Yeah, what c4ts said. I'm an atheist, and I feel remorse virtually any time I have hurt someone--even when they deserve it. It could be argued that an atheist has more reason to feel remorse. After all, to the extent that I have hurt someone, I have damaged the only life they get. No eternity for them to lord it over me, for them to get their reward and me my punishment. Nope, just this one, and here I go and hurt them. Life is precious--what is rarer than something you only get one of?

How can you argue more? According to you, the damage is irreparable. There is nothing you can do to take it back. It it totally useless to feel remorse. From your perspective, I would the best course of action is to skip the remorse (waste of time) and concentrate on analizing how not to repeat the mistake. Yes, an appology is in order, but not remorse.
Uhh... this applies to you as well. Unless you can go back and change time, or claim to feel no remorse for your misdeeds, your position is no different. I pointed out that remorse is an inevitable consequence of the human intellect, so unless you would like to refute me on that point, analyzing the mistake will trigger the emotional response of remorse. If it doesn't, either the analysis wasn't complete, or you don't recognize it as a mistake.

So, it is useless to feel remorse. Why feel it? I see no intellectual reason why you should feel it. Unless feeling it makes *you* feel better.
Your conclusion needs more support. Explain why it is useless.

[Mercutio]

(just as an aside, I have always wondered why it is always assumed by non-atheists that atheists "must" act in particular [usually non-ethical] ways. I have never seen an atheist promote this view. BTW, I do not mean that that is what this thread is doing, christian--unless you prove me wrong) ( I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...)

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
"Empathy" has been suggested twice. Whether or not this reason is intellectual is something else. I say it is, because the the human intellect seeks discovery of itself, so you identify with others in searching for it. Remorse, being caused by empathy, is the inevitable consequence of the human intellect.

Let me first try to understand your response before addressing it. To you, it is a intellectual progression. First, you empathize. This feeling causes you to feel bad about what you did and that enables you to correct accordingly. Is this what you are saying? Remorse is part of an necessary intellectual process?

Again, these questions do not apply to atheists in particular, but to the overall human condition (assuming humans can't travel back and forth through time and change the past).

Yes, of course. I am making the question to atheists, so in this case it is the atheist's response that I want.

Based on the actual situation, some very nice evidence has already been offered. Hopefully, a better intellectual understanding of it will follow. But, from what I can tell, remorse is what causes a person to avoid making the same mistake twice, so you should not be able to skip it and move on. It is part of the process of learning from one's mistakes.

And from this response, I think I got it right. You are saying it is a necessary intellectual process. As I said, before responding, I want to be sure this is what you mean.


Mercutio wrote:
If you are serious about wanting a real answer, look in a social cognition book.

This is not where I'm coming from. Remember, to me, it is an intellectual attack on the thought process in atheism. Morality specifically.

The heuristics by which we make decisions (e.g., confirmation bias) have arguably arisen from millions of years of evolution. That atheists think using these heuristics simply verifies that we are human. The "intellectual reasons" have little bearing--it's the same as with food: no matter how much we know it is not good for us, our biology loves ice cream.

So, to be absolutely clear about this. You agree that remorse is useless, irrelevant but it is ingrained in the human brain? It can't be bypassed due to our genetic makeup?

[Fade]

This is the only post I am going to put into this thread. I will not respond in any way, other than this:

Religion did not originate morality and ethics. In fact, it was partly the other way around. A single set of ethical guidelines is one of the most common reasons why religions evolved in the first place.

What Christian has put forth amounts to immense intellectual laziness.

[evildave]

Remorse is as much an emotion as love or hate.

Would Christian next argue that atheists don't love? Gods are supposed to be the fountain from which that springs, and obviously atheism denies gods. I know there are some who would for some reason argue that atheists only hate, and here we have yet another emotion being set aside, labeling us as pitiless monsters.

How far until Christian really starts becomming indistinguishable from Jedi Knight?

A better way to ask the question might be:

Can religious people acting in the name of their god(s) feel remorse for their actions?

Obviously not. How could they feel sorry for what their own God told them to do? Wouldn't feeling remorse be second-guessing God's authority over what is best?

As an example, why should a suicide bomber feel remorse? He's (or she's) going to get God's ultimate reward for his/her sacrifice. And (BIG BONUS) won't be around to feel remorse after the fact. Convenient, that.

As for remorse, I personally feel it is far better to project ahead to what would cause me to feel remorse, and not behave in that manner or do those things. But that requires a bit of self examination and questioning of my own personal motives. Something some people apparently don't have the introspective skills to do.

Do I feel any remorse for the wording of this post? Funny, none at all.

I wonder if Christian sees his promotion of bigotry as "God's work"?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Christian
c4ts wrote:
[B]"Empathy" has been suggested twice. Whether or not this reason is intellectual is something else. I say it is, because the the human intellect seeks discovery of itself, so you identify with others in searching for it. Remorse, being caused by empathy, is the inevitable consequence of the human intellect.

Let me first try to understand your response before addressing it. To you, it is a intellectual progression. First, you empathize. This feeling causes you to feel bad about what you did and that enables you to correct accordingly. Is this what you are saying? Remorse is part of an necessary intellectual process?
No, that is not what I am saying. Effect does not come before the cause. First you contemplate, and the result is automatic. The response is the emotional one Mercutio describes, I just gave a slightly more direct cause than heuristics, which is that the contemplation of a mistake will trigger remorse, and I said that the empathy for the person who had been wronged by the misdeed (that which triggers sadness, which we call "remorse"), or any kind of empathy whatsoever, was the result of the human intellect's search for itself in things other than itself. The consequences of an action are not part of that action, therefore their necessity does not pertain to the action itself. The act of contemplation does not need to be caused by remorse, nor must it lead to it, but it sometimes happens anyway. Remorse is not a component of the human intellect, so it can't be necessary for it. No more than urine is necessary for drinking.

Yes, of course. I am making the question to atheists, so in this case it is the atheist's response that I want.
Well, unless the response you are looking for is "man needs Jesus to forgive him," you're likely to get the same response from a theist (although a Christian in particular might add that part about Jesus).

And from this response, I think I got it right. You are saying it is a necessary intellectual process. As I said, before responding, I want to be sure this is what you mean.
I only said it was necessary to learn from one's mistakes, because it is one of the means by which we detect our own error. After all, you cannot learn from a mistake if you did not know it was a mistake in the first place. I never said it was a necessary step in the intellectual process itself.

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
No, that is not what I am saying. Effect does not come before the cause. First you contemplate, and the result is automatic. The response is the emotional one Mercutio describes, I just gave a slightly more direct cause than heuristics, which is that the contemplation of a mistake will trigger remorse...

Ok, once a person contemplates the mistake it will trigger remorse.

I should have done this before:
the definition of remorse I'm using is: Webster's
a deep, torturing sense of guilt felt over a wrong that one has done

and I said that the empathy for the person who had been wronged by the misdeed (that which triggers sadness, which we call "remorse"), or any kind of empathy whatsoever, was the result of the human intellect's search for itself in things other than itself.

Ok, the only way to feel emphathy is to have put ourselves in other's shoes, fine.

The consequences of an action are not part of that action, therefore their necessity does not pertain to the action itself. The act of contemplation does not need to be caused by remorse, nor must it lead to it, but it sometimes happens anyway. Remorse is not a component of the human intellect, so it can't be necessary for it. No more than urine is necessary for drinking.

So you are saying that remorse is not a necessary effect of the comtemplation.

So, again. This is my question/point. When someone can intellectually understand that implication of his or her actions, has comtemplated it and empathizes. Why not intellectual say to him or herself "Hey, there is no need for me to beat myself about it, or feel guilty, it doesn't serve any purpose. Why not I just skip the remorse and do what I have to do."

Well, unless the response you are looking for is "man needs Jesus to forgive him," you're likely to get the same response from a theist (although a Christian in particular might add that part about Jesus).

This is an interesting point. I think you are right that a a theist who believes the deity plays absolutely no active role would answer the same way. But, everyone else would have a different response (would have another response available).

I only said it was necessary to learn from one's mistakes, because it is one of the means by which we detect our own error. After all, you cannot learn from a mistake if you did not know it was a mistake in the first place.

Wouldn't you agree that the only necessary component to learn anything is intellect? Feelings are not necessary for knowledge (unless, of course, we are learning about feelings). We can detect our error purely on intellectual grounds.

I never said it was a necessary step in the intellectual process itself.

Got it. Bad phrasing on my part.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Christian
So, again. This is my question/point. When someone can intellectually understand that implication of his or her actions, has comtemplated it and empathizes. Why not intellectual say to him or herself "Hey, there is no need for me to beat myself about it, or feel guilty, it doesn't serve any purpose. Why not I just skip the remorse and do what I have to do."
Didn't I say remorse was inevitable? You can't skip it unless you refuse to acknowledge a mistake. While there truly is no need to feel too much remorse, you cannot assume the only possible solution is to somehow skip it. Not only is this irrational, it defeats the purpose of learning from your mistakes to prevent addtional remorse. If someone appears to make a mistake and does not seem to be affected by remorse, yet are fully aware of what they have done, it is possible they are not making a mistake after all.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Fade
What Christian has put forth amounts to immense intellectual laziness.

Did you miss out on Muscleman or something? Compared to MM, it's genius! At least Christian's trying to think. I don't know what he's getting at, but I think I can guess that it is something that amounts to a dogmatic account of "atheism bad, religion good." I won't know unless he gets there, but if he does, he'll get a bunch of people going "no, religion bad." I'm hoping he might actually read what they have to say instead of assuming that it's all dogma as well. Would it be too much to ask for more than a Whodini out of this guy?

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
Didn't I say remorse was inevitable? You can't skip it unless you refuse to acknowledge a mistake, whether you want to or not.

Ok, I understand what you are saying. But, why is it inevitable? I can acknowledge a mistake and not feel remorse. It is not necessary to feel remorse.

Suppose I chose the wrong type of deodorant that causes a rash. I don't need to feel remorse to clearly acknowledge the mistake. I only need to feel the effect.

This isn't any different from forgetting to buy a present for my wife on her birthday. Then, after some analysis, understanding that was wrong and correcting the mistake.

Why do I need remorse? Why is it necessary? If it is not necessary for countless learning curve situations, why is it necessary when other humans are involved?

While there truly is no need to feel too much remorse, you cannot assume the only possible solution is to somehow skip it.

I not saying it is the only possible solution. I'm stating that it totally unnecessary. Sure, if you want to feel, fine, but it doens't bring anything positive to the equation.

A person that corrects the mistake and apologizes (without feeling any remorse whatsoever) is exactly at the same place that a person that did. And he or she was more efficient intellectually and emotionally.

Not only is this irrational, it defeats the purpose of learning from your mistakes to prevent addtional remorse.

Explain why it is irrational. Are you saying no one can learn without remorse? Why not. Clearly remorse is not necessary for learning anything. And, actually, feeling about doing something. (have remorse) is no garantee that one has learned anything. Most criminals, after being caught, feel tons of remorse. Yet, most become repeat offenders.

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
Did you miss out on Muscleman or something? Compared to MM, it's genius! At least Christian's trying to think. I don't know what he's getting at, but I think I can guess that it is something that amounts to a dogmatic account of "atheism bad, religion good."

It is not my intention to keep anybody guessing. My intention is clear, the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.

I want to address these inconsistencies via the logical progressions. This says nothing about the morality of the individual who are atheists, only about the inconsistencies of atheism and morality.

BTW, if these are found, that does not mean religion good, obviously. It would be clear false dichotomy. The characteristics of atheism says nothing about the characteristics of religion other than atheists don't have a religion.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Christian
c4ts wrote:
Did you miss out on Muscleman or something? Compared to MM, it's genius! At least Christian's trying to think. I don't know what he's getting at, but I think I can guess that it is something that amounts to a dogmatic account of "atheism bad, religion good."

It is not my intention to keep anybody guessing. My intention is clear, the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.

I want to address these inconsistencies via the logical progressions. This says nothing about the morality of the individual who are atheists, only about the inconsistencies of atheism and morality.

BTW, if these are found, that does not mean religion good, obviously. It would be clear false dichotomy. The characteristics of atheism says nothing about the characteristics of religion other than atheists don't have a religion.

Explain the moral gaps you speak of. That's all there is to it.

[Loki]

Christian,

...the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.
I need help here, Christian. I can't see the 'moral gap' that must exist because of the "logical consequences" of atheism. That doesn't mean it's not there, just that I'm not sure how/what you are trying to say.

I'm not even sure that you can successfully establish that "the atheist position" has an agreed-upon moral starting point. Are morals relative, or absolute? Which is the atheist position? If I recall correctly, you'd be arguing that atheism equates to moral relativism, because there is no god to provide the "absolute"?

Can you provide an example in detail? Since you've started with "remorse", can you fill in the logical sequence :

Premise 1 : An atheist does not believe in god.
Premise 2 : ???
...
Premise X : ???
Conclusion : An atheist should never feel remorse.

To be honest, to establish your case I think you need to show at least 3 points :
1. That atheists *must* have moral position 'x';
2. That moral position 'x' leads to "remorse is illogical";
3. That humans must seek to eliminate emotion in favour of logic.

Good luck.

[fishbob]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Webster's: a deep, torturing sense of guilt felt over a wrong that one has done
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like an emotional response to me. Emotional responses are not easily controlled, not influenced much by logic, religious beliefs, the lack thereof, or the price of tea in China. This particular discussion has little relevance to your position.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Christian

It is not my intention to keep anybody guessing. My intention is clear, the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.


Then you have to try it once again, cause this attempt sucks...

Your main premise is wrong. You say that atheists should rationalize their emotions because they don't believe in God. Well, it's the other way around: The faith in god allows theists to rationalize their emotions.

When I feel remorse, it's because I did something wrong that could be avoided, and resulted in someone getting hurt. Those are the only situations in wich I feel remorse.
Why? I could have done something to avoid it and didn't; someone got hurt; I wish it could have happened in another way.
Nothing can erase the past, and both the glory and shame of my actions belong to me, and to me alone... no easy way out.

Now, if I were a theist, I could rationalize these feelings: It was God will; the Devil made me do it; I'll pray for forgiveness; God will reward the hurted person in the afterlife.
See? It's easy. I wouldn't hae to cope with the unwanted results of my actions, because my Big Brother in the Sky would make me fell all warm and fuzzy inside.

So, it is not logical for a theist to feel remorse, because it only means that their faith in their God forgiveness is not absolute.

And you were talking about moral gaps in atheism...:rolleyes:

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Christian

3. I will accept an intellectual attack on the Christian position without thinking it is an attack on me.



Two things.

1) Without meaning it to be funny, Christian, I think your statement above is hilarious. "Attack on the Christian position without thinking it is an attack on me."

2) I agree with what Megalodon said. You have it backwards.

To many atheists, any sort of Christian appeal to morality as that decreed from God is hardly principled morality at all. It requires little more than following a recipe. Real morality requires a much greater understanding of why certain actions are not condoned and others are (or, as Evildave so aptly put it, "introspective skills").

AS

[PogoPedant]

Can be an evolutionary explanation? I'm going to try for one. Bear(?) in mind this is wild speculation coming from one who has struggled with declarative programming all day.

Humans are social creatures. They build societies. A society without rules and a population abiding those rules is more susceptible to disaster than one who has rules and a controlled population. Therefore, lawful (say, the Romans) societies have triumphed over less organized societies (like the Mongolian Horde).
In order for a person to thrive in a lawful society, the person must either be inclined to abide by the local norms, or find a way to live on the fringes of it. Clearly (I would think...) there can only be a minority of the non-lawabiding in a structured society, thus the majority must be willing to abide the laws of the land.
People who feel remorse when they do something 'wrong' will be less inclined to do so again. This because remorse is an unpleasant emotion, and one would seek to minimize it. Doing things that cause remorse will be subjected to conditioning; one would be conditioned not to do such things.
People who feel much remorse when doing that which is considered bad, fits in with it's society better than those who do not, at least in general. Those who fit in with their society are more likely to receive aid in times of trouble, and are more likely to find a mate. Those who do not fit in with society will benefit less from the benefits of organized life.
Therefore, the capability for remorse is a trait that is favored in humans, and most humans will be capable of such, regardeless of religious belif.

Those who do not feel remorse may act freer than those who do. The remorseless can break any law and any moral directive, and might that way gain some advantage that the remorseful may not. I guess that is why remorselessness is a trait that keeps popping up.

Anyway, this is all speculation, and I'm going to bed now.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

I agree with what Megalodon said.

Yei!! Now, if I only get you to marry that stripper...;)

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Megalodon


Yei!! Now, if I only get you to marry that stripper...;)

I suspect that if I did, I would be remorseful the next morning.

:D

AS

[MRC_Hans]

The basic question of this thread is based on a fallacy. We have been through this before, and the question has been answered again here by other posters, but allow me to sum up:

Morality as a whole, including remorse, is not a product of religion, it is the other way around. Human beings started to build societies and build moral standards long before monotheistic religions existed.

Christian, you mentioned criminals feeling remorse, but still reverting: Exactly! Fear of punishment, be it secular or divine, has only limited effect on human behaviour. As Pogo suggested, the ability to live in a society is an evolutionary trait. For humans to have any advantage of your powerful brains, we need to live in large groups, to have the opportunity to raise our young (which takes several times longer than for any other animal), to hunt and build in cooperation, etc.etc.

This ability to fit into a social group cannot be rule-driven, because that way it could not have evolved. The ability to make and obey rules must neccessarily come AFTER the instigation of social groups. Thus the ability and will to conform to social rules must be basically an instinctive human trait. It is, of course, much strengthened by social conditioning and by rules.

In conclusion, atheists are moral (and feel remorse) for the exact same reasons as religious people: It is a deep rooted human trait to feel responsibility for your society and its rules. The idea that God watches over us and keeps account is just an explanation invented comparatively late in the history of man (none of the known monotheist religions are more than a few thousand years old). It was no doubt invented partly to keep people on the moral track, but religion is not the cause of morality, it is an effect of it.

Hans

[Christian]

I'm going to try to stay focused and only deal with those posters that are actually dealing with the issues I'm presenting.

If I start addressing the strawmen, missdirections and general noise then, the whole discussion will lead nowhere. I apologize to those I don't address.

Loki, you got it right. You know exactly what I'm trying to do.
I'm trying to build a case based on premises. Now, I see that you want the whole thing alll at once. Fine

Loki wrote:
I need help here, Christian. I can't see the 'moral gap' that must exist because of the "logical consequences" of atheism. That doesn't mean it's not there, just that I'm not sure how/what you are trying to say.

I believe it is there.

I'm not even sure that you can successfully establish that "the atheist position" has an agreed-upon moral starting point. Are morals relative, or absolute?

This is how I see it. If atheism is true then other things must be true. For example, if atheism is correct, than creationism or design is false.

I don't think we need a moral starting point or to figure out if morals are relative or absolute.

Let me give an example I think you will relate to. Remember you tried to show me that because of the Christian position it was logical for Christians to kill their young. Well, I will be doing something along that thought process.

Which is the atheist position? If I recall correctly, you'd be arguing that atheism equates to moral relativism, because there is no god to provide the "absolute"?

I see no inconsistency with the syllogism to be presented.

Can you provide an example in detail? Since you've started with "remorse", can you fill in the logical sequence :

Premise 1 : An atheist does not believe in god.
Premise 2 : ???
...
Premise X : ???
Conclusion : An atheist should never feel remorse.

To me remorse is the first building block to another syllogism. But sure:

You can do it for me which my thought process (you are better at it).

To me, the atheist best strategy is not to feel remorse. It is a waste of emotion, energy and most importantly time. You see, the most precious thing an atheist has is time. So, the best strategy is to waste as little of it as possible.

It is my contention that because there is absolutely nothing that can be done about the past, remorse is useless and unnecessary.
There is no need to feel guilty and not feeling guilty wont be an impediment to do whatever is necessary to remedy, rectify or correct anything for the future.

To be honest, to establish your case I think you need to show at least 3 points :
1. That atheists *must* have moral position 'x';
2. That moral position 'x' leads to "remorse is illogical";
3. That humans must seek to eliminate emotion in favour of logic.

1. Atheist have it in their best interest to make the best use of their time. There is no no more of it.
2. Remorse is an illogical feeling to have because it solves nothing, it contributes nothing and it wastes what is precious to atheists.
3. From the atheist position, they should advocate eliminating remorse in their lives because it is illogical to feel it.

Fishbob wrote:
Sounds like an emotional response to me. Emotional responses are not easily controlled, not influenced much by logic, religious beliefs, the lack thereof, or the price of tea in China. This particular discussion has little relevance to your position.

Emotional responses can be controlled and are controlled constantly. It's just a matter of habit. We make countless mistakes and we have adjusted our thinking to feel remorse only on certain of them.

If it is illogical to feel a certain emotion, it is our best interest to eliminate that emotion from our life. It is illogical to fear green monsters under the bed. So, using logic, one can rid oneself of that fear.

It is illogical to feel remorse, then one can rid oneself of that guilt.

PogoPedant wrote:
Can be an evolutionary explanation? I'm going to try for one. Bear(?) in mind this is wild speculation coming from one who has struggled with declarative programming all day...


Ok, if this is so, then you would have to explain why we feel remorse with some mistakes and not with others.

Two, if it is only a social conformity then, one can easely see it as that and move on.

Three, if it is an emotional response, it can be modified.

[Christian]

Hans, your response needs addressing:

Hans wrote:
In conclusion, atheists are moral (and feel remorse) for the exact same reasons as religious people: It is a deep rooted human trait to feel responsibility for your society and its rules.

There is no logical connection between responsibility and remorse. You can have a deep rooted sense of responsibility without the need for remorse.

[Dancing David]

Quote from Christian:
1. Atheist have it in their best interest to make the best use of their time. There is no no more of it.
2. Remorse is an illogical feeling to have because it solves nothing, it contributes nothing and it wastes what is precious to atheists.
3. From the atheist position, they should advocate eliminating remorse in their lives because it is illogical to feel it.
End Quote

There seems to be some sort of wierd assumptions about being an atheist here, like they are VULCANs or something. Atheism is the premise that there is no god.
Atheist have it in thier best interest to make the best use of thier time: and so? Like those who believe in god don't?
Why assume that time is precious to atheists, I can love my family , walk the dog , enjoy life, feel sad , all without the need for a god.

Remorse is a human emotion, most humans can feel remorse, therefore most atheists can feel remorse. ( I haven't met other animals obbsessed with religion so I don't know if cats are atheists)

Christian: I enjoy this topic a lot. I feel that you don't have to believe in god to have morals or emotions.
I fail to see the thrust of your point, please make it based on something other than 'atheists would be wasting thier time to feel remorse'.

I believe that remorse is a human quality that has nothing to do with belief in god.(And please do not refer me to your previous posts I have read them, I don't see your point.)

Peace
dancing David

[Mercutio]

Another thought--the logical progression from atheist to remorseless, even if watertight (which, so far, it ain't), only would prove that atheists should not feel remorse. I've seen proofs that say we should not kill (if we're being rational), and yet we do. There are any number of instances where people don't do what they should. Why the burden on atheists?

(related topic--can christians be altruistic? If you do good only to go to heaven or avoid hell, isn't that self-serving, and thus not altruistic?

Just thought, if we don't have to feel remorse, we also don't have to help others--and yet we do, without the promise of a reward in the afterlife. Damned helpful atheists...)

[Christian]

Dancing David wrote:
There seems to be some sort of wierd assumptions about being an atheist here, like they are VULCANs or something. Atheism is the premise that there is no god.

Why wierd assumption? Atheist are rational people who do not believe in pink unicorns or the tooth fairy. They don't believe there is a God watching over our actions. So, to atheists it is completely irrational to fear punishment from a non-existent being.

Not the case with Christians, for example, Christians fear and respect this imaginary being. Once the belief in a god is taken away, the fear of punishment is too. There is nothing misterious or weird about the assumption. Atheist don't need to be VULCAN not to fear.

Ok, on remorse. To atheists, it should be exactly the same thing as fear of punishment from a imaginary being. It is a totally unnecessary feeling. Once an atheist understands that feeling guilty after the fact is illogical, (just as fear of punishment from an imaginary deity) then, they should adjust their behavior accordingly.

Atheist have it in thier best interest to make the best use of thier time: and so? Like those who believe in god don't?

Well, to atheist, time *is* more important than to those who believe in God. (in a God that has set up an afterlife). Simple logic would dictate that if there is nothing after death, the time I have now is very much precious. Those who believe in the after life might have another value for time on earth.

Why assume that time is precious to atheists, I can love my family , walk the dog , enjoy life, feel sad , all without the need for a god.

I think it is a fair assumption. It is precious because it is all you have. Once it is gone, it's over. It would be illogical not to make the best of it. Unless, of course, you put little value on your life and the lives of others, which is obviously not the case. Secular humanism puts a very high value on human life. This literally translates to high value of human time.

Remorse is a human emotion, most humans can feel remorse, therefore most atheists can feel remorse. ( I haven't met other animals obbsessed with religion so I don't know if cats are atheists)

Yes, you can also fear the punishment of an imaginary being. It does not mean you have to feel it.

Christian: I enjoy this topic a lot. I feel that you don't have to believe in god to have morals or emotions.

Thank you. All I'm doing here is a mental exercise. This is the reason I come here. I'm glad you see that way. Yes, I agree, you don't have to believe in god to have moral or emotions.

I fail to see the thrust of your point, please make it based on something other than 'atheists would be wasting thier time to feel remorse'.

Please understand that I'm making a progression here. I'm surprised I'm have a hard time getting people to agree that remorse for atheists is unnecessary. If that hurdle can't be passed, I doubt I'll get anywhere.

I believe that remorse is a human quality that has nothing to do with belief in god.

Do you see the connection now?

Mercutio wrote:
Another thought--the logical progression from atheist to remorseless, even if watertight (which, so far, it ain't), only would prove that atheists should not feel remorse.

Ok, that is all I want to get at on this point. Atheist should not feel remorse.

Why the burden on atheists?

Because atheist have decided there is no god based on a rational conclusion. This presupposes that atheist will not hold beliefs that are contrary to rational thought. For atheists, it is irrational to believe in god, thus, no reason to do it.

Then, I say, well then discard all irrational beliefs and emotions from yourself. Why would you stop only on the existence of a deity. Why not on all irrational beliefs and emotions.

It is irrational to feel remorse. It must be discarded. Unless you can show why it is rational to feel guilty about a past event.

(related topic--can christians be altruistic? If you do good only to go to heaven or avoid hell, isn't that self-serving, and thus not altruistic?

Sound perfect for another thread.

Just thought, if we don't have to feel remorse, we also don't have to help others--and yet we do, without the promise of a reward in the afterlife. Damned helpful atheists...)

You can perfectly help others without having to feel remorse. Countless volunteers that had nothing to do with a said tragedy help others without even the slightest feeling of remorse.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Christian.

I hope you and all are well and happy there.

I am as you know Buddhist and so will speak from my position as a Buddhist and what you would call an atheist.

First allow me to comment on a assault in on any form on the beliefs of another, I don’t see the reason for this ever it is of no gain and leads only to separation of beings and not in any way a bringing together. It is this illusion that there is a “us and them’ that is the cause of great anger, hate and suffering. I understand you said this is not a personal attack on anyone but on there beliefs yet you as an intelligent man know what one holds dear, a belief becomes a personal thing. There are some examples here for you becoming upset in some form over something rude/unkind that has been said about your beliefs what you hold dear. I don’t believe the attacks here of anywhere on Christian beliefs or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist or Buddhist etc are ever helpful or can be found any gain from them and many times come from a base of ego, I know every time I have done such a thing it was from my silly ego. Just what I believe.

As to the point of your thread here allow me to post JUST what I believe and or am thinking about it for what it is worth.

Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?


Why not. What is a practical reason? Compassion, love. I believe that a true the truest form of love and compassion is one that 1- seeks nothing in return, i.e. no reward. Also if remorse or an act of love or compassion to another living thing etc that is done to please a God, or out of fear of a God or in worship of a God I would find as empty and not moral. Such an act if done for any other then the needs of that being to be helped etc is not from compassion.

For that reasons an act of compassion or love from one who is say a materialist atheist is the highest form of morality.

You ask Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?

I am not sure what you mean by feeling justified in feeling remorse? If one only finds it necessary to feel remorse I find that sad and if necessary to feel compassion because of a God from fear or from the desire for some personal benefit etc more so sad.

Just what I believe.

[Yahzi]

Christian

Several errors:

1. Can theists do anything about the past? I haven't seen any theology that says God will change the past for you. This would imply that your argument shows theists have as little use for remorse as atheists.

2. Time is as precious to theists as it is to athiests. We know this for a fact, having read my Seatbelts thread. :) If time were indeed valued differently by Xians, they would all commit suicide instantly - since they are in effect merely wasting time here on Earth that could be spent in Heaven.

3. You make the argument that intellectually there is no value in remorse. That might be true, but it certainly wouldn't mean athiests don't feel it. Athiests are just as likely to feel an emotion for non-rational reasons as anyone else. Athiesm does not mean a person who is unflinchingly rational, it just means a person who doesn't believe in God. (Dancing David and Mercutio make this point.)

4. If we break remorse into its components of regret and guilt, then it becomes a little clearer. Nobody should feel regret. There is nothing you can do with regret. You should live your life without regrets. On the other hand, if you don't feel guilt, you are a nutcase. The role of guilt is to induce you to amend your mistakes and prevent you from repeating them. This is why an important part of guilt is redemption: the idea that you can do something to make it right, pay your debts, and once again be free. (I think this is what Hans was getting at.)

Your argument for why people should not feel remorse actually makes a lot of sense if you substitute the word "regret." However, it has nothing to do with "sorrow over harming someone."

The Golden Rule provides plenty of reason to feel sorrowful: if you make other people suffer, you will almost certainly be made to suffer by someone else. Also, by making other people suffer, you treat their happiness as unimportant to you, and consequently you can't complain when other people dismiss your happiness as unimportant. We treat others as valuable because we want to be treated as valuable.

If I define "remorse" as "useless guilt," then it becomes obvious that remorse is to be avoided, but there are no gaps in atheistic moral logic. But if you define "remorse" as "actual feelings of sorrow for having done wrong," then it is obvious that atheists should and do feel remorse.

Guilt does solve somthing, it does contribute something. But as I said, a necessary component of guilt is the idea of redemption. Remorse does not include that component, and hence I would agree that it is a useless emotion. Sitting around feeling terrible over what you cannot change is a waste of this life. Whether God has another one lined up for you or not doesn't change that. Indeed, if Xians were somehow allowed to waste life on Earth because they had a infinite eternity to look forward to, we would expect them to be as careless with other people's lives as they were with their own. Why, wars, murder, even torture would seem pretty unimportant, given that this life doesn't matter enough not to be wasted.

***

Your premise that athiests should feel differently based on what they believe seems amazingly similar to my Seatbelts thread, wherein I argued that Xians should act differently based on what they believe. I got a fair number of Xians arguing that their beliefs could be in direct contradiction to their actions and expectations, and that did not invalidate the sincerity of their beliefs. So presumably they would argue that just because they are Xian doesn't mean they do or don't feel a particular way.

I agree with you that there should be some kind of relationship between what you believe and what you do. I'm just telling you that Xians would reject your argument, as they have rejected mine.

[DanishDynamite]

Christian:1. Atheist have it in their best interest to make the best use of their time. There is no no more of it.And all Christians should not care for their young as they will then go straight to heaven.
2. Remorse is an illogical feeling to have because it solves nothing, it contributes nothing and it wastes what is precious to atheists.This is what is known as "an assertion". How do you know that it contributes nothing? As others have already pointed out, most people (athiest or otherwise) have the ability to have this feeling, which indicates that it is an evolutionary advantage (or at least, not a disadvantage). People who don't seem to have this ability, are usually referred to as "repeat offenders".

Reasons for why remorse could be an evolutionary advantage have been given. Your only response (that I have read) is that "strong feelings of responsibility" should be sufficient to cover any advantage from feeling remorse. Perhaps and perhaps not. Perhaps it is an evolutionary disadvatage to always have strong feelings of responsibility to a society. Perhaps those who are so inclined will find themselves generally screwed by other members of society. Hence, remorse, being a feeling after the fact, is more advantages because you get to do the "bad" deed, but you are somewhat punished for it afterwards. You are not punished, however, to the degree that you can't procreate.

Thus, remorse may be a compromise, where you get one chance at screwing some member of the flock, but then feel bad about it afterwards.
3. From the atheist position, they should advocate eliminating remorse in their lives because it is illogical to feel it.Don't all people wish to eliminate remorse from their lives? I think they do, and this is where the positive feedback loop comes into the picture. Once you have tried feeling remorsefull, you really don't want to try it again. Hence you try to analyze why you felt it the first time and then readjust your behaviour to avoid it. A bit like "once bitten, twice shy".

[Yahzi]

Christian
Unless you can show why it is rational to feel guilty about a past event.
Because this is the way you prevent yourself from repeating the past event, and how you motivate yourself to make amends.

Human beings are motivated by emotion: it is the mechanism by which we make ourselves act, the strings on the puppet. Athiests are no less emotional than theists, and even rationalists must be emotionally motivated. What the rationalist does is not avoid emotion, but rather, construct the emotions that will lead to the desired goal.

Guilt is one way to make yourself do what you have decided you should be doing. Thus, it is perfectly rational. I drink a lot of milk. I decided that I should switch to non-fat milk instead of whole milk, for health reasons. After much cajoling and practice, I now can barely stand the taste of whole milk, and I actually enjoy the taste of non-fat. This is an example of me using emotion to get myself to do what I want. Weight-lifting is another simple example. It hurts to pump iron, but we like it. Mind you, weight-lifters don't actually enjoy lifting heavy things: it's not like they spend their spare time lifting heavy boxes for fun. They only enjoy lifting heavy things in the gym, because those weights have an emotional attachment.

[Dancing David]

Quote from Christian:
Please understand that I'm making a progression here. I'm surprised I'm have a hard time getting people to agree that remorse for atheists is unnecessary. If that hurdle can't be passed, I doubt I'll get anywhere.
End Quote

Again you are basing the train of logic on some assumption tha atheists are totaly rational, what if I don't believe in god for some irrational reason , like I think burritos are the sole source of divinity. I would still be an atheist and still not subject to the logic of 'atheist must be rational'.

If your trying to make a progression then you might just want to skip the dance and get on with your point. Then we can discuss your point.

It seems that you are saying the only reason to feel remorese is that you believe in god. The individual can benefit from remorese and still not believe in God.

Peace
dancing David
PS Time and life are precious for all. Remember if there i a heaven it could be an assembly line and you'll be working.

[Mercutio]

christian wrote, first quoting me:
"Mercutio wrote:
Another thought--the logical progression from atheist to remorseless, even if watertight (which, so far, it ain't), only would prove that atheists should not feel remorse.

Ok, that is all I want to get at on this point. Atheist should not feel remorse."


Um, did you miss the if clause? Did you understand the difference between should and do? I was not ceding the point, I was pointing out the irrelevance of the point.

[c4ts]

Isn't this whole discussion rather silly anyway? It looks like Christian telling the atheists what they should and shouldn't do without an understanding of atheism.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Christian

It is not my intention to keep anybody guessing. My intention is clear, the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.



This is because atheism is not an ethical system, it's a position on the existence of gods.



The characteristics of atheism says nothing about the characteristics of religion other than atheists don't have a religion.

This is true, and says nothing at all about morality. Atheism doesn't propose any sort of ethics.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Christian
Because atheist have decided there is no god based on a rational conclusion. This presupposes that atheist will not hold beliefs that are contrary to rational thought. For atheists, it is irrational to believe in god, thus, no reason to do it.


That's a pretty big jump you make there. In any case, emotions are not generally rationally decided upon. There could be any number of reasons for feeling remorse, empathy being one of the big ones.

Just because one discards an irrational belief like Christianity doesn't mean they also discard all emotions. After all, I'm pretty sure even YOU discard SOME irrational beliefs, hm?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Valmorian


That's a pretty big jump you make there. In any case, emotions are not generally rationally decided upon. There could be any number of reasons for feeling remorse, empathy being one of the big ones.

Just because one discards an irrational belief like Christianity doesn't mean they also discard all emotions. After all, I'm pretty sure even YOU discard SOME irrational beliefs, hm?

Are you not made of atoms??
Do you not obey TLOP??????
Don't you realize that you have no more free will than the moon???????

Heh, just kidding, but those are some irrational beliefs right there.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I get what Christian is saying. It's like this:

I logically understand that my body requires rest to continue functioning, and I need some food occasionally for the same reason. Let's not forget my daily intake of water, now.

So, since I logically understand all these things, it is irrational of my body to feel sleepy, hungry, or thirsty, thus invalidating my atheism.

Excuse me, I'm off to join a church and repent my evil ways.

[Agammamon]

We atheists may be soulless automatons, but we're Human too. We are just as capable at the religious of doing things we regret. I think a basic flaw in your assumption is that atheists are ruled by logic and not emotion. Logically there may be no reason for remorse, but that is equally true for Christians since forgiveness for sins is also available; in neither case is fear of divine retribution a factor. I can feel remorse because I can empathise with my victim and see/feel the pain I've caused.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I get what Christian is saying. It's like this:

I logically understand that my body requires rest to continue functioning, and I need some food occasionally for the same reason. Let's not forget my daily intake of water, now.

So, since I logically understand all these things, it is irrational of my body to feel sleepy, hungry, or thirsty, thus invalidating my atheism.

Excuse me, I'm off to join a church and repent my evil ways.

Waaaait, isn't fasting supposed to be a religious activity?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Waaaait, isn't fasting supposed to be a religious activity?
Oh, that's not the church I'm joining. I'm going Southern Baptist. They can't go more than 2 days without a potluck luncheon. :D

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

Oh, that's not the church I'm joining. I'm going Southern Baptist. They can't go more than 2 days without a potluck luncheon. :D

Yeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaawww! Get yer shawtguns, 'cause it's an NRA get tegether right after we get with Gawd.

[Marquis de Carabas]

mmmm shotguns and meat loaf, courtesy of Chuck H and God, respectively.

[Loki]

Christian,

DanishDynamite seems to be starting from a valid place - establishing the very basis of your claim.
(DanishDynamite wrote) : This is what is known as "an assertion". How do you know that it contributes nothing? As others have already pointed out, most people (athiest or otherwise) have the ability to have this feeling, which indicates that it is an evolutionary advantage (or at least, not a disadvantage). People who don't seem to have this ability, are usually referred to as "repeat offenders".
Leaving aside atheist versus theist, and "time wasting", and morals, what evidence do you have that 'remorse' is a human emotion that serves no purpose? You seem to be strongly linking remorse with an afterlife - it somehow better prepares you for the afterlife. In the absense of an afterlife, remorse has no value? What leads you to believe this?

[Mercutio]

Well put, Marquis.

Agammamon--fear of divine retribution? Is that what is supposed to be the driving engine behind remorse? If that is so, seems to me like it is more like fear of getting caught rather than genuine remorse.

As a neat aside, I recommend the book Towing Jehovah. In it, God dies. Literally, unmistakably, visibly--there's a huge corpse floating in the Atlantic, which the church tries to tow to the arctic for preservation. The natural question explored, then, is what happens to people when they know indisputably that god is dead? If, as suggested above, remorse is driven by fear of divine retribution, religious people start acting amorally. Of course, atheists in this situation find themselves in a quandry--they were wrong, but now are right. But since their morals and ethics were independent of belief in a higher power, they still act morally and ethically.

BTW, well written and at times hilarious.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Thanks, Merc.

I'd also recommend Towing Jehovah and add that it is but the first book in a very humourous trilogy. The other two books areBlameless in Abaddon and The Eternal Footman for anyone who's interested.

[Christian]

As you can all understand, I can't address all of you. It would take me forever. So, I will have to narrow it more down to what is the core. And I guess, the noise is going to be inevitable. Just try to keep it down guys.

Thanks for the contribution Pahansiri.

Yahzi wrote:
1. Can theists do anything about the past? I haven't seen any theology that says God will change the past for you. This would imply that your argument shows theists have as little use for remorse as atheists.

No, it does not.

2. Time is as precious to theists as it is to athiests. We know this for a fact, having read my Seatbelts thread. If time were indeed valued differently by Xians, they would all commit suicide instantly - since they are in effect merely wasting time here on Earth that could be spent in Heaven.

False dichotomy here. Valueing time differently does not lead to suicide.

3. You make the argument that intellectually there is no value in remorse. That might be true, but it certainly wouldn't mean athiests don't feel it. Athiests are just as likely to feel an emotion for non-rational reasons as anyone else. Athiesm does not mean a person who is unflinchingly rational, it just means a person who doesn't believe in God. (Dancing David and Mercutio make this point.)

Obvious point, but atheist can easely adjust their thinking. Letting go of remorse is much easear of letting go of the notion of god I would think.

4. If we break remorse into its components of regret and guilt, then it becomes a little clearer. Nobody should feel regret. There is nothing you can do with regret. You should live your life without regrets. On the other hand, if you don't feel guilt, you are a nutcase. The role of guilt is to induce you to amend your mistakes and prevent you from repeating them. This is why an important part of guilt is redemption: the idea that you can do something to make it right, pay your debts, and once again be free. (I think this is what Hans was getting at.)

Guilt plays no role in analysis. Critical thinking does. The proof is that most mistake we make do not elicit guilt. And guilt and redemption are not necessarily connected either. I really don't see the distinction you are trying to make.

Your argument for why people should not feel remorse actually makes a lot of sense if you substitute the word "regret." However, it has nothing to do with "sorrow over harming someone."

Feeling sorrow for past things you can do nothing about is useless. It serves no purpose.

The Golden Rule provides plenty of reason to feel sorrowful: if you make other people suffer, you will almost certainly be made to suffer by someone else. Also, by making other people suffer, you treat their happiness as unimportant to you, and consequently you can't complain when other people dismiss your happiness as unimportant. We treat others as valuable because we want to be treated as valuable.

These are practical selfish reasons. They don't justify remorse, they seem like arguments or strategies for the future.

If I define "remorse" as "useless guilt," then it becomes obvious that remorse is to be avoided, but there are no gaps in atheistic moral logic. But if you define "remorse" as "actual feelings of sorrow for having done wrong," then it is obvious that atheists should and do feel remorse.

I see no distinction, feelin sorrow serves no purpose for past events.

Your premise that athiests should feel differently based on what they believe seems amazingly similar to my Seatbelts thread,

Yes, I have borrowed the concept. I hope you don't have it copyrighted. :D

DanishDynamite
And all Christians should not care for their young as they will then go straight to heaven.

True, and the creators of the religion, put some safeguards as to prevent this conclusion.

This is what is known as "an assertion". How do you know that it contributes nothing? As others have already pointed out, most people (athiest or otherwise) have the ability to have this feeling, which indicates that it is an evolutionary advantage (or at least, not a disadvantage). People who don't seem to have this ability, are usually referred to as "repeat offenders".

Yes it is. I know it contributes nothing because most mistakes humans make do not trigger remorse. And that in no way impedes them to correct the mistakes.

Remorse is felt only (very selectively) in some instances. It is very convinient. Why would we feel no remorse in most instances of mistakes and in select few instances yes. What evolutionary advantage, critical thinking is what makes us learn from our mistakes and correct them. There is no other mechanism. Emotions play absolutely no role in analysis. There is no way to solve a problem with emotions. I would think the argument would be that the evolutionary process in the human brain is going in the direction where we are able to more and more use critical thinking instead of emotional responses.

Yazhi wrote:
Because this is the way you prevent yourself from repeating the past event, and how you motivate yourself to make amends.

This argument is a non starter. Most mistakes and correction have absolutely no remorse in the equation. The motivation to correct mistakes can come from many places.

Human beings are motivated by emotion: it is the mechanism by which we make ourselves act, the strings on the puppet. Athiests are no less emotional than theists, and even rationalists must be emotionally motivated. What the rationalist does is not avoid emotion, but rather, construct the emotions that will lead to the desired goal.

So, your motivation to be an atheist is emotional?

Guilt is one way to make yourself do what you have decided you should be doing. Thus, it is perfectly rational.

Guilt is a lousy way to make you do anything. Actions should be done based on rational thinking, not emotion. To act rationally is the opposite of acting emotionally.

I decided that I should switch to non-fat milk instead of whole milk, for health reasons. After much cajoling and practice, I now can barely stand the taste of whole milk, and I actually enjoy the taste of non-fat. This is an example of me using emotion to get myself to do what I want.

No, it is an example of using your critical thinking skills against your original liking (emotion) of whole milk.

Dancing David wrote:
Again you are basing the train of logic on some assumption tha atheists are totaly rational, what if I don't believe in god for some irrational reason , like I think burritos are the sole source of divinity. I would still be an atheist and still not subject to the logic of 'atheist must be rational'.

I have yet to meet an atheist who claims they have decided there is no god based on emotion or irrationality.

Mercutio wrote
Um, did you miss the if clause? Did you understand the difference between should and do? I was not ceding the point, I was pointing out the irrelevance of the point.

I didn't mean to imply that you agreed, only that that is where I want to go.

Valmorian wrote:
Just because one discards an irrational belief like Christianity doesn't mean they also discard all emotions. After all, I'm pretty sure even YOU discard SOME irrational beliefs, hm?

No, I'm not asking to discard *all* of them, just remorse.

No, I think I keep all of my irrational beliefs intact. :D


Loki wrote:
DanishDynamite seems to be starting from a valid place - establishing the very basis of your claim.

Yes, let's explore that.

Leaving aside atheist versus theist, and "time wasting", and morals, what evidence do you have that 'remorse' is a human emotion that serves no purpose?

The strongest evidence I have is that remorse plays *cero* part in most mistakes-corrections in human behavior. Further, I asserting that the *only way* to correct a mistake is via critical thinking. Emotions have no part in solving a problem.

You seem to be strongly linking remorse with an afterlife - it somehow better prepares you for the afterlife. In the absense of an afterlife, remorse has no value?

No, I linking morality with the afterlife. Morality has no value if there is no afterlife or god.

What leads you to believe this?

I'm starting with remorse. I will show remorse is absolutely and totally unnecessary if there is no god.

[Socrates]

Originally posted by Christian
Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?

Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?

Let's get started ;)

The beauty of Nihilism and Naturalistic Existentialism is that we are free to create our own value system in a manner we see fit. I have absolute power over my value system and sense of morality and virtue. I decide what is good and what is bad. I assume responsibility for my choices of right and wrong; I don't have to refer to a collection of myths to make that decision for me.

Indeed, it is in my experiences with tragedy and grief that I find what is good and what is bad.

You imply that without God there is no ground of value. That isn't true. My heart is my measure of right and wrong. It is my love and compassion for my neighbor that causes me to feel grief and remorse.

But, you ask why would an atheist be justified in feeling remorse? It is our birthright to feel anything we desire because we have deemed it so.

Love,
Socrates

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Christian

It is not my intention to keep anybody guessing. My intention is clear, the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.

I want to address these inconsistencies via the logical progressions. This says nothing about the morality of the individual who are atheists, only about the inconsistencies of atheism and morality.

BTW, if these are found, that does not mean religion good, obviously. It would be clear false dichotomy. The characteristics of atheism says nothing about the characteristics of religion other than atheists don't have a religion.

Farfetched claims, Christian.

First, it would be incumbent on YOU to demonstrate that logic and consistency are necessary or expected elements of anyone's views. Hardly a simple matter.

Second, you would need to demonstrate that the position of the atheist in this regard is somehow relevantly different than anyone else. It has already been acknowledged, for example, that athiests bleed. So what? Everyone does.

Third, you mention something called "the good". Now what is that? Are you sure you can get everyone on board for that puppy? I don't agree with my wife on the matter.

And fourth, you are being coy by pretending that you are not asserting that religion is better.

After you address these points, you have my permission to BEGIN your assault.

[MRC_Hans]

Gosh, this thread moves fast, heheh.
Originally posted by Christian
Hans, your response needs addressing:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans wrote:
In conclusion, atheists are moral (and feel remorse) for the exact same reasons as religious people: It is a deep rooted human trait to feel responsibility for your society and its rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------

There is no logical connection between responsibility and remorse. You can have a deep rooted sense of responsibility without the need for remorse. Now, we can discuss the exact function and components of remorse (actually that has already been done), but you miss (or evade?) my point: Your question was "Why do atheists feel --" and my answer was: It is not relevant to make a distinction between atheists and theists in this matter, because the driving forces behind our emotions are EXACTLY the same.

My claim, in this and similar debates, is that religion is not the driving force for morality and the associated feelings in humans, quite the contrary: The feeling for morality is the source of religion. And I find that this is documented by the way societies have been shown to evolve from simple tribal groups to complex cultures. Monotheistic (and other morality regulating) religions do not appear till well into the developement of a complex society.

Hans

[PogoPedant]

Christian,

First off, I want to apologize for not addressing your three points of contention about (on?) my evolutionary rant earlier.
You wanted me to explain why we feel remorse in some situations and not others. I can't say I know, but in the vein of my earlier post, I suppose one could argue that too much remorse leaves a person incapable of action. Thus the stronger individual is the one who feels remorse when remorse is an adequate response. This might not be such a great defence, but it's the best I can come up with; I'm much better at attacking than defending. ;)

The two other points, I can't remember... :( I'll get back to those if I can both get this post going, and not loose my connection. (Curse this dial-up daemon).

Originally posted by Christian

What evolutionary advantage, critical thinking is what makes us learn from our mistakes and correct them. There is no other mechanism. Emotions play absolutely no role in analysis. There is no way to solve a problem with emotions. I would think the argument would be that the evolutionary process in the human brain is going in the direction where we are able to more and more use critical thinking instead of emotional responses.

Humans learn from mistakes long before we develop critical faculties. Once burned, twice shy: A two year old that burns his hand on a stove will not go near a stove again in a long time. He has learned to fear it.

Moreover, emotion can be quite important even in critical thinking. My own interest in mathematics came from one semester of intense problemsolving; every time I managed to crack a proof I was hit by a sense of elation; happy-chemicals were released in my brain. So I was conditioned by myself, through emotions, to continue with math.


Guilt is a lousy way to make you do anything. Actions should be done based on rational thinking, not emotion. To act rationally is the opposite of acting emotionally.

Claiming that guilt is a lousy mechanism does nothing to show that it isn't an actual mechanism. I had some training with the Glock handgun when I was dressed in green. That Glock was a lousy gun (commonly referred to as a thrown weapon), but it's still a gun.



Leaving aside atheist versus theist, and "time wasting", and morals, what evidence do you have that 'remorse' is a human emotion that serves no purpose?

The strongest evidence I have is that remorse plays *cero* part in most mistakes-corrections in human behavior. Further, I asserting that the *only way* to correct a mistake is via critical thinking. Emotions have no part in solving a problem.

From an evolutionary point of view, it could be argued that the mere fact that remorse is an emotion present in a highly successful species, suggests that it has purpose. But that might be begging the question or some such fallacy.

If you had said that remorse plays zero part in mistake-correction in humans, I could have countered by showing you one single instance of remorse being useful. However, you claim that remorse have zero part in most error-correction. That way you undermined your argument.
If remorse has no effect on most error correction, it must have some non-zero effect on some error-correction. Provided that effect is positive, remorse is not useless and your argument fails.

I broke a bowl in my flat this week. That made me feel bad, and I got a replacement bowl. My flatmates thanked me for it, and my status in the group was at least maintained. Had I not felt bad for breaking the bowl, I would have tossed it and gone about my business, my flatmates would have been angry with me and I would have come out of it with a loss in status. Hence remorse paid off.

[Dancing David]

Christian:

Well there is the boatlaod of assumptions, and a cartful of what you think but still no meat to your arguement.

Remorse is not based upon rational thought, no emotions are, yet they are totaly valid and useful to rational people.

Also you don't know very many atheists do you, most of the ones I know are atheists for totaly irrational reasons, mainly like the idea of god makes them mad, or the church pissed them off or they think and feel that the church is hypocritical. Seriously just as many athesists are atheists for all the wrong reasons as there are theists for the wrong reasons.

Every statement you have made about atheists not needing remorse is valid for theists as well.

So far your logic seems to be:
Emotions are irrational,
Atheists are rational
Therefore atheists have no use for emotions.

I think that you are headed somewhere and I would like to see it. So I'll ask you
Do you have to believe in God to have morals?

Peace dancing david

PS Please make your point.

[chance]

Christian Remorse likely has some evolutionary advantage, The emotional equivalent to physical pain.

Think of it as natures way of driving home the point that what you have done was not the best thing you could have done should you encounter similar circumstances in the future.

e.g You are back in the stone age, you father has repeatedly told you not to throw your spear until you see the white of their eyes, but of course what does that old fart know. You throw way too early, miss and the entire heard of antelope bolt. The feeling of remorse you now have, along with the hunger, forces you to remember the lesson.

[Skeptical Greg]

What does ' feeling remorse ' have to do with believing in invisible beings, for which their is no non-anecdotal evidence, of their existance?

[Christian]

Socrates wrote:
The beauty of Nihilism and Naturalistic Existentialism is that we are free to create our own value system in a manner we see fit. I have absolute power over my value system and sense of morality and virtue. I decide what is good and what is bad.

If you keep it all in your head and absolutely do not act on it, you are correct. But, I'm not interested in thought, I'm interested in behavior.

I assume responsibility for my choices of right and wrong; I don't have to refer to a collection of myths to make that decision for me.

Now, this seem to imply is not only thought but action as well. In that case, the source of your values is irrelevant.

Dr. Chinese:
First, it would be incumbent on YOU to demonstrate that logic and consistency are necessary or expected elements of anyone's views. Hardly a simple matter.

Why? We are not talking about the universe here. Were are talking exclusively of the posters on this website. The atheist posters here have made it amply clear they favor logic and consistency. Please step up any who favor irrationality.

Second, you would need to demonstrate that the position of the atheist in this regard is somehow relevantly different than anyone else. It has already been acknowledged, for example, that athiests bleed. So what? Everyone does.

The posters on this board say they are so, because of logical conclusions. So, if I demonstrate remorse is illogical, then it should be easy for them to let go of it.

Third, you mention something called "the good". Now what is that? Are you sure you can get everyone on board for that puppy? I don't agree with my wife on the matter.

Phylosophicallly, the good, is the common good. Read the UN proclamation on human rights. The precepts there show you what is universally accepted as good.

And fourth, you are being coy by pretending that you are not asserting that religion is better.

Is it? What I want to demonstrate is that if one is an atheist, morality should be irrelevant. Remorse is the first step.

After you address these points, you have my permission to BEGIN your assault.

Got it.

Hans wrote:
It is not relevant to make a distinction between atheists and theists in this matter, because the driving forces behind our emotions are EXACTLY the same.

Ok, so answer this, is your decision to be an atheist emotional?

My claim, in this and similar debates, is that religion is not the driving force for morality and the associated feelings in humans,

This is irrelevant to our discussion. Whatever the driving force is, what I saying is that remorse is illogical. This is the discussion.


Humans learn from mistakes long before we develop critical faculties. Once burned, twice shy: A two year old that burns his hand on a stove will not go near a stove again in a long time. He has learned to fear it.

Yes, but the learning that can be achieved through pain and pleasure is extremely limited. We would be reduced to any other animal.

PogoPedant wrote:
Moreover, emotion can be quite important even in critical thinking. My own interest in mathematics came from one semester of intense problemsolving; every time I managed to crack a proof I was hit by a sense of elation; happy-chemicals were released in my brain. So I was conditioned by myself, through emotions, to continue with math.

Yes, I understand the pleasure-pain connection to motivation. But, we are talking about analysis here, not motivation.

If you are remorseful and do an incorrect analysis, you are bound to make the same mistake again. Without critical thinking, the cycle could be endless. But, take away remorse and substitute it for critical thinking, you will find that repeating the mistake will be much lowered.

Claiming that guilt is a lousy mechanism does nothing to show that it isn't an actual mechanism. I had some training with the Glock handgun when I was dressed in green. That Glock was a lousy gun (commonly referred to as a thrown weapon), but it's still a gun.

It is lousy because the pain-pleasure method of learning is the most primitive way to learn. It should be obvious it is lousy compared to critical thinking.

However, you claim that remorse have zero part in most error-correction. That way you undermined your argument.
If remorse has no effect on most error correction, it must have some non-zero effect on some error-correction. Provided that effect is positive, remorse is not useless and your argument fails.

No, that would not be the conclusion. Let me try another way. If I mostly paint cars with *zero* content in my pocket, and few time I have paint them with some content in them, I can conclude, having content in pocket is irrelevant to my ability to paint cars.

I broke a bowl in my flat this week. That made me feel bad, and I got a replacement bowl. My flatmates thanked me for it, and my status in the group was at least maintained. Had I not felt bad for breaking the bowl, I would have tossed it and gone about my business, my flatmates would have been angry with me and I would have come out of it with a loss in status. Hence remorse paid off.

Now, let's try your example. You broke the flat. With zero remorse you analize that your status in the group will be at least maintained. You also conclude that

Hey I will continue this tonite. Sorry out of time.

To be continued...

[Marquis de Carabas]

Christian,

If I were to throw up my hands, sigh in exasperation, and say "Fine, then, atheists shouldn't feel remorse. Naughty, remorseful atheists," would you then be inclined to get to the point?

[Mercutio]

Xian:"Why? We are not talking about the universe here. Were are talking exclusively of the posters on this website. The atheist posters here have made it amply clear they favor logic and consistency. Please step up any who favor irrationality."

It makes no difference whatsoever what we
favor. I would favor having a little beeper instead of pain to let me know I have tissue damage. Doesn't matter; natural selection gave me pain instead. Don't you just wish intelligent design worked? Bummer.

I favor logic and consistency. Most of the time. Not in children, not in puppies, not in butterflies. Them, I like the way they are. You, you could deal with some logic and consistency. You have seen many very reasonable rejoinders to your claims, and here you are beating the same drum and claiming to be able to define the values of my world-view. At first, it was a neat question--but it seems that the only version of my world you want to see is--well--not my world at all. So if in your version of atheism, atheists behave the way you say they do, say hi to them and wish them well from me. And if that's not rational, I'll be over here with the children, the puppies and the butterflies.

M

[Socrates]

Originally posted by Christian
If you keep it all in your head and absolutely do not act on it, you are correct.

You need to explain why I wouldn't be correct if I don't keep it all in my head and act on it. Your opinions are not my ground of being and value, Christian, and gratuitous assertions carry no weight in the world of logic.

Originally posted by Christian
But, I'm not interested in thought, I'm interested in behavior.

If you aren’t interested I my thoughts then why did you ask for them? You asked:

Originally posted by Christian
Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?

Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?


These are four consecutive open questions clearly asking for thoughts and feelings.

If, I am not allowed to respond with my thoughts and feelings, then what should I respond with?

Furthermore, whether or not you are interested in my thoughts does nothing to change the fact that thoughts ARE behavior.

Clearly, you are simply begging an argument and lack the mental faculties to discourse in an objective and intelligent manner. Any further effort on my part to respond to your neurotic rant would be a waste of my time and effort.

Love,
Socrates

[fidiot]

Letting go of remorse is much easear of letting go of the notion of god I would think.

You're kidding, right? Show me one human being who doesn't feel remorse at all times, and I'll show you ten who don't believe in god.

[evildave]

I dunno. Just look at all the people who still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

If people can't even penetrate *these* obvious fantasies, why should they ever stop believing in sky daddy and wonder boy?

[MRC_Hans]

Hans wrote:
It is not relevant to make a distinction between atheists and theists in this matter, because the driving forces behind our emotions are EXACTLY the same.

Ok, so answer this, is your decision to be an atheist emotional?

My claim, in this and similar debates, is that religion is not the driving force for morality and the associated feelings in humans,

This is irrelevant to our discussion. Whatever the driving force is, what I saying is that remorse is illogical. This is the discussion.
On the question: I am not sure. I never sat down and decided: Hey! I wanna be an atheist. Partly it is rational: I do not find reason to believe. However, to be precise, I'm agnostic. I consider the question of God undecided.

Remorse is illogical, I quite agree! So is love, anger, etc. Humans are basically illogical. If we were not, this planet would be a much more peaceful place, and probably very boring --- but then, boredom is illogical too.

But you asked why atheists felt remorse. Is remorse logical for a theist?

Hans

[Agammamon]

Christian Wrote;
"Q You seem to be strongly linking remorse with an afterlife - it somehow better prepares you for the afterlife. In the absense of an afterlife, remorse has no value?

A No, I linking morality with the afterlife. Morality has no value if there is no afterlife or god."

So why are you moral? Because of fear of punishment? To maximize personal gain? Because someone told you what to do?

All a moral code is, is a guide to behavior. Even a putatively "Christian" morality has value without the benefit of an afterlife since it can help me maximize my happiness here. I do not, for example, steal since I understand that while I may gain in the short term the consequences of getting caught outweigh the possible benefits. There are of course exeptions to this rule, such as when I can know that I can't be caught; much like a Christian can sin and repent. But like a Christian, my normal behavior inhibits me from acting immorally even when there is zero risk.

As for remorse, you are right, most of the time I don't feel it. Partially because I know what will cause it and seek to avoid those behaviors. The times I do feel remorse are when I injure someone that is important to me. I feel the pain I have caused and understand that it is not something I would like to have inflicted upon me and I can prevent that by not doing it to others.

[Christian]

Sorry about the delay

I will continue where I felt off.

PogoPedant wrote:
I broke a bowl in my flat this week. That made me feel bad, and I got a replacement bowl. My flatmates thanked me for it, and my status in the group was at least maintained. Had I not felt bad for breaking the bowl, I would have tossed it and gone about my business, my flatmates would have been angry with me and I would have come out of it with a loss in status. Hence remorse paid off.

Now, let's try your example. You broke the flat. With zero remorse you analize that your status in the group will be at least maintained. You also conclude that it's not good that your friend be angry at you.

David wrote:
Remorse is not based upon rational thought, no emotions are, yet they are totaly valid and useful to rational people.

Why is it valid? The we have this conditioned response does not mean it is valid.

Also you don't know very many atheists do you, most of the ones I know are atheists for totaly irrational reasons, mainly like the idea of god makes them mad, or the church pissed them off or they think and feel that the church is hypocritical.Every statement you have made about atheists not needing remorse is valid for theists as well.


Then, to those atheists, it would not be hard to convince them to exchange their irrational beliefs. One irrational belief is as good as any other.

My interest is with those that have concluded logically that God does not exist.

Every statement you have made about atheists not needing remorse is valid for theists as well.

Yes, this correct, from a purely humanistic perspective. Not so, if one believes in God and the afterlife.

So far your logic seems to be:
Emotions are irrational,
Atheists are rational
Therefore atheists have no use for emotions.

No this is totally incorrect. I understand your strawman is unintentional.

The correct syllogism is:

God is an irrational unnecessary concept.
Remorse is an irrational unnecessary emotion
Therefore, I have no use for either God or remorse.

The strawmen some have created is to equate my assertion as emotions are unnecessary.

I'm not saying that. I'm clearly saying some emotions are unnecessary. One of them is remorse.

I think that you are headed somewhere and I would like to see it. So I'll ask you
Do you have to believe in God to have morals?

Clearly not. Most, if not all, atheist have morals. What I'm driving at this

If you are an atheist, morals are unnecessary

PS Please make your point.

That's my point.

Christian Remorse likely has some evolutionary advantage, The emotional equivalent to physical pain.

It seem to be, by all accounts, a conditioned response, a learned behavior. This is exactly like saying *thank you* to a favor or service.

Think of it as natures way of driving home the point that what you have done was not the best thing you could have done should you encounter similar circumstances in the future.

If it was nature, all of us would feel it. Clearly, this is not the case. People feel or not feel remorse for such varied situations that we can safely say it is a conditioned behavior.

Diogenes wrote:
What does ' feeling remorse ' have to do with believing in invisible beings, for which their is no non-anecdotal evidence, of their existance?

It has to do with the characteristic of *norms*. Let me put it this way. Would the laws of the land be different if there was no State? Would it be logical to perform the penalty of *community service*

Christian,

If I were to throw up my hands, sigh in exasperation, and say "Fine, then, atheists shouldn't feel remorse. Naughty, remorseful atheists," would you then be inclined to get to the point?

This is fair. The point is morality without an outside giver is inconsequencial, irrelevant. It serves no logical purpose.

Mercutio wrote:
It makes no difference whatsoever what we
favor. I would favor having a little beeper instead of pain to let me know I have tissue damage. Doesn't matter; natural selection gave me pain instead. Don't you just wish intelligent design worked? Bummer.

Then, the discussion shifts to is remorse as genetic response or not. I clearly think not. I perfectly capable of deciding when to feel it and when not. In Evildave's first intervention, he clearly pointed out that insulting those who he perceives insult him first do not deserve his remorse. Other posters have clearly stated they are free to feel whatever they want.

If someone hits in the head with a bat, I really don't have much choice in feeling the pain or not.

Socrates wrote:
You need to explain why I wouldn't be correct if I don't keep it all in my head and act on it.

Because the minute your morality clashes with most social and legal norms, the latter will prevail. You are not free to act as you please, you must conform with all legal norms and most social norms.

Your opinions are not my ground of being and value, Christian, and gratuitous assertions carry no weight in the world of logic.

I'm just pointing out a fact. Let me give you a social norm right here on this thread. Suppose, you have absolutely no objection in attaching a picture of male to female penetration on your next post. You are not free to do it.

What carries weight is reality.

If you aren’t interested I my thoughts then why did you ask for them?

No, I'm sorry, this is not what I meant. What I meant is that we must look feeling and thoughts in a teleological sense. They are the genesis of the result: actions.

In this discussion, it would not be a very insteresting to argue about what we are allowed to think or the world of feeling or thoughts per se.

Furthermore, whether or not you are interested in my thoughts does nothing to change the fact that thoughts ARE behavior.

Yes, this is a good point. But, again, I want to focus on how those thoughts ultimately impact the outside world.

Clearly, you are simply begging an argument and lack the mental faculties to discourse in an objective and intelligent manner. Any further effort on my part to respond to your neurotic rant would be a waste of my time and effort.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Fidiot wrote:
You're kidding, right? Show me one human being who doesn't feel remorse at all times, and I'll show you ten who don't believe in god.

Look at the syllogism above and show me where the flaw is.

Hans wrote:
On the question: I am not sure. I never sat down and decided: Hey! I wanna be an atheist. Partly it is rational: I do not find reason to believe. However, to be precise, I'm agnostic. I consider the question of God undecided.

Uupps. If you are an agnostic, this definately does not apply to you. The foundation of my premise is that one has made a rational decision that no deities exist.

Remorse is illogical, I quite agree! So is love, anger, etc

No, remorse is lllogical, but love, anger, hate, passion are logic feelings to have depending on the situation. Remorse is a totally unnecessary feeling.

But you asked why atheists felt remorse. Is remorse logical for a theist?

Yes, it is. It is an act that scores points with God, just like community service scores points with the State. If there is no God, there is no need to score any points.

Agammamon wrote:
So why are you moral? Because of fear of punishment? To maximize personal gain? Because someone told you what to do?

All of the above.

All a moral code is, is a guide to behavior.

Correct.

Even a putatively "Christian" morality has value without the benefit of an afterlife since it can help me maximize my happiness here.

Not so, contrary to popular belief. Most criminals don't get caught. And tons of them maximize their happiness not only being immoral but being illegal.

I would even go as far as saying that to maximize one's hapiness in life, the best strategy is to go against conventional wisdom and many laws.

I assure you, most insider trading goes completely undetected and people make tons of money off that.

I do not, for example, steal since I understand that while I may gain in the short term the consequences of getting caught outweigh the possible benefits.

You can perfectly steal and have no short term or long term consequences. You can set it up, in such a way as not to get caught. If you don't get caught. There is no remorse to feel, no karma to catch up to you latter, and no God to punish you at the end.

Think of it, if you have ever committed a crime and never got caught. You are absolutely free and clear.

There are of course exeptions to this rule, such as when I can know that I can't be caught;

Big exception here.

much like a Christian can sin and repent.

No, forgiveness does not equate to freedom from restoration or punishment.

But like a Christian, my normal behavior inhibits me from acting immorally even when there is zero risk.

With zero risk, it is illogical not to persue the best strategy.

[Mercutio]

I'll just limit myself to the portion of your reply that was directed at me:
quote:"Then, the discussion shifts to is remorse as genetic response or not. I clearly think not. I perfectly capable of deciding when to feel it and when not. In Evildave's first intervention, he clearly pointed out that insulting those who he perceives insult him first do not deserve his remorse. Other posters have clearly stated they are free to feel whatever they want.

Alternately, Evildave may have been analyzing the situations in the past in which he did or did not feel remorse. Retaliatory insulting has not led to remorse. It does not follow that he can choose to feel or not feel remorse.

quote:"If someone hits in the head with a bat, I really don't have much choice in feeling the pain or not."

If you unintentionally caused the death of an innocent, and you had to actually decide whether or not to feel remorse, that strikes me as something less than human. And I know this is not a statement based on any logical syllogism; it doesn't have to be, I'm a human.

[jimlintott]

I have been reading this thread with a great deal of interest. Christian is just another one of those religous people who play with words in an attempt to make reality fit into their narrow world view.

Christian - please explain me. I have been atheist for as long as I can remember. Logic did not make me atheist, logic prevented me from becoming theist. You are born atheist, you learn religion later in life.

I constantly feel remorse. Sometimes I feel like I have to carry the guilt of the whole world on my shoulders. When I encounter a story of a child who has been abused at the hands of a priest I feel remorse for the child. I also feel remorse for the priest. I feel remorse over every injustice I encounter. I can't help it. I'm only human.

[Dancing David]

Christian wrote:
If you are an atheist, morals are unnecessary
end quote

I happen to follow moral because they make my life easier. I feel that being an atheist means all you have is your life and therefore you can make it the best that you can. For me that means not harming others and contributing to the general welfare.

I hope that you plan to back this up with more than 'emotions are illogical', I have really enjoyed this thread and would hate to think that your point is still based upon something like 'emotions and moral are uneeded by atheists'.

And I don't think it is a fair argument to just exclude all the atheists who are atheists for illogical reasons.

Peace
dancing david

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Christian

[snip]

No this is totally incorrect. I understand your strawman is unintentional.

The correct syllogism is:

God is an irrational unnecessary concept.
Remorse is an irrational unnecessary emotion
Therefore, I have no use for either God or remorse.

The strawmen some have created is to equate my assertion as emotions are unnecessary.

I'm not saying that. I'm clearly saying some emotions are unnecessary. One of them is remorse.

[snip]

Clearly not. Most, if not all, atheist have morals. What I'm driving at this

If you are an atheist, morals are unnecessary

[snip]



I'm just going to address this, as it seems to be your central point.

First, your syllogism doesn't seem to follow logically. That is, your first premise and second premise have no connection to each other. Whether or not remorse is an irrational unnecessary emotion is in no way related to whether God is an irrational unnecessary concept. At least Franko's syllogism had some flow.

Second, as has been pointed out by others, your second premise on remorse is far from obvious. It is just as easy for me to make the same assertion about any emotion - for example, love - and have it make the same amount of sense. It is simply an assertion and nothing more.

Third, I am struggling to see how your thinking on remorse would lead to the idea that for an athiest, morals are unnecessary. You seem to be making the old argument that punishment/reward is a necessary component for morals. I don't think that this is the case.

Finally, you seem to be assuming that athiests must apply rationality above all in every aspect of their lives. It is quite possible for an athiest to believe that we never landed on the moon and that the government is covering up a huge alien visitation at Area 51. Being an athiest does not turn one into a Vulcan.

[Loki]

christian,

Not that it probably matters all that much, but a small point ...

My interest is with those that have concluded logically that God does not exist.
I have concluded logically that the "christian" god does not exist. For pretty much the same reasons I have concluded that the Norse gods do not exist. And similarly for the Hindu gods. And Allah. And Inti the Sun god of the Incas. And Baal. And...

What are *your* reasons for concluding that the Norse gods don't exist? What are your reasons for concluding the Hindu gods do not exist? Are these reasons logical, emotional, or something else?

[Christian]

Mercutio wrote:
Alternately, Evildave may have been analyzing the situations in the past in which he did or did not feel remorse. Retaliatory insulting has not led to remorse. It does not follow that he can choose to feel or not feel remorse.

He could have chosen, after understanding that insulting back puts him at the same level of the agressor, that it was not good for him to act like this. He could then feel remorse.

There is a thought process going on here. A very complex process of evaluation. Remorse implies and understanding of the actions and the passing of judgement of oneself in those actions.

If you unintentionally caused the death of an innocent, and you had to actually decide whether or not to feel remorse, that strikes me as something less than human.

First evaluation one would have to make is *was it unintentional*. The second evaluation one would make is, if it was unintentional *could I have prevented it*. If the answer is no, on both, we decide not to feel remorse.

If someone puts a gun to the child, and the parent is order to shoot himself another person and he does. He would not feel a bit or remorse for having shot and killed another person.

jimlintott wrote:
Christian is just another one of those religous people who play with words in an attempt to make reality fit into their narrow world view.

I don't want to put on the spot but, isn't this a play on words.

Logic did not make me atheist, logic prevented me from becoming theist.

I constantly feel remorse. Sometimes I feel like I have to carry the guilt of the whole world on my shoulders.

And you certainly have the right to feel that way. And you must understand, it is irrational to carry the guilt of the whole world on your shoulders.

When I encounter a story of a child who has been abused at the hands of a priest I feel remorse for the child. I also feel remorse for the priest. I feel remorse over every injustice I encounter. I can't help it. I'm only human.

You can help it. Just let go of your irrational beliefs. People can stop believing in pink elephants or unicorns, right?


David wrote:
I happen to follow moral because they make my life easier. I feel that being an atheist means all you have is your life and therefore you can make it the best that you can. For me that means not harming others and contributing to the general welfare.

I hope you can see that both objective often enter into irreconciliable contradictions. Making your life easier and making the best of it often hurts others and does not contribute to the general welfare.

at least 50% of American are bordering on obesity, the whole African continent is starving to death. 80% of the Internet is English spoken websites. Many languages are becoming extinct due to globalization.

Only one guy gets to have my wife, and that's me :D.

I hope that you plan to back this up with more than 'emotions are illogical', I have really enjoyed this thread and would hate to think that your point is still based upon something like 'emotions and moral are uneeded by atheists'.

The biggest proof that morals are unnecessary for atheists is that there is no practical distinctions between legal principles and moral norms for atheists.

The thing here is that moral norms, for atheists, are autonomous, unilateral and uncoercible. With this qualities, they serve no practical sense. Any code is as good as the next and there is no objective standard to measure compliance.

And I don't think it is a fair argument to just exclude all the atheists who are atheists for illogical reasons.

My argumentation falls apart with them. I would lose.

To them, I would have to convince that believing in God is a better irrational belief.

Thanz wrote:
First, your syllogism doesn't seem to follow logically. That is, your first premise and second premise have no connection to each other.

Ok, let's make it better.

If I discard God because it is an irrational unnecessary thing, then, I must discard remorse because it is an irrational unnecessary thing.

Second, as has been pointed out by others, your second premise on remorse is far from obvious. It is just as easy for me to make the same assertion about any emotion - for example, love - and have it make the same amount of sense. It is simply an assertion and nothing more.

Love can be either irrational or rational, necessary or unnecessary. To love my wife is rational and necessary. It is in my best interest to love her (I better love someone who shares my life in the most profound of ways) , it it obviously necessary.

Now, show me one instance where remorse is necessary in the equation. An example where remorse adds to the equation. The past cannot be changed, and my future actions are not impeded or enhanced with remorse.

Third, I am struggling to see how your thinking on remorse would lead to the idea that for an athiest, morals are unnecessary. You seem to be making the old argument that punishment/reward is a necessary component for morals.

This is the connection. Remember that remorse has a component of guilt. The word guilty comes from judgment. In order to feel remorse, one must pass judgment on oneself and find oneself guilty.

This is where moral come in. The only way norms to have any meaning is if they are *normative*. So, who is the whole power system that controls this *norm system*. In the case or moral norms. One is, you are.

You are autonomous and unilateral. This is equivalent to saying that the President of the United States will make his own rules and will be the judge and jury of them. That *norm* system is in reality non-existent. And if he were to play the three roles as objetively as possible, he would be contradicting his interests in every role.

I wanted to use remorse to illustrate that because of the *guilt* component within that feeling. If is the perfect illustration of the three roles at work. Someone makes the rule (legislative), someone plays the part of enforcing the rules (penal system), and someone plays the part of judge and jury. They are advesarial roles against the interests of the individual.

Finally, you seem to be assuming that athiests must apply rationality above all in every aspect of their lives.

Not every aspect, but I would think the most obvious ones. The non-existence of deities, the uselessness of morals.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
I have concluded logically that the "christian" god does not exist. For pretty much the same reasons I have concluded that the Norse gods do not exist. And similarly for the Hindu gods. And Allah. And Inti the Sun god of the Incas. And Baal. And...

You have concluded that no god exists. There is no outside entity that has created any rules of conduct for you. This is what you must consider.

In your position, your morality autonomous and unilateral.

What are *your* reasons for concluding that the Norse gods don't exist? What are your reasons for concluding the Hindu gods do not exist? Are these reasons logical, emotional, or something else?

You tell me. The God I have chose to believe in precludes me from believing in any other god. So when I made my choice for this one, I automatically had to give up any other option.

Now, the question is why did I choose this one. Well, it was not a matter of me picking from a lot. In a way, I say, He chose me.

The answer you would accept as the human explanation is that I was indoctrinated by my family, culture, environment.

I came to the realization that, even though that is the case, it does not prove I chose wrong. Or what was chosen for me was wrong.

[Loki]

christian,

You seem to be ranging all over the place here - perhaps because there are a variety of reponses being made.

The biggest proof that morals are unnecessary for atheists is that there is no practical distinctions between legal principles and moral norms for atheists.
Do you think that, in an ideal situation, that there should be a difference between legal principles and moral norms? Shouldn't all laws be moral? Should some immoral behaviour be legal?

The thing here is that moral norms, for atheists, are autonomous, unilateral and uncoercible. With this qualities, they serve no practical sense. Any code is as good as the next and there is no objective standard to measure compliance.
THis is just plain wrong. Atheists are humans, humans live in societies. Morla and legal behaviour has to meet both the individual and the social needs. I don't know of any person (atheist or otherwise) who believes that "anything that *I* want should be morally acceptable". This seems like either a very poorly phrased statement by you, or a wildly extreme exaggeration. My morals aren't worked out by me in islation - they are worked out in conjuction with those around me - we have a collective vested interest (social stability) that needs to be met.

[jimlintott]

You can help it. Just let go of your irrational beliefs. People can stop believing in pink elephants or unicorns, right?

Remorse, guilt, fear, love, hate or anger are not beliefs, they are emotions (this is what I mean by playing with words). I have very few irrational beliefs but I do have some. I even know that they are irrational. How crazy is that? How can I, an atheist, be so human? Remember I have never been a theist so none of my emotions are a legacy from previous enlightenment.

And you certainly have the right to feel that way. And you must understand, it is irrational to carry the guilt of the whole world on your shoulders.

I do understand that. Ironically it makes me feel more guilty. So what you have in me is living proof that an atheist can behave irrationally. Don't I tend to fly in the face of your whole premise? Isn't it about time for you to admit that you are wrong and add this to your life's experiences. You will be a better person for it.

[jimlintott]

What are *your* reasons for concluding that the Norse gods don't exist? What are your reasons for concluding the Hindu gods do not exist? Are these reasons logical, emotional, or something else?

You tell me. The God I have chose to believe in precludes me from believing in any other god. So when I made my choice for this one, I automatically had to give up any other option.

So you chose your god. Were you aware of any other gods when you chose? If you weren't then there was no choice. Was there a decision making process? Were you atheist before you chose a god? I don't want to paint you into a corner it your own words. You may have meant something else. I don't know. Would you clarify some of these points?

I don't want to attack you. That usually just makes me feel bad.

[Christian]

loki wrote:
Do you think that, in an ideal situation, that there should be a difference between legal principles and moral norms? Shouldn't all laws be moral? Should some immoral behaviour be legal?

In an ideal atheist world, there should be no moral norms, only legal ones.

Let's get our definitions straight. Morality is a *norm system*. Morality is a set of rules or principles of conduct.

legal norms are also a *norm system*. They are a set of rules or principles of conduct.

THis is just plain wrong. Atheists are humans, humans live in societies. Morla and legal behaviour has to meet both the individual and the social needs. I don't know of any person (atheist or otherwise) who believes that "anything that *I* want should be morally acceptable".

What is plain wrong Loki?

Who has created your moral rules? You have (this is called autonomy). For whom are these rules? For you alone (this is called unilateral). Who can make you comply? No one can. (This is called uncoercible.

Give me one example of a moral rule you think you follow. And I will tell you if it is moral or not.

This seems like either a very poorly phrased statement by you, or a wildly extreme exaggeration.

Loki, I'm putting forth legal doctrine. This is what I'm studying right now.

My morals aren't worked out by me in islation -

Yes, of course, nothing is worked out in isolation. I didn't invent the words, but the sentences are mine. Of I can even say, that all my sentences are borrowed from somewhere else. But, when I write, I take ownership of them. They are my words and my sentences.

When you borrow a rule or a mixture or rules, and declare it is your morality, you make the rule your own. Within you, you have created that rule.

Most penal codes in the world are identical in many rules, yet each considers each rule as their own. The penal code of Australia is not the penal code of El Salvador. Yet, without having read it, I'm positive that self-defense is an exclusion to penality.

they are worked out in conjuction with those around me - we have a collective vested interest (social stability) that needs to be met.

No, you are confusing things here. Your moral code is yours and yours alone. Once you put society into the equation, then you are talking about *social norms*.

Remorse, guilt, fear, love, hate or anger are not beliefs, they are emotions (this is what I mean by playing with words).

Let me be more clear. Let go of the irrational belief that you must feel remorse.

I have very few irrational beliefs but I do have some. I even know that they are irrational. How crazy is that?

Very.

So what you have in me is living proof that an atheist can behave irrationally.

I'm certain that an atheist can behave irrationally. If you are implying that I stated otherwise, you are creating a strawman.

Don't I tend to fly in the face of your whole premise?

No, not at all. I'm not contending that there are no irrational atheists out there.

[Christian]

So you chose your god. Were you aware of any other gods when you chose?

No, I don't think so.

If you weren't then there was no choice.

At the time there wasn't, I suppose. But, remember, this not a permanent result choice. Like name a daughter of son. Once done, it's done.

It just so happens that upon revision and I have stuck to the original non-choice, now that I have the chance to switch.

Was there a decision making process?

There has been a revision process of the choice. I can always at any given moment changed my choice. I have not.

Were you atheist before you chose a god?

Technically speaking no, ever since I can remember I always thought there was a God.

I don't buy the we were all born atheists, rhetoric.

I don't want to paint you into a corner it your own words. You may have meant something else. I don't know. Would you clarify some of these points?

Why corner? No problem to clarify.

I don't want to attack you. That usually just makes me feel bad.

Don't feel bad, it is unnecessary. :D :D :D

[ShottleBop]

If someone puts a gun to the child, and the parent is order to shoot himself another person and he does. He would not feel a bit or remorse for having shot and killed another person.

Excuse me? Why would the person not feel remorse? He has just taken another human life! As others have noted (and you have discounted, for little reason, it seems, other than inconvenience for your purposes), it is an emotion that, after millions of years of evolution, continues to be felt by many humans, indicating that the capacity to feel remorse (at least, to the extent that it doesn't interfere with physical survival) serves some salutary purpose. The fact that not all people feel it proves nothing; there are some people incapable of feeling empathy, and others incapable of feeling love, as well. Would you argue that the capacity for love confers no evolutionary advantage?

The person in your example could have shot himself instead of taking someone else's life. Personally, if someone held a gun to my child's head and threatened to kill my child unless I killed a third person, I'm not sure that I would think it rational to believe that the person threatening my child would spare my child's life--or mine--if I killed the other person. Perhaps the rational response would be to try to turn the gun on the person making the threat.

Why be moral, even if one does not believe in a deity? Because, as a general rule, one's chances of survival, and one's quality of life, are greatest if one's day-to-day life involves a healthy dose of cooperation with others, rather than non-stop competition--the need always to be watching one's back. There is an old Talmudic tale about a rabbi who accompanies God to visit heaven and hell. In hell, there is plenty of food, but all the residents have to eat it with are forks with handles that are too long to permit them to feed themselves. The people are miserable. In heaven, the situation is exactly the same, except that the people are well-fed, and happy. Each is using his or her fork to help a neighbor eat.

If you can think of no reason why a person who has no belief in an afterlife might rationally adhere to a moral code, you suffer from a serious lack of imagination.


_____________________

"If only you could sense how important you are to the lives of those you meet; how important you can be to people you may never even dream of. There is something of yourself that you leave at every meeting with another person." -Mister Rogers

[Loki]

Christian,

I'm still having a *lot* of trouble following your overall logic.

In an ideal atheist world, there should be no moral norms, only legal ones.
In an ideal theist world, there are moral norms and separate legal norms? So, as a theist, you believe that ideally some immoral behaviour should be legal? That some illegal behaviour is moral?

Let's get our definitions straight. Morality is a *norm system*. Morality is a set of rules or principles of conduct.

legal norms are also a *norm system*. They are a set of rules or principles of conduct.
So they sound the same - why would they differ (in an ideal world) ?

Who has created your moral rules? You have (this is called autonomy).
I have been taught these rules, and I review and modify them in as part of the society I live within.

For whom are these rules? For you alone (this is called unilateral).
The rules bind those of us that agree with them. Those of us that disagree seek to convince the others that change is required.

Who can make you comply? No one can. (This is called uncoercible.
Society enforces compliance.

Why do I suspect this is not precisely what you are referring to?

Give me one example of a moral rule you think you follow. And I will tell you if it is moral or not.
Hmmm...not discriminating against homosexuals in the workforce?

[jimlintott]

Now I'm confused. Either you chose a god or you didn't. If you weren't aware of any before you chose, then what would you choose from? If you always remember believing in god then what was the choosing all about? If you revised your choice later then you should be able to answer the question as to why you rejected the others? To say that by then you had to reject all others is to again say you had no choice. However you claim that you did choose. It's getting complicated.

This notion you have that atheists either don't or shouldn't (I'm not sure which) feel remorse is completely irrational. Here's a life tip. Keep your irrational thoughts to yourself. Especially when they could be insulting to other people. As a life long atheist I find these ideas offensive. No matter how sweetly you present them they are still biggotted. What sort of irrational ideas do you have about pagans, hindus or buddists?

How rational is it to come to forum that is well known to be populated by atheists and suggest that they are immoral? A rational act would be to ask 'if as atheists do we ever feel remorse'. We would answer 'yes' and you could confidently add that to your list of facts you know about the world.

You act as if we must be somehow so bewildered that we cannot even understand how we feel. Simply because we are atheist. That isn't much different than suggesting that the colour of my skin will make me good at picking cotton.

Is any of this getting through?

Remorse is a human emotion that has been succesfully used by the human invention, religion, to keep collection plates full for centuries.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

The correct syllogism is:

God is an irrational unnecessary concept.
Remorse is an irrational unnecessary emotion
Therefore, I have no use for either God or remorse.First, your syllogism doesn't seem to follow logically. That is, your first premise and second premise have no connection to each other.

Ok, let's make it better.

If I discard God because it is an irrational unnecessary thing, then, I must discard remorse because it is an irrational unnecessary thing.Look at the syllogism above and show me where the flaw is.

Snippity snip snip. ;)

Flaws:
1. You are stating that the choice is to either accept all things with a particular trait (irrationality, in this case) or discard all things with a particular trait. In fact, you can also accept some and discard some. I can find a car ugly because Blue doesn't work on it, but that doesn't mean the blue sofa in my living room suddenly becomes equally ugly. In fact, the sofa is quite nice in blue, but the car is still ugly.

1a. Similarly, I can discard deities because they are childish and silly, but I can enjoy South Park because it is childish and silly

2. One doesn't exist, and does not impact daily life. The other does exist and does impact daily life. If I offend a cultist, no deity will come down and strike me dead. However, I may have to face other consequenses such as legal action, a violent response, or personal guilt for causing someone else discomfort. (simple empathy, a human trait).

3. While I have no use for a deity, I do have use for remorse. It alerts me to an action that I've taken that I generally wouldn't approve of. I can then address the action properly.

Anyway, your point...

If you are an atheist, morals are unnecessaryThat's my point.
I don't get it. You've made a statement that applies to every human, but specified a single group to apply that statement to. I could just as easily say
If you are an atheist, purple fedoras are unnecessary

Why, then, have you singled atheists out? Morals are unnecessary for Christians, since their religion comes stock with a set of guidelines for them to follow: this is not morality, this is obedience. What makes remorse necessary for them?

[c4ts]

If emotions were truly caused by God, then we would be able to sense it, and that would deny religion of its purpose.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by c4ts
If emotions were truly caused by God, then we would be able to sense it, and that would deny religion of its purpose.

Ah, but god says that truth denies faith and without faith he is nothing. So he causes us to have emotions, but must also cause us to sense that these are our own. But if our emotions are caused by god, we're back to evildave's point that this pretty much means god is controlling us and, for instance, if i reject god it is because god has decided it should be so. Which is sexy in a catholic kind of way, but somehow... contradictory?

[Christian]

ShottleBop wrote:
Excuse me? Why would the person not feel remorse? He has just taken another human life! As others have noted (and you have discounted, for little reason, it seems, other than inconvenience for your purposes), it is an emotion that, after millions of years of evolution, continues to be felt by many humans, indicating that the capacity to feel remorse (at least, to the extent that it doesn't interfere with physical survival) serves some salutary purpose.

I was hoping someone would take your position. It will help drive home the point that remorse is not a reflex, that it is a voluntary emotion felt after complex analysis.

Let me add a piece of information to the story. You later find out that the person you killed was a serial killer of 20 babies. With this new piece of information, would you still feel remorse? And consider that one’s instant change of emotion has come after a paradigm shift caused by a new *interpretation* of the evidence.

Why be moral, even if one does not believe in a deity? Because, as a general rule, one's chances of survival, and one's quality of life, are greatest if one's day-to-day life involves a healthy dose of cooperation with others, rather than non-stop competition--the need always to be watching one's back. There is an old Talmudic tale about a rabbi who accompanies God to visit heaven and hell. In hell, there is plenty of food, but all the residents have to eat it with are forks with handles that are too long to permit them to feed themselves. The people are miserable. In heaven, the situation is exactly the same, except that the people are well-fed, and happy. Each is using his or her fork to help a neighbor eat.

Good story. You don’t need morality for your life to work, only social and legal norms. You only need social and legal contracts (agreements) to have a happy life.

If you can think of no reason why a person who has no belief in an afterlife might rationally adhere to a moral code, you suffer from a serious lack of imagination.

Tell you what, you give me some moral rules you believe are necessary for you life, and I will show why they are not.

Loki wrote:
I'm still having a *lot* of trouble following your overall logic.

The problem is an understanding of *norm theory*. Once you get it, there will be no trouble in understanding what I mean. Maybe the examples will help.

In an ideal theist world, there are moral norms and separate legal norms?

Yes, because to theist (those you believe in an afterlife and a god that intervenes) believe there are two legal systems, one imposed by God and one imposed by man.

So, as a theist, you believe that ideally some immoral behaviour should be legal?

Nope, to theist, ideally some immoral behavior should be illegal. The obvious conclusion is that God’s legal system is stricter than man’s.

It is good if you ask why I call my morality a legal system. Once you get that down, you will see where I’m coming from.

That some illegal behaviour is moral?

This can’t be, because, one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law.

So they sound the same - why would they differ (in an ideal world) ?

First, (in the real world) they are not the same. Because of the qualities of moral norms, they are unnecessary for atheists. Maybe the only way to show you is that you give me as many examples of moral norms you like and I will show you in every single case why they are unnecessary.

I have been taught these rules, and I review and modify them in as part of the society I live within.

Maybe due to the context of the discussion, the obvious is passing you by. But, Loki, your morality is a personal thing, it is by your exclusive choice. What you choose as moral norms is of your absolute control.

Don’t confuse morality with social norms. They are different. And they are not different in content necessarily but in form.

Maybe an example will demonstrate this. (I posted this in the Law and Morality Thread):

Let's do neat trick. Let's convert a moral norm into a judicial norm.

The norm is: I will give 10% of my income to charity.

Excellent. I placed the norm on myself and decide if I'm following it (hey, if I only give 8% one month, I can always justify to myself), It is a norm of me for me. If one month I don't do it, I can set it up in a way that no one else will know I broke it. And finally, there is no one to force me to do it.

Ok, so one day a legislator come along an says. It would be in the best interest of this country that we enact a law that says every single working person must donate 10% of their income to a charity of their choice.

And the law is passed.

The exact same norm, now stops being a moral one and becomes a legal one. How can that be? Simple, the four characteristics have changed.

Now the exact same norm is heteronymous (someone else has imposed it), it is bilateral (there is an active subject who is obligating and a passive subject who is obligated). It is external, this behavior is known be all sides, and it is coercible, even if I don't want to, they can make me do it (for example, the employer can be ordered to deduct directly from the paycheck.)

So, you see, norms are not moral, social, religious or legal based on content by on what type of characteristics they have.

The rules bind those of us that agree with them. Those of us that disagree seek to convince the others that change is required.

Using my example, no one can convince you of donating anything to charity and you can’t force anyone to donate to charity. And donating to charity is not a group thing, it is personal thing. Unless of course you belong to a group that has imposed that norm for you to belong to that group, this would convert that norm into a social norm.

Society enforces compliance.

Nope, no one but the State can force compliance. In the case of the donating group, all they can do is kick you out of the club, but they can’t force you to donate. They can punish you, but they can’t force you to comply.

They only entity who has the power to make you comply is the State. This is the uniqueness of legal norms. They are the only coercible laws of all norm systems (man, I wish there were some lawyers around)

Why do I suspect this is not precisely what you are referring to?

You are confusing compliance with punishment I suppose.

Oh, one difference between a moral norm and a social norm is that in the former only you can punish yourself.

Hmmm...not discriminating against homosexuals in the workforce?

You don’t need it, strike it out. This moral norm has been converted into a legal norm. And suppose it where not. You should strive for it to be one, because until it is, the breaking of that norm will be rampant making irrelevant you following it. (Like, how can you practice integration if there are no blacks around to integrate)

If you revised your choice later then you should be able to answer the question as to why you rejected the others?

Primarily I have rejected the others based on relevance. To me the Christian God is the most relevant force in the world and in my life. If my parents had chosen a Mayan god, I would have switched to the Christian God.


Jimlintott wrote:
Here's a life tip. Keep your irrational thoughts to yourself. Especially when they could be insulting to other people. As a life long atheist I find these ideas offensive. No matter how sweetly you present them they are still biggotted. What sort of irrational ideas do you have about pagans, hindus or buddists?

First, I placed a warning at the beginning of the thread.

Second, I can’t help it if you find my ideas offensive. Christianity is offensive to atheists. The message of salvation is quite offensive to atheists. I can’t help that. People are offended by many things.

Third, I would like to know why they are bigoted and irrational. Those are objective thing to discuss. Because I believe they are not bigoted or irrational. Please show me why they are.

And I don’t believe in personal attacks, I believe in attacks on ideas, concepts and beliefs. This is what I’m doing. Yes, attacking them is attacking those who hold them, but there is no other way to engage in debate. And I believe debate is good. No not only good, indispensable.

How rational is it to come to forum that is well known to be populated by atheists and suggest that they are immoral?

The problem here is that you are insulted because you want to feel insulted. I have not suggested atheists are immoral or anything similar to that.

I could even say that atheist might be more moral than theists.

What I have said and this is central to my discussion is that, to an atheist, morality is unnecessary. It serves no purpose.

And I’m trying to show intellectually why.

A rational act would be to ask 'if as atheists do we ever feel remorse'. We would answer 'yes' and you could confidently add that to your list of facts you know about the world.

Again, you are building strawmen all over the place. I’m certain atheist feel remorse. I’ve clarified this. What I’m saying is that they should not. It is an irrational unnecessary feeling.

You act as if we must be somehow so bewildered that we cannot even understand how we feel. Simply because we are atheist. That isn't much different than suggesting that the colour of my skin will make me good at picking cotton.

Ad homs comming. Please show where I have demonstrated that atheist don’t understand how they feel.

ArmchairPhysicist wrote:
Flaws:
1. You are stating that the choice is to either accept all things with a particular trait (irrationality, in this case) or discard all things with a particular trait. In fact, you can also accept some and discard some. I can find a car ugly because Blue doesn't work on it, but that doesn't mean the blue sofa in my living room suddenly becomes equally ugly. In fact, the sofa is quite nice in blue, but the car is still ugly.


You are mixing apples and oranges. The quality blue is not the same category as the quality irrational. Color is useful, irrationality is never useful. The minute irrationality is useful it changes in substance, it becomes rational.

You cannot separate irrationality with it’s un-usefulness.

1a. Similarly, I can discard deities because they are childish and silly, but I can enjoy South Park because it is childish and silly

Again, childish and silly can be useful. And another mistake here is that you have changed the verb. First you are using *discard*, then you are using *enjoy*. That changes the whole meaning from the first to the second.

2. One doesn't exist, and does not impact daily life. The other does exist and does impact daily life. If I offend a cultist, no deity will come down and strike me dead. However, I may have to face other consequenses such as legal action, a violent response, or personal guilt for causing someone else discomfort. (simple empathy, a human trait).

You are showing why morality is unnecessary. Legal and social norms suffice. And where has anybody gotten that empathy is an innate human trait. Does anybody have children. Empathy is a learned behavior and let me tell you, it is hard to teach.

3. While I have no use for a deity, I do have use for remorse. It alerts me to an action that I've taken that I generally wouldn't approve of. I can then address the action properly.

No, your critical thinking alerts you that the action that you have take is right or wrong. After evaluating all the evidence available to you. Without any evidence, you would not be able to make any determinations on what to feel.

I don't get it. You've made a statement that applies to every human, but specified a single group to apply that statement to. I could just as easily say

Norms are only useful if they are heteronymous and bilateral and if there is some sort of consequence for not complying. The only two that fall under that category for atheists are social and legal norms.

A big evidence for my point may be that as many atheist exist the same amount of moral norms systems exist and we can never know if they are followed or not.

Why, then, have you singled atheists out? Morals are unnecessary for Christians, since their religion comes stock with a set of guidelines for them to follow: this is not morality, this is obedience. What makes remorse necessary for them?

Good that you mention that. To Christian morality is not unilateral, it is bilateral. Remorse is necessary as a consequence or penalty for our action.

[tamiO]

Christian,

I would like you to imagine that God has died. I know this is an impossibility to you, but please try to imagine that this has somehow happened.

Does this mean that because there is no longer anyone to enforce morality upon you and punish you for transgressions, that you do not have the self control to be a morally upstanding citizen? Are you afraid that you would run about stealing or worse?

[Mercutio]

So, Xian, you should not feel remorse after accidentally killing an innocent. It was, after all, an accident. There's no reason to feel remorse. I would, but as an atheist, it would be illogical of me.

What I don't understand is that you imply that proper remorse only comes from knowing that you have disobeyed god (or something to that effect--I still cannot see why one class of human gets to feel remorse and another doesn't). In your example, you are choosing not to feel remorse because you just killed a multiple murderer of children. But the "don't kill" commandment doesn't have a clause exempting that situation. You have violated god's command, and you are still "choosing" not to feel remorse. So what good is god if you still choose not to remorse, or if you can pick and choose when god's laws are in effect?

[jimlintott]

Ad homs comming. Please show where I have demonstrated that atheist don?t understand how they feel.
Here :
Christianity is offensive to atheists. The message of salvation is quite offensive to atheists.
You're putting thoughts in our heads. None of those statements are true. Telling us how we feel is the same as saying we don't understand how we feel.
Also here:
The problem here is that you are insulted because you want to feel insulted.
I am insulted because someone is singling out a group of people, in this case atheists, and telling them how they should or shouldn't behave. How they feel and how they think. Clinging to this stupidity in the face of contrary evidence is the behaviour of a bigot.

I am still very unclear on this choosing a god thing. Relevance? Why were the others irrelevant? Why did you not answer this question when first asked? You were originally asked as to why you rejected other gods in favour of what you have chosen. So what things made the others irrelevant. Why specifically did you reject Brahma for example? You were familiar with Brahma? If you weren't how can you be comfortable with a choice without having all the facts?

You admit freely that atheists do feel remorse. Yet you contnue to tell us we shouldn't. We keep saying that we are still human. You persist. It is quite clear that this is not about debate. It is not about your personal edification. It is about preaching at us.

Something I've always told my children:
The way to tell the difference between a racist and a bigot is that the bigot will be the one waving the bible around.

[tamiO]

In your example, you are choosing not to feel remorse because you just killed a multiple murderer of children.

I saw that, too. That puzzled me. If I kill anyone I will feel bad regardless of what they had done. The fact that his serial killing would now be over, it would only be a silver lining on a cloud.

[Yahzi]

Christian
You only need social and legal contracts (agreements) to have a happy life.
Morality is a social contract. Try this thought expierement: suppose you are the only human being that is alive, or will ever alive. Suppose you are completely alone: even God is dead. There is no other conscious entity that you can be held accountable to, no one for you to wrong or harm. Is it possible for you to commit an immoral act in this situation?

Morality governs interactions between people, and thus must be social.

Second, I can’t help it if you find my ideas offensive.
It's not your ideas, it's your attitude. The way you should be framing the argument is not, "Atheists are wrong because they shouldn't feel remorse," but rather, "How is it that athiests feel remorse when logic says they needn't bother?" That is, if you wanted to avoid offending people. Personally, I prefer the approach you have taken, because I think it's more honest and to the point. I don't mind your offensive and belittling attitude, mostly because I share it - just directed in a slightly different direction. :D I don't think most of the people here are actually very offended either: they are just pointing out that if you were trying not to be offensive, you failed. It's all about attitude, which is why I generally try to avoid the attitude and stick to the facts. You don't need to apologize to us for challenging our views in a negative way; we do it all the time. It's ok to be offensive - as long as you are right.

Norms are only useful if they are heteronymous and bilateral and if there is some sort of consequence for not complying. The only two that fall under that category for atheists are social and legal norms.
Ah, but the first part of this - "heteronymous and bilateral" - is just wrong. Everyone understands that not all behaviour can be legislated. Law is a pretty heavy hammer, with all its courts and police and stuff: many problems are best resolved at a smaller level. For instance, if your neighbor's dog barks too much, your city almost certainly has a long chain of interventions - from letters from Animal Control, to voluntary mediation - before it gets around to invoking the court system.

So there are a huge number of ordinary daily interactions that are significant in your life, but too small to invoke the machinery of state. In these cases norms (meaing self-imposed morals) are quite useful. Because of course their are consequences to not complying - if you are rude and unfair, you won't have a lot of friends, and your day to day life will be much harder.

So now we are down to social norms - but again, I would argue there is a principal of scale. I behave when no one else is looking because the act of changing my behaviour based on whether or not someone else is looking is too difficult and fraught with error. What if I am wrong and someone is looking? What if I, in the process of making the decision, accidently make the wrong one? It's the old canard about why you shouldn't lie, because then you can't remember what you told who. Easier to just always do the same thing, and not have to think about it. So I make the decision to be moral, and stick with it, because I know that violating my routine will ultimately mess me up.

The cost of decision making is not free. Having to constantly adjust what I consider acceptable behaviour based on how much oversight others have on me is just too much work. Plus, we are inexact creatures, and need constant reinforcement. Behaving morally when no one is around is like rehearsing moral behaviour for when people are around.

So you see, it's perfectly rational.

[Yahzi]

jim
Yet you contnue to tell us we shouldn't.
Well, he's trying to make an argument that we shouldn't, based on logical reasons. Nothing wrong with that.

Now, if he was telling you that you don't when you said you did, then you would have a reason to be annoyed.

[ShottleBop]

Tell you what, you give me some moral rules you believe are necessary for you life, and I will show why they are not.

"Necessary" to basic physical survival? "Necessary" for me to live my life in the way that I think it is proper for a human being to live? "Necessary" for me to be happy? Why is "necessary" the defining factor? "Not necessary" does not mean "useless" or "undesirable." Hillel's rule (that which is hateful to you, do not do unto others), or some variation of the Golden Rule, is common to many traditions, not all of which rely on revelation for their source. I don't know attempting to adhere to such a rule is "necessary" to life, but it's good advice, nevertheless.

Were I a Randian, I would say that the decision to exist--to live--is the basic moral decision a human being must make. (I'm not a Randian, but I use that as an example of what is considered by many to be a moral rule.) Assuming, for these purposes, that a rule mandating that one take action to continue one's own existence is a moral rule, would not such a rule be necessary for life?

I was hoping someone would take your position. It will help drive home the point that remorse is not a reflex, that it is a voluntary emotion felt after complex analysis.

Let me add a piece of information to the story. You later find out that the person you killed was a serial killer of 20 babies. With this new piece of information, would you still feel remorse? And consider that one’s instant change of emotion has come after a paradigm shift caused by a new *interpretation* of the evidence.

I might still feel remorse at having taken another human's life. I might use that fact, rationally, to try to ease my sense of remorse, but it would not change the fact that, absent that data, I chose to kill another human.

And, while remorse is not a reflex, it is not the product of purely rational analysis, either. We do much of our mental processing at a subconscious level.

[ShottleBop]

(man, I wish there were some lawyers around)

There are. So far, however, you have said nothing that requires legal training to understand.

That some illegal behaviour is moral?

This can’t be, because, one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law.

So, anybody in Nazi Germany or one of its occupied territories who harbored Jews in violation of German law was acting immorally?

[jimlintott]

Well, he's trying to make an argument that we shouldn't, based on logical reasons. Nothing wrong with that.

If that's true then why is this thread three pages long?

I think that's a smoke screen. I've learned that the person you should trust the least is the one who keeps saying 'trust me'.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by jimlintott


Something I've always told my children:
The way to tell the difference between a racist and a bigot is that the bigot will be the one waving the bible around.

Unbelievable. Un-freaking-believable.

"You see, kids, religious people are bigots. But me saying that doesn't make me a bigot, no sir. Just them darn religious people."

[jimlintott]

You know, that isn't really what I mean but I guess it does come across that way.

What I have noticed is that bigots often use the bible as a basis for their bigotry. I don't believe for a second that everyone who reads the bible is a bigot. Personal experience has taught me otherwise. I know many fine people who are religous and even fundamentalist. I apologise if I painted a whole group with the same brush. It wasn't my intention but I guess without some context it feels that way.

I am remorseful for putting it that way.;)

[Christian]

TamiO wrote:
Christian,

I would like you to imagine that God has died. I know this is an impossibility to you, but please try to imagine that this has somehow happened.

Does this mean that because there is no longer anyone to enforce morality upon you and punish you for transgressions, that you do not have the self control to be a morally upstanding citizen? Are you afraid that you would run about stealing or worse?

Ok, if I were an atheist, morality would be irrelevant to me. (this is not that of a far off thing to do you know. Legislator of secular countries all over the world must discard morality as the basis for the making of laws) It would serve no purpose.

And I would not be worried about self-control but about the self control of others. Although I trust myself, I do not trust others. For some reason, everyone seems to fill the same way.

Mercutio wrote:
So, Xian, you should not feel remorse after accidentally killing an innocent. It was, after all, an accident. There's no reason to feel remorse. I would, but as an atheist, it would be illogical of me.

As a Christian, I should feel remorse. An atheist would have absolutely no logical reason to.

What I don't understand is that you imply that proper remorse only comes from knowing that you have disobeyed god (or something to that effect--I still cannot see why one class of human gets to feel remorse and another doesn't).

Ok, I'm sorry. I'm assuming stuff that I shouldn't. There three big reasons why I should feel remorse and you shouldn't.

1. I believe that God has set up a system where I will pay for all I have done here on earth.

2. I believe that in the afterlife, the amount of rewards I will receive will be in direct proportion to my deeds.

3. I believe God examines my heart and he determines if my remorse is sincere as to constitute part of the payment of my penalty.

You on the other hand, logically should think this is all irrational.

1. There is no system of automatic reward/punishment for past actions. As I pointed out before, most criminals (specially white collar types) go completely undetected and have incredibly abundant lives till death. Have you read about the robber barrons of the beginning of the century? Their heirs are still benefiting from their atrocities.

2.There is no afterlife.

3. There is noone to examine if I'm remorseful and determine if it has any worth.

In your example, you are choosing not to feel remorse because you just killed a multiple murderer of children.

I would choose not to feel remorse because of my three reasons to feel remorse.

But the "don't kill" commandment doesn't have a clause exempting that situation. You have violated god's command, and you are still "choosing" not to feel remorse. So what good is god if you still choose not to remorse, or if you can pick and choose when god's laws are in effect?

As in the penal system, where there are laws against murder, there are exclusion. The most common one is called self-defense. Another less known is called state of necessity.

If you were to encounter Osama Binladen and you killed him, you could invoke the second one as defense.


jimlintott wrote:
You're putting thoughts in our heads. None of those statements are true. Telling us how we feel is the same as saying we don't understand how we feel.

Listen, if you feel offended that I am stating that morality is unnecessary for atheists, it is not illogical for me to asssume that you would feel offended to know that Christians believe that atheists will burn in hell for eternity?

I am insulted because someone is singling out a group of people, in this case atheists, and telling them how they should or shouldn't behave. How they feel and how they think. Clinging to this stupidity in the face of contrary evidence is the behaviour of a bigot.

There is nothing wrong with singling out people for what they believe. Republicans do it do democrats, socialists do it capitalists. And the core of the singling out is telling the other side the logical reason why a particular view they hold (because the group is identified with that view) is wrong.

This is the nature of debate.

I am still very unclear on this choosing a god thing. Relevance? Why were the others irrelevant?

Because to me Christianity is the most relevant religion in the world. When I say relevant I don't mean most popular. I mean that the teachings have stood the test of time. And the events of the world (in my personal view) demonstrate that Christianity is true.

In my personal life I find that there is bilaterality. There is a God that listens and responds.

But this is not the topic. As my experience tell me, this only prompts people to go on a tangent. I would be more than glad to answer any question you want in another thread.

Why did you not answer this question when first asked? You were originally asked as to why you rejected other gods in favour of what you have chosen. So what things made the others irrelevant. Why specifically did you reject Brahma for example? You were familiar with Brahma? If you weren't how can you be comfortable with a choice without having all the facts?

I'm answering to a lot of posters and I don't want to derail the discussion. But, I didn't want it to be perceived that I was dodging the question. As I said, we can do that discussion in another thread.

TamiO wrote:
I saw that, too. That puzzled me. If I kill anyone I will feel bad regardless of what they had done. The fact that his serial killing would now be over, it would only be a silver lining on a cloud.

Can you see why this line of reasoning is so illogical. Listen to your response. You would rather kling to your belief that remorse is good (and you must evaluate the selfishness of this action) than to stop a serial killer from continuing to kill other babies (even if only the possibility that he continue).

You see, instead of feeling joy that you have rid the world of a monster, you rather feel a deep sense of guilt. Guilt about what? Ridding the world of a baby killer.

Let me ask you, would the prospect of remorse prevent you from killing Osama Binladen if the only chance of catching him was yours.


Yahzi wrote:
Morality is a social contract. Try this thought expierement: suppose you are the only human being that is alive, or will ever alive. Suppose you are completely alone: even God is dead. There is no other conscious entity that you can be held accountable to, no one for you to wrong or harm. Is it possible for you to commit an immoral act in this situation?

No, you are mistaken. Morality is not social contract at all. Let's examine your experiment.

But we have to make an adjustment to your scenario. One with God and the other without a God.

And thanks because this example will (I think) came it more clear why morality is totally unnecessary for an atheist.

If God exists it is possible to be immoral. This should be obvious.

Now, if God does not exist, it is also possible to act immorally. Why you would ask. Here is where a Buddist would come in handy. Now to clarify, I did not want to engage with a Buddist early on because, they have found a way around the illogical of morality and being an atheist: this is karma.

But they illustrate very well that morality is self-impossed.

If as an atheist, you set rules for yourself in that island, like I shall exercise daily to keep myself fit, I shall play association games to keep my mind sharp, etc. They become the norms that guide your life.

If you desregard these rules and act against yourself (and when you set them up you did because you thought it was good for you, because your life is precious) then in your eyes you are being immoral.

Now comes the tricky part. You might start arguing with me that that is not immoral at all. And then you have proven my point. Whether or not it is immoral is irrelevant, useless.

The only way I can prove to you that morality is useless is for you to give examples of moral norms and me show you that they are unnecessary.

Morality governs interactions between people, and thus must be social.

No, morality governs personal things. Let me illustrate with three moral rules that have absolutely no interaction with others.

1. I will not covet my neighbor's wife.

2. I will meditate (pray) every day

3. I will not have impure thoughts.

And let me throw some that although there is interaction, has no way of affecting you negatively.

1. I shall not lie about my preferences in ice cream

2. I shall not use bad words in my vocabulary.

3. I shall give money anonymously to charity.

It's not your ideas, it's your attitude. The way you should be framing the argument is not, "Atheists are wrong because they shouldn't feel remorse," but rather, "How is it that athiests feel remorse when logic says they needn't bother?"

I take that. Ok, that sound much better.

Personally, I prefer the approach you have taken, because I think it's more honest and to the point. I don't mind your offensive and belittling attitude, mostly because I share it - just directed in a slightly different direction. I don't think most of the people here are actually very offended either: they are just pointing out that if you were trying not to be offensive, you failed.

I knew I would be, that why I placed the warning.

It's all about attitude, which is why I generally try to avoid the attitude and stick to the facts. You don't need to apologize to us for challenging our views in a negative way; we do it all the time. It's ok to be offensive - as long as you are right.

Thanks for the encouragement. :D

Ah, but the first part of this - "heteronymous and bilateral" - is just wrong. Everyone understands that not all behaviour can be legislated. Law is a pretty heavy hammer, with all its courts and police and stuff: many problems are best resolved at a smaller level. For instance, if your neighbor's dog barks too much, your city almost certainly has a long chain of interventions - from letters from Animal Control, to voluntary mediation - before it gets around to invoking the court system.

Good example. Let's use it. An ordinance is a rule. It is heteronymous and bilateral. It is legislated (this means, it has been established by the State). A dog barking making too much noise is a violation of a legal norm.

Why is it heteronymous: The rule was placed by someone else. Why is it bilateral, the State imposes the rule, and you and I must adhere to it.

Yes, there are constant violations. And before I move the legal apparatus, I might go to my neighbor and kindly ask him to make the dog stop. And he might comply, but if he doesn't not, it is not a norm system that will allow it. There will be *due process* and a sentence will be passed.

Now suppose it where not a legal or social norm. Only a moral one, (because it is immoral to disturb the peace (even the sleep of your neighbors), what recourse would you have. If your neighbor does not believe it to be immoral or does not care. He or she will take your peace away. Does it serve any purpose for you to have this rule and your neigbor not?

So there are a huge number of ordinary daily interactions that are significant in your life, but too small to invoke the machinery of state. In these cases norms (meaing self-imposed morals) are quite useful. Because of course their are consequences to not complying - if you are rude and unfair, you won't have a lot of friends, and your day to day life will be much harder.

I will not be rude or unfair to others is a social norm. Not a moral norm.

I will prove it. Why is it that you think posters here (I'm not sure you were here before moderation started) before moderation got away with murder (remember Victor and Franko at the beginning). They were not accountable. The only regulation they had was self-imposed. Those were moral norms.

The minute society can punish you, then they by definition become social norms, not moral.

Remember, the atheist's argument why their morality is superior to a Christian's is because it is self-imposed, there is no one to punish you or make you comply. Are you willing to let that argument go?

Once others can punish you for not complying, then by definitions others have imposed the morality on you. It is not called morality then (something done out of personal conviction) it is social norm. You are doing it for others.

Easier to just always do the same thing, and not have to think about it. So I make the decision to be moral, and stick with it, because I know that violating my routine will ultimately mess me up.

You don't lie because of the punishment others could give to you. Did I get this right?

The cost of decision making is not free. Having to constantly adjust what I consider acceptable behaviour based on how much oversight others have on me is just too much work. Plus, we are inexact creatures, and need constant reinforcement. Behaving morally when no one is around is like rehearsing moral behaviour for when people are around.

Again, the same reasoning here. You practice at the gym not for you but so that you can show off your body later on.

So you see, it's perfectly rational.

Yes, it is. Following rules for personal conviction is unnecessary for atheists. Following social and legal norms is necessary.

[Christian]

ShottleBop wrote:
"Necessary" to basic physical survival? "Necessary" for me to live my life in the way that I think it is proper for a human being to live? "Necessary" for me to be happy? Why is "necessary" the defining factor? "Not necessary" does not mean "useless" or "undesirable." Hillel's rule (that which is hateful to you, do not do unto others), or some variation of the Golden Rule, is common to many traditions, not all of which rely on revelation for their source. I don't know attempting to adhere to such a rule is "necessary" to life, but it's good advice, nevertheless.

Whatever your definition of necessary is will be fine. If you answer that you find there are no necessary moral norms to follow, you have accepted my point:

Morality is unnecessary for atheists.

I might still feel remorse at having taken another human's life. I might use that fact, rationally, to try to ease my sense of remorse, but it would not change the fact that, absent that data, I chose to kill another human.

As I said, instead of jumping up and down with joy that you have rid the world of a monster, you prefer to feel remorse.

There is something else you could feel remorse for too. When meeting the parents of the murdered childrend, you could feel remorse for feeling remorse.

In your opinion, Ted Bundy's victim's families should feel remorse for Bundy's final outcome.

When the familie of people on death row plead to the judge not the pardon the offender, do you think they are being immoral? Was the US immoral in trying to kill Saddam Hussein.

And, while remorse is not a reflex, it is not the product of purely rational analysis, either. We do much of our mental processing at a subconscious level.

But it is mainly a rational analysis and with it, you can change your way of thinking.

Many argue that we have a need to believe in the supernatural, in god. But the argument against it, is that we can rise above those irrational beliefs with critical thinking.

There are. So far, however, you have said nothing that requires legal training to understand.

So, can you explain to me then why it is so hard to get the point across about the characteristics of norm systems? And why morality is different from social norms?

So, anybody in Nazi Germany or one of its occupied territories who harbored Jews in violation of German law was acting immorally?

No, Nazi Germany was acting against a higher human law. It is possible that lower laws violate higher ones. When they violate the highest one of the State, it is called unconstitutional. When they violate the highest of them all, it is called violation of universally accepte human rights.

Christian must uphold those first, and down the pyramid.

jimlintott wrote:
What I have noticed is that bigots often use the bible as a basis for their bigotry.

You know what's funny. You accuse me of insulting you because I am attacking your views, yet you come right out and call me a bigot. :confused:

Please note that the only person who has mentioned a religious book is you.

[ShottleBop]

As I said, instead of jumping up and down with joy that you have rid the world of a monster, you prefer to feel remorse.

There is something else you could feel remorse for too. When meeting the parents of the murdered childrend, you could feel remorse for feeling remorse.

In your opinion, Ted Bundy's victim's families should feel remorse for Bundy's final outcome.

When the familie of people on death row plead to the judge not the pardon the offender, do you think they are being immoral? Was the US immoral in trying to kill Saddam Hussein.

In your scenario, I shot the person FIRST, then found out he was a mass murderer. From my point of view, when I chose to shoot him, I was shooting an innocent person. In that context, your follow-up questions are non-sequitors.

. . . and "prefer" is not always appropriate to emotions. In your posts, you sometimes confuse "irrational beliefs" with "irrational emotions." They are not equivalent.

[tamiO]

TamiO wrote:
I saw that, too. That puzzled me. If I kill anyone I will feel bad regardless of what they had done. The fact that his serial killing would now be over, it would only be a silver lining on a cloud.

Christian responded
Can you see why this line of reasoning is so illogical. Listen to your response. You would rather kling to your belief that remorse is good (and you must evaluate the selfishness of this action) than to stop a serial killer from continuing to kill other babies (even if only the possibility that he continue).

You see, instead of feeling joy that you have rid the world of a monster, you rather feel a deep sense of guilt. Guilt about what? Ridding the world of a baby killer.

Let me ask you, would the prospect of remorse prevent you from killing Osama Binladen if the only chance of catching him was yours.


I didn't say I would rather cling to my belief that remorse is good; I said if I ever killed anyone I would feel bad. I could never kill anyone unless I was forced to defend myself or someone else. It would be a last resort if restraining the attacker were not possible.

Even if I knew beforehand that the person was a serial baby killer.
In the event that I did kill someone in self defense or accidentally I would feel bad. I would be glad that at least he wasn't going to kill any more babies, but I would not feel joy.

To me, feeling joy from killing someone and feeling justified with no remorse on top of it is the definition of evil.

If you were to kill a man for being a serial baby killer, you would be killing someone's child.

Even if the person was Osama bin Laden. I just don't have it in me.

WWJD?

[ShottleBop]

(ShottleBop: ) So, anybody in Nazi Germany or one of its occupied territories who harbored Jews in violation of German law was acting immorally?

(Christian: ) No, Nazi Germany was acting against a higher human law. It is possible that lower laws violate higher ones. When they violate the highest one of the State, it is called unconstitutional. When they violate the highest of them all, it is called violation of universally accepte human rights.

Christian must uphold those first, and down the pyramid.

You're playing games, Christian. Assume, for purposes of this discussion, that all of the countries of the world (or any higher body of human agents you care to choose) had unanimously adopted a convention to the effect that Jews were subhuman beings, not entitled to the protections accorded to everyone else, required Jews to report to concentration camps, and declared it a violation of international law to provide succor to any Jew.

Now, if someone harbored a Jew, would that person be acting immorally, in your estimation?

[ShottleBop]

WWJD?

Ask himself, "WWDD?" :D

[Stimpson J. Cat]

One of the earliest memories I have:

I was a small child, and my younger brother was a toddler. He was eating a banana, and enjoying it immensely. He was also annoying the crap out of me, as toddlers tend to do. He kept coming over and sticking the banana in my face. He was trying to share it with me, but I was just irritated. I knocked the banana out of his hand, and he started crying.

I remember feeling very bad about that. There was no fear of being punished. I just felt bad that I had made him feel bad.

The idea that we need religion for these feelings is ludicrous. We have these feelings because they are a part of human nature. There is nothing rational about it. It is an emotional response, not a rational one. In fact, when I remember that even, I still feel bad about it, even though intellectually I know that it was completely irrelevant.

Why do you feel remorse, Christian? Surely you would not claim that your sense of remorse is nothing more than dread that you will be punished?

Religion is not the source of values, or of morality. Human nature is. Religions just use these values (and their manipulation) as very effective tools for controlling and conditioning people.

Dr. Stupid

[Mercutio]

It seems that some of the confusion here is about the nature of remorse, or the choice to feel it (?). It may help to look at some of the research on emotions. The psychologists who research emotion tend to look at emotions as both:

a social signal (we read each other's emotions and that tells us how to act toward them; likewise, we express emotions to tell others how to act toward us. None of this need be conscious; as social animals, these cues are important enough to be interpreted non-consciously--even Darwin wrote about emotional expression in other animals); and

a complex internal attitude, typically divided into the emotional or affective component (generally viewed as an autonomic nervous system response, reflexive in nature), a behavioral component (the actions we engage in, whether approach, escape, avoidance; there is some debate as to whether the social signaling above is part of this or separate) and a cognitive component (our interpretation of our arousal, based on the situation, on our belief systems and on our past experience).

It seems that Xian is basing his argument on only the cognitive component of the internal aspect of emotion, and only on the belief system portion of that. Now, of course, this may not be the way we want to look at emotion, but this is the way that a group of people who have dedicated their careers to looking at it have ended up organizing the subject, so we could do worse.

[ShottleBop]

Social norms and legal norms do not fully occupy the field. Every day we make choices that are neither legal nor illegal, nor governed by social norms that are unanimously shared. Suppose a store clerk makes a mistake and gives me too much change, which I realize after leaving the store. If I keep the money, no legal strictures are broken; no one will ostracize me. Do I go back and return the extra change? That decision I make on the basis of my own moral code. The choice I make will affect my view of myself. If I keep the money, and I feel guilt (or remorse), that feeling will remind me that I have done something I consider immoral, and, I would hope, result in my changing that decision, and returning the money. In a case in which restititution is not feasible, remorse with respect to a prior "wrong" choice may assist me in making the right decision the next time.

[Christian]

tamiO wrote:
I didn't say I would rather cling to my belief that remorse is good; I said if I ever killed anyone I would feel bad. I could never kill anyone unless I was forced to defend myself or someone else. It would be a last resort if restraining the attacker were not possible.

Ok.

Even if I knew beforehand that the person was a serial baby killer.
In the event that I did kill someone in self defense or accidentally I would feel bad. I would be glad that at least he wasn't going to kill any more babies, but I would not feel joy.

Ok.

To me, feeling joy from killing someone and feeling justified with no remorse on top of it is the definition of evil.

So, to you all the jews that felt joy for the death of Hitler are evil?

To you a soldier feeling joy of ridding the World of Osama is evil?

If you were to kill a man for being a serial baby killer, you would be killing someone's child.

Even if the person was Osama bin Laden. I just don't have it in me.

Many would consider your position selfish and immoral. Having the opportunity to contribute the good of this world and not acting because it will make you feel bad would seem immoral to many.

But, I find it perflectly understandable. Your morality is not the of others and what is immoral to many may be very moral to you. At the end doing or not doing it would "probably" not affect you (remember the Spiderman movie and the thief/murderer).

With your response, moral grounds for these actions becomes irrelevant, unnecessary.

You're playing games, Christian. Assume, for purposes of this discussion, that all of the countries of the world (or any higher body of human agents you care to choose) had unanimously adopted a convention to the effect that Jews were subhuman beings, not entitled to the protections accorded to everyone else, required Jews to report to concentration camps, and declared it a violation of international law to provide succor to any Jew.

Now, if someone harbored a Jew, would that person be acting immorally, in your estimation?

Please consider my answer carefully. In those conditions, your morality would be completely irrelevant. It would not matter what you thought was right. You would have to comply, if you didn't you would have to suffer the consequences.

In my case, my morality would be of great use because God's law tells me the person harboring a Jew, will have his reward in heaven.

In your case, there is absolutely no reward associated with your actions. And if you tell me, you want to do it out of conviction without any reward and the risk of punishment, I would say that that is an irrational position. Why would you want to risk all that you have (the only thing you have) to save a problem that is not caused by you. If you want argue that you would, then I would challenge that response by stating that you do not need that extreme scenario to prove that you would.

There are plenty oppressed people in the world, plenty of starving people in the world were you could sacrifice your life to save some from the injustices of the world. Cuba is a perfect place to start.


If I were an atheist, I wouldn't do it. It would be irrational.

Stimpson wrote:
I was a small child, and my younger brother was a toddler. He was eating a banana, and enjoying it immensely. He was also annoying the crap out of me, as toddlers tend to do. He kept coming over and sticking the banana in my face. He was trying to share it with me, but I was just irritated. I knocked the banana out of his hand, and he started crying.

I remember feeling very bad about that. There was no fear of being punished. I just felt bad that I had made him feel bad.

Hey, I'm glad you showed up, I always consider our exchanges interesting. Got the story.

The idea that we need religion for these feelings is ludicrous. We have these feelings because they are a part of human nature. There is nothing rational about it. It is an emotional response, not a rational one. In fact, when I remember that even, I still feel bad about it, even though intellectually I know that it was completely irrelevant.

Believing in deities is part of human nature too. There is nothing rational about it. It is an emotional response mainly. But you have decided it is useless and irrational. So is remorse. If there is no justification for feeling guilty or bad about it, then you could let it go.

And suppose you accept that it is irrational but you decide it's ok, that you want to keep that irrational belief (the belief that remorse is ok to have) then you know you are being inconsistent.

Why do you feel remorse, Christian? Surely you would not claim that your sense of remorse is nothing more than dread that you will be punished?

Go back a little on the thread and you will see my answer.

Religion is not the source of values, or of morality.

Yes, this is the atheist position.

Human nature is.

This is also the atheist position. Yes, everything humans create comes from humans (there is no other conclusion for an atheist). Music, art, legal norms, morality, myths. And some are necessary and some are not. Morality is not necessary if your premises are true.

Religions just use these values (and their manipulation) as very effective tools for controlling and conditioning people.

Yes, intuitively you understand the morality is different for people who believe in God.

Mercutio wrote:
It seems that Xian is basing his argument on only the cognitive component of the internal aspect of emotion, and only on the belief system portion of that. Now, of course, this may not be the way we want to look at emotion, but this is the way that a group of people who have dedicated their careers to looking at it have ended up organizing the subject, so we could do worse.

You are correct about me focusing on the cognitive component. If you look at your analysis, it is very much possible to that believing in God falls under the same explanations.

There is a need for humans to believe there is something more besides ourselves and there is an emotional need for us to believe that it won't be over after we die.

How did you get rid of it when 99.9% of the world currently ( and 99.9999999% of humans have believe this throughtout history)

When I first started posting, I asserted that becoming a atheist was not a rational decision but an emotional one. You can imagine the response I got.

It is interesting to me (very much so) how on this topic, posters show an inconsistency in their views about rationality and logic.

As you can understand, the answer "it's human nature" is lacking, precisely because there are other "human nature" beliefs that have been stripped away.

Social norms and legal norms do not fully occupy the field. Every day we make choices that are neither legal nor illegal, nor governed by social norms that are unanimously shared. Suppose a store clerk makes a mistake and gives me too much change, which I realize after leaving the store. If I keep the money, no legal strictures are broken; no one will ostracize me. Do I go back and return the extra change? That decision I make on the basis of my own moral code. The choice I make will affect my view of myself. If I keep the money, and I feel guilt (or remorse), that feeling will remind me that I have done something I consider immoral, and, I would hope, result in my changing that decision, and returning the money. In a case in which restititution is not feasible, remorse with respect to a prior "wrong" choice may assist me in making the right decision the next time.

Ok, good you have found a moral norm that is excellent to work with.

The norm is "I will return what is not mine, even though there is no way anybody noticed I took it, accidentally or otherwise, and there is no way anybody will ever find out I took it."

As you can see, you have absolutely no motivation for returning the money. If you choose to return the money, it is no different than if you did not.

How so, well, returning the money will not help the clerk not give extra change in the future. What will help him is to set a system that does not allow him to give extra change.

That system is way much better than relying on your morality. This time he was lucky to encounter you, next time he might not.

And, about the guy that does not return the money. He is not in a worse position than you are. Actually, from a material standpoint, he is in a better position. There are no negative consequences, nothing will affect him in the future for it, and he is not prone to make the mistake again because he did not make it.

You can judge him and say, he is a dishonest person. So what. Your or my opinion would have absolutely no bearing on him. And remember, in reality, you can't pass judgement on him because you would never know.

If you decide the rule is good for you just because, it is only a matter of preference, like choosing chocolate over vanilla. As far as you are concerned, that is the only impact it has.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Christian,

The idea that we need religion for these feelings is ludicrous. We have these feelings because they are a part of human nature. There is nothing rational about it. It is an emotional response, not a rational one. In fact, when I remember that even, I still feel bad about it, even though intellectually I know that it was completely irrelevant.

Believing in deities is part of human nature too. There is nothing rational about it. It is an emotional response mainly.

Not exactly. There are natural emotional, instinctive, and intuitive, reasons people have for believing in deities, but the belief that those deities actually exist is a conclusion drawn from those reasons, and an irrational one.

But you have decided it is useless and irrational. So is remorse. If there is no justification for feeling guilty or bad about it, then you could let it go.

No, what would be a valid analogy would be for me to try to draw some sort of objective conclusions from those feelings. I do not. In effect, I do let it go, which is to say that I acknowledge that the emotional response brought on by that memory is just an emotional response, and not an indication that there is something wrong that I need to correct.

And suppose you accept that it is irrational but you decide it's ok, that you want to keep that irrational belief (the belief that remorse is ok to have) then you know you are being inconsistent.

Why would I claim that "the belief that remorse is ok to have" is irrational? The remorse itself is an emotion, and thus not rational. That is true for all emotions. That doesn't mean that I think it is bad to have emotions.

Do you not see the difference between feeling an emotion, and believing an objective claim about the nature of reality?

Religion is not the source of values, or of morality.

Yes, this is the atheist position.

Human nature is.

This is also the atheist position. Yes, everything humans create comes from humans (there is no other conclusion for an atheist). Music, art, legal norms, morality, myths. And some are necessary and some are not. Morality is not necessary if your premises are true.

It is not atheistic. It is an observable fact. The fact is that people without religion still have values and morals.

Religions just use these values (and their manipulation) as very effective tools for controlling and conditioning people.

Yes, intuitively you understand the morality is different for people who believe in God.

When did I say that? Also, belief in God has nothing to do with it. As usual, you are demonstrating your very narrow understanding of religion. What about Buddhists, who are atheists, but who nevertheless attribute their values and morals to their religion?

Dr. Stupid

[Christian]

Stimpson wrote:
Not exactly. There are natural emotional, instinctive, and intuitive, reasons people have for believing in deities, but the belief that those deities actually exist is a conclusion drawn from those reasons, and an irrational one.

Exaclty, from the atheist's perspective, I have come to an irrational conclusion drawn from reason.

You arrive at remorse exactly the same way. Your conclusion is "I must feel bad and guilty about such and such", then you give yourself permission to feel that way.

No, what would be a valid analogy would be for me to try to draw some sort of objective conclusions from those feelings. I do not. In effect, I do let it go, which is to say that I acknowledge that the emotional response brought on by that memory is just an emotional response, and not an indication that there is something wrong that I need to correct.

You are making it sound like this emotional response is a invontuntary reflex. It is not.

The analogy is valid because in order to feel remorse (the belief that feeling remorseful is appropriate) you must come to it via rational analysis.

Here, let's shift it to something much more obvious. It would be irrational to get raving mad about losing to a girl in a tennis match. Yes, it is an emotional response, but the process that got you there is irrational. What gave you permission to get angry is irrational.

If this were not true, we would not be responsible for our emotions.

Why would I claim that "the belief that remorse is ok to have" is irrational? The remorse itself is an emotion, and thus not rational. That is true for all emotions. That doesn't mean that I think it is bad to have emotions.

Remorse is an emotion as become raving mad is. But, we must conclude that becoming mad as to completely lose it, it a bad emotion to have, thus must be prevented.

What is irrational is the belief that becoming raving mad is ok, as it is ok to feel remorse.

Do you not see the difference between feeling an emotion, and believing an objective claim about the nature of reality?

You have misunderstood me. I know the difference.

This is and objetive claim about the nature of reality:

"Remorse is a natural emotional that is ok to have."

Or

"Remorse is something that will help me understand how not to make that mistake again."

Or

"Remorse is an unavoidable emotional reponse in certain circumstances"

Those are all objetive claims about the nature of reality.

They are all irrational.

It is not atheistic. It is an observable fact. The fact is that people without religion still have values and morals.

Yes, and if it is an observable fact, morality is unnecessary. Not values though, those are necessary. They are the buiding blocks of any norm system.

When did I say that?

Morality controls religious people in a different way it controls (not controls) atheists.

Also, belief in God has nothing to do with it. As usual, you are demonstrating your very narrow understanding of religion. What about Buddhists, who are atheists, but who nevertheless attribute their values and morals to their religion?

I don't know about as usual, but you are demonstrating that you have not read the entire thread and the part where I specifically address the case of Buddhists.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Christian,

Not exactly. There are natural emotional, instinctive, and intuitive, reasons people have for believing in deities, but the belief that those deities actually exist is a conclusion drawn from those reasons, and an irrational one.

Exaclty, from the atheist's perspective, I have come to an irrational conclusion drawn from reason.

What do you mean "from an atheist's perspective"? Unless you are going to claim that drawing conclusions about the nature of reality from intuitive and emotional feelings, is rational, what I have said is applicable. Incidentally, I know many Theists who would agree with me. They just disagree with me about whether there are rational reasons to believe in God, and do not claim to believe in God for emotional or intuitive reasons.

You arrive at remorse exactly the same way. Your conclusion is "I must feel bad and guilty about such and such", then you give yourself permission to feel that way.

I do not "arrive" at remorse at all. There is no conclusion involved. There is no reasoning or logic involved. I feel the emotion of remorse. That is a fact. I don't have to give myself permission to do it, any more than I have to give myself permission to feel pain when I cut myself.

No, what would be a valid analogy would be for me to try to draw some sort of objective conclusions from those feelings. I do not. In effect, I do let it go, which is to say that I acknowledge that the emotional response brought on by that memory is just an emotional response, and not an indication that there is something wrong that I need to correct.

You are making it sound like this emotional response is a invontuntary reflex. It is not.

How do you figure? It is certainly not something that I decided to do. I am sure that it is a combination of instinct and learned responses, but then, so is feeling afraid when I see spiders. That isn't rational either. I know that the spider is harmless. It doesn't matter. I don't have to give myself permission to feel afraid. I don't want to feel afraid. I don't have any choice.

The analogy is valid because in order to feel remorse (the belief that feeling remorseful is appropriate) you must come to it via rational analysis.

What does being able to feel remorse have to do with the belief that feeling remorseful is appropriate? I feel remorse in some circumstances. Whether I think it is appropriate or not appears to be completely irrelevant.

Here, let's shift it to something much more obvious. It would be irrational to get raving mad about losing to a girl in a tennis match. Yes, it is an emotional response, but the process that got you there is irrational. What gave you permission to get angry is irrational.

Since when do you need permission to get angry. I get angry without any good reason, from time to time, too. Emotions are like that. The question is, how do you act on those emotions? Do you allow emotions to dictate your actions and beliefs? That is what would be irrational.

If this were not true, we would not be responsible for our emotions.

We aren't. We are responsible for our actions.

Why would I claim that "the belief that remorse is ok to have" is irrational? The remorse itself is an emotion, and thus not rational. That is true for all emotions. That doesn't mean that I think it is bad to have emotions.

Remorse is an emotion as become raving mad is. But, we must conclude that becoming mad as to completely lose it, it a bad emotion to have, thus must be prevented.

What is irrational is the belief that becoming raving mad is ok, as it is ok to feel remorse.

See above. What is irrational is allowing your emotions to dictate your actions.

Do you not see the difference between feeling an emotion, and believing an objective claim about the nature of reality?

You have misunderstood me. I know the difference.

This is and objetive claim about the nature of reality:

"Remorse is a natural emotional that is ok to have."

Or

"Remorse is something that will help me understand how not to make that mistake again."

Or

"Remorse is an unavoidable emotional reponse in certain circumstances"

Those are all objetive claims about the nature of reality.

They are all irrational.

Why are number 1 and 3 irrational?

It is not atheistic. It is an observable fact. The fact is that people without religion still have values and morals.

Yes, and if it is an observable fact, morality is unnecessary. Not values though, those are necessary. They are the building blocks of any norm system.

All morality is, is a set of rules for behavior which are based on a set of values. If you have values, and set up rules for behavior for yourself that are designed to serve those values, then those rules are a code of morality.

When did I say that?

Morality controls religious people in a different way it controls (not controls) atheists.

Morality doesn't control people at all. People control themselves. A religion (or anybody, for that matter), can attempt to use morality to control other people, by convincing them that the code of morality being presented serves that person's values, even though it does not. This is exactly what many religions try to do. Rather than instilling values, and then encouraging reasonable debate on what the best way to serve those values is, religions demand that their followers submit to the authority of the religion to tell them what the best way to serve those values is.

That is why you get ridiculous things like people who value human life and happiness, torturing and murdering other people in the name of God. They have been convinced that actions that run completely contrary to their values, are actually the proper way to serve their values.

I don't know about as usual, but you are demonstrating that you have not read the entire thread and the part where I specifically address the case of Buddhists.

Well, you are right about one thing. When I posted that, I had not yet finished reading the entire thread yet. I have read it through now, though, and all I saw was where you mentioned that they had Karma instead of God.

If anything, this just demonstrates my point. This has nothing to do with atheism. What it has to do with is whether people have a reason for holding a code of morality. Your reason may be fear of God. A Buddhist's reason may be Karma. What makes you think that other (non-buddhist) atheists don't have reasons? How can you assert that "an atheist has no reason for morality", and then turn around and clarify that Buddhists have a reason, and one which has nothing to do with God?

What, are you claiming that only supernatural beliefs can qualify as reasons to hold a code of morality? Even if that is the case, it once again illustrates that this has nothing to do with atheism. Perhaps you should be attacking materialism instead?

After all, your arguments are also equally applicable to people who believe in God, but simply don't believe that He cares what we do, or will punish or reward us for anything. In fact, there have been religions which believe exactly that. There have also been religions where the way a person is judged by the gods has nothing to do with morality, but instead with specific actions. For example, in the Norse mythology, you got into Valhalla by dying in combat. Morality didn't even enter into it.

But guess what? Even those people had codes of morality. Barbaric by modern standards? Sure, but no more so than ancient Judaism.

Dr. Stupid

[ShottleBop]

As you can see, you have absolutely no motivation for returning the money. If you choose to return the money, it is no different than if you did not.

It makes a difference to me. How do you know my motivations? If I say that I would feel guilty not returning the money, and that adhering to my value system IS the motivation for returning the money, on what basis do you conclude that I have "absolutely no motivation" for returning the money? The fact that YOU can conceive of no reason to return the money, absent a promise of future happiness/avoidance of eternal fire, is of no probative value with respect to MY motivations.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Ah, but god says that truth denies faith and without faith he is nothing. So he causes us to have emotions, but must also cause us to sense that these are our own. But if our emotions are caused by god, we're back to evildave's point that this pretty much means god is controlling us and, for instance, if i reject god it is because god has decided it should be so. Which is sexy in a catholic kind of way, but somehow... contradictory?

It's "proof denies faith." Get your Douglas Adams straight.

God making people do things sort of takes away the purpose of punishing them for it.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

You are mixing apples and oranges. The quality blue is not the same category as the quality irrational. Color is useful, irrationality is never useful. The minute irrationality is useful it changes in substance, it becomes rational.

You're reading what you want to read, not what is being stated. You presented a syllogism and requested that the flaws be found. The first flaw is that you have presented a false dilemma, specifically that there are only two choices (either discard all things irrational or accept all things irrational). The third option, to accept some but discard others, you find to be inconsistant (or illogical)... but it is a perfectly valid option.

Atheism does not mean logician, and by stating that atheists are atheists because of logical reasons you have completely misrepresented the target group. You could just as easily say that Catholics support sex with young boys, so they should obviously support homosexuality; this misrepresents Catholics and draws a conclusion based on flawed information.

So, you have used your flawed information (atheists are logicians) to support your conclusion (two irrational options are equally undesireable). The conclusion simply doesn't follow the two statements, which is yet another flaw.

You are showing why morality is unnecessary. Legal and social norms suffice. And where has anybody gotten that empathy is an innate human trait. Does anybody have children. Empathy is a learned behavior and let me tell you, it is hard to teach.

No, I'm showing that the first two statements in your syllogism are unrelated. While they do share a single trait, that trait neither defines them nor connects them sufficiently to support the conclusion. Admittedly, the example given was poorly constructed.

No, your critical thinking alerts you that the action that you have take is right or wrong. After evaluating all the evidence available to you. Without any evidence, you would not be able to make any determinations on what to feel.

Conceeded, but your very accurate statement is more a characteristic of amorality than of immorality which is a disorder and not a trait common to even a small minority of humans.

(Correcting my statement) To the norm, taking a wrong action and immediately regretting it is a conditioned reflex, not the result of an analysis. The usefulness is that it prevents (or reduces) antisocial behaviour, something that is not conducive to the survival of a social species.

Remorse is necessary as a consequence or penalty for our action.

How is this different from anyone else? Specifically, how is this necessary for Christians in a way that isn't necessary to everyone else?

Note: It isn't your conclusion that I dispute, but the presentation. You haven't shown anything that is exclusive to atheists, other than the lack of a belief in a deity.

The closest thing to a logical statement that can be created by the arguements you have provided would be something along the lines of: Persons who have analyzed all available information regarding deities and have found the information to be incapable of providing reasonable evidence to support the existance of a deity may also find that analyzing all available information on the topic of remorse brings the conclusion that remorse is a useless emotion that should be reigned in and eliminated, which is hardly worth disputing.

[Flatworm]

Is it just me, or is Christian asking for an intellectual justification for an emotion?

When is the last time you heard someone say something like "Considering facts A,B, andC, and having considered the short and long-term benefits and consequences of emotional responses P,Q, and R, I have chosen to feel Q." ?

If remorse were the result of an intellectual process, wouldn't the proper description of remorse for a Christian be "fear of punishment" rather than "guilt"?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Flatworm
Is it just me, or is Christian asking for an intellectual justification for an emotion?

When is the last time you heard someone say something like "Considering facts A,B, andC, and having considered the short and long-term benefits and consequences of emotional responses P,Q, and R, I have chosen to feel Q." ?

If remorse were the result of an intellectual process, wouldn't the proper description of remorse for a Christian be "fear of punishment" rather than "guilt"?

And so they would try to apply a similar concept to non-Christians, maybe just to be "in the know."

[Loki]

Christian,

I think I have to bow out of this ... I can't figure out what you're saying. Obviously, it all seems very clear and clever to you, and you undoubtly understand in your own mind what the point of all this is. But I all I can see is a barrage of semi-related assertions, none of which you seem to want to take the time to establish, and each of which links to the others in a way that can (from my perspective) only loosely be termed "logical". Again, I think the only way to progress (for me) is to streamline this argument into a formal structure.

Start here :
Premise 1 - An atheist does not believe in god as a source of morals.

Fill in the middle here :
Premise 'x' - ????

End here :
Conclusion - It is a logical contradition for atheists to feel remorse.

If you can't express your ideas as a simple logical proof, then I don't think I can debate them with you.

But, Loki, your morality is a personal thing, it is by your exclusive choice.
This is really a side-track I think (so maybe it needs it's own thread), but don't you think your morality is also at least partially a "personal thing"? Is abortion immoral? Why, or why not? Can you honestly say that in your life you have *never* changed you mind about the "morality" of anything? In other words, when you were a child you thought 'X' was moral/immoral, but as a young adult, or as a parent, you have come to view 'X' as the opposite?

Even if there is a "universal moral code" laid down by god, don't you, as a single fallible human, have to try a 'discover' this code? Do you accept that under some circumstances that human slavery is morally correct? Do you believe that sex outside of wedlock is *always* immoral? Is human cloning immoral? Is IVF treatment of infertile women immoral? In each case, how have you come to your decision on the morality of the issue? How do you know your current opinion of the morality of (for example) IVF is actually part of the "universal moral code"?

[ShottleBop]

(ShottleBop: )You're playing games, Christian. Assume, for purposes of this discussion, that all of the countries of the world (or any higher body of human agents you care to choose) had unanimously adopted a convention to the effect that Jews were subhuman beings, not entitled to the protections accorded to everyone else, required Jews to report to concentration camps, and declared it a violation of international law to provide succor to any Jew.

Now, if someone harbored a Jew, would that person be acting immorally, in your estimation?

(Christian: )Please consider my answer carefully. In those conditions, your morality would be completely irrelevant. It would not matter what you thought was right. You would have to comply, if you didn't you would have to suffer the consequences.

In my case, my morality would be of great use because God's law tells me the person harboring a Jew, will have his reward in heaven.

You didn't answer the question.
You previously stated that, because one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law, it is impossible for ANY illegal act to be moral: That some illegal behaviour is moral?

This can’t be, because, one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law.

I asked you if, in the circumstances above, it would be immoral to provide assistance to a Jewish person. I have considered your answer very carefully, as requested, and I don't see any answer to it; you sidestepped it entirely.

What I read between the lines in your response is an unstated conclusion that violating the law would be MORAL--i.e. that you were backing off your prior assertion. You state that, while an atheist could anticipate no reward for having violated the law (by acting MORALLY)--and thus would have no reason to act morally, a Christian could anticipate receiving a reward from God for having acted morally--and thus would be more inclined to violate the law.

To be consistent with your prior assertion, you would had to conclude that it was immoral to violate the law, and that the Christian who violated the law would have had one more black mark to answer for on his or her day of judgment.

[Christian]

Stimpson wrote:
What do you mean "from an atheist's perspective"? Unless you are going to claim that drawing conclusions about the nature of reality from intuitive and emotional feelings, is rational, what I have said is applicable. Incidentally, I know many Theists who would agree with me. They just disagree with me about whether there are rational reasons to believe in God, and do not claim to believe in God for emotional or intuitive reasons.

This is what I mean when I say “from the atheist’s perspective.” From your perspective, my belief in God is irrational. For me, it is a completely rational, you just don’t agree on my rationality of it.

I do not "arrive" at remorse at all. There is no conclusion involved. There is no reasoning or logic involved. I feel the emotion of remorse. That is a fact. I don't have to give myself permission to do it, any more than I have to give myself permission to feel pain when I cut myself.

This is crucial point where we must arrive at a objective conclusion based on evidence. I say you arrive at remorse you say you don’t. Either we do or we don’t. My argumentation is based on this premise, I first have to show that your premise is wrong.

How do you figure? It is certainly not something that I decided to do. I am sure that it is a combination of instinct and learned responses, but then, so is feeling afraid when I see spiders. That isn't rational either. I know that the spider is harmless. It doesn't matter. I don't have to give myself permission to feel afraid. I don't want to feel afraid. I don't have any choice.

Ok, I’ll will do my best to try to show you that your premise is incorrect.

The fact that we can automate behavior does not mean it is a necessary or natural response. We can always override the automation (which we created in the first place). Let’s take “the afraid of spider example”, There was a time that you were not afraid of spiders. You decided to start feeling afraid of them after an analysis of information. Once the decision was made, you automated the response.

But you can override the automation, and not be afraid of spiders anymore. I’m sure you know stories of people who were afraid of the dark and then not.

I’m also certain that you know that there are strategies for overcoming phobias (which is by definition irrational fears)

Remorse is a learned behavior. Remember, when we say we feel bad, that is just a representation of a mental state. We have arrived at that mental state voluntarily. Now, that you have read the whole thread, you have seen my examples showing a rearrangement of the outside information can and does change our mental state.

Now, because we have automated this mental state to appear when certain information is present, does not mean it out of our volition. Normal people can always override their mental states or can decide what mental states to hold. Isn’t this what maturity is all about.

What does being able to feel remorse have to do with the belief that feeling remorseful is appropriate? I feel remorse in some circumstances. Whether I think it is appropriate or not appears to be completely irrelevant.

You come to this conclusion because we are using different premises. I can decide when it is appropriate to get angry, meaning I have control of my mental states. Deciding the appropriateness of an emotion is a sign that can control them. If this were not the case, I would have emotions haphazardly triggered by the outside world. Although, there have been cases where people can control their laughter in serious event, most of us do control it (even if we suddenly have the urge to) because it would be inappropriate to have laugh.
Since when do you need permission to get angry. I get angry without any good reason, from time to time, too. Emotions are like that. The question is, how do you act on those emotions? Do you allow emotions to dictate your actions and beliefs? That is what would be irrational.

You give yourself permission to get angry, and, although you can choose not to control your mental states, you can certainly control them.

A poster correctly pointed out that a mental state constitutes and action, but if you mean an action that can be perceived by others, yes, you can have mental states without actions. But it is impossible to have actions without mental states. And please consider that if there are no actions associated with the mental state and this one is negative, you could concede it is unnecessary, even undesirable to have, irrational.

We aren't. We are responsible for our actions.

This is your paradigm. But it is an odd one. All actions (your context of actions) or lack of them are associated with mental states. The whole penal doctrine is based on this premise. You are simple mistaken in believing you can separate the two. And you are responsible for your mental state.

Prosecutors first look at what was going through the offenders mind before, during and after the commission of a crime. *Intent* is an essential component of typifying a crime. This is because we are responsible for our mental states.

And, I’m surprised you would take this position. Have you ever read any pop psychology book? Or did anyone ever told you you could control your temper, or decide to make the best of it (or see the glass half full instead of half empty)

See above. What is irrational is allowing your emotions to dictate your actions.

Our mental states dictate our actions. The problem here is that we might not have labels for all of them, and maybe we mislabel many for lack of accuracy. We might say we love someone but don’t know to what degree. All we are doing is articulating vaguely an approximation what other mental states are.

Why are number 1 and 3 irrational?

Even if you don’t agree with me, you can see the logic.

All morality is, is a set of rules for behavior which are based on a set of values. If you have values, and set up rules for behavior for yourself that are designed to serve those values, then those rules are a code of morality

I could not have said it better. So morality is useless and unnecessary because each individual’s values are different and there is no way to uphold the code.

And what is the purpose of having a code, if it can’t be enforced. This is my point. I don’t know if I can make it any more clear than this.

Morality doesn't control people at all. People control themselves.

This is why I have singled out atheists, because this is exactly what you believe. To you, morality is unilateral, to me it is bilateral.

I know you don’t accept that it is bilateral, and that is the point of this thread, I’m not arguing that it is. For the sake of argument (or to prove my point) I’m accepting the premise that morality is unilateral.

A religion (or anybody, for that matter), can attempt to use morality to control other people, by convincing them that the code of morality being presented serves that person's values, even though it does not. This is exactly what many religions try to do. Rather than instilling values, and then encouraging reasonable debate on what the best way to serve those values is, religions demand that their followers submit to the authority of the religion to tell them what the best way to serve those values is.

Man, I’m so glad you are in this debate because now we are really discussing the meat of the thing. Yes, I understand exactly what you are saying and I’m saying your model does not work. This is the whole point.

You think that the correct route is to instill values (the correct values) into people so that when they (of their own volition) acquire these values, the will set a code for themselves that is not only consistent with their values but will translate to the common good.

What I’m stating is that that system does not work simply because there is no way to enforce the code. It is the equivalent to moral anarchy (each making his or her own rules that are unenforceable) So, it serves absolutely no purpose for me to set a rule that can and will be broken by everyone else.

That is why you get ridiculous things like people who value human life and happiness, torturing and murdering other people in the name of God. They have been convinced that actions that run completely contrary to their values, are actually the proper way to serve their values.

Suppose, you were speaking to another atheist (that I were one). The problem here would not be that people murder other’s because god said so, the problem is that there is no system to stop it. What I individually value becomes irrelevant. What become relevant is that we must make sure bilateral and coercible laws are in place to uphold the values that contribute to the common good.

If you lived in the era were this was common place, would your morality have any relevance? And it has not relevance today. I’m sure you know that there are states in the US where atheists are prohibited by law to hold public office (this is terrible in my opinion). It does not matter what you value or your moral code, the legal code blows it away.

If I were an atheist, I would put all my efforts into creating social and legal norms consistent with my values. Otherwise, having them is no more than a preference (choosing chocolate instead of vanilla)

If anything, this just demonstrates my point. This has nothing to do with atheism. What it has to do with is whether people have a reason for holding a code of morality. Your reason may be fear of God. A Buddhist's reason may be Karma. What makes you think that other (non-buddhist) atheists don't have reasons? How can you assert that "an atheist has no reason for morality", and then turn around and clarify that Buddhists have a reason, and one which has nothing to do with God?

Sure, you can have all the reasons you want, but you have to admit they would be of a substantial different quality than mine (or a Buddhist). It is not the same to uphold a moral code for the common good than to uphold it just because I feel like it.


What, are you claiming that only supernatural beliefs can qualify as reasons to hold a code of morality? Even if that is the case, it once again illustrates that this has nothing to do with atheism. Perhaps you should be attacking materialism instead?

You can demonstrate that is more profound than that, the morality does hold qualitatively more weight than preference.
After all, your arguments are also equally applicable to people who believe in God, but simply don't believe that He cares what we do, or will punish or reward us for anything

Yes, I agree, and I made this clarification too.

In fact, there have been religions which believe exactly that. There have also been religions where the way a person is judged by the gods has nothing to do with morality, but instead with specific actions. For example, in the Norse mythology, you got into Valhalla by dying in combat. Morality didn't even enter into it.

I think a generalization is fair here. It addresses the majority of posters here. And you are the only one who has brought the objection up, and it is not your case.

It makes a difference to me. How do you know my motivations? If I say that I would feel guilty not returning the money, and that adhering to my value system IS the motivation for returning the money, on what basis do you conclude that I have "absolutely no motivation" for returning the money? The fact that YOU can conceive of no reason to return the money, absent a promise of future happiness/avoidance of eternal fire, is of no probative value with respect to MY motivations.

The point is that your motivation to return it and another’s motivation to keep it is *qualitatively* the same. It is simply a matter of preference. You do it, consistent with your values and another consistent with his. Absolutely no difference of impact.

When I say motivation, I mean, the reason why we say we hold values. The reason why we set up a code of conduct for ourselves.

If it’s just going to be a matter of preference (like chocolate over vanilla) it makes no sense to set it up.

ArmchairPhysicist wrote:
You're reading what you want to read, not what is being stated. You presented a syllogism and requested that the flaws be found. The first flaw is that you have presented a false dilemma, specifically that there are only two choices (either discard all things irrational or accept all things irrational).

Again, you are changing the premises. What you present is a false dilemma. I have presented no such thing.

In those terms I would equate to say Although it is totally impossible to eliminate all irrational beliefs, “if you have discarded this unnecessary irrational belief based you can perfectly discard this unnecessary irrational belief.

But if the syllogism is the problem. Let’s try another approach. Would you agree with this statement?: Once I know something is unnecessary and irrational I should discard it.

Atheism does not mean logician, and by stating that atheists are atheists because of logical reasons you have completely misrepresented the target group. You could just as easily say that Catholics support sex with young boys, so they should obviously support homosexuality; this misrepresents Catholics and draws a conclusion based on flawed information.

If my assumption is wrong that atheist’s are so because they have decided deities are an irrational belief. Then, you can correct me.

If you are an atheist, is your choice based on rational analysis?

So, you have used your flawed information (atheists are logicians) to support your conclusion (two irrational options are equally undesireable). The conclusion simply doesn't follow the two statements, which is yet another flaw.

No, my assumption has been atheists believe it is irrational to conclude that deities exist.

Conceeded, but your very accurate statement is more a characteristic of amorality than of immorality which is a disorder and not a trait common to even a small minority of humans.

Yes, you have hit it in the nail. What I’m proposing to atheist is amorality. Why would it be a disorder?

And now we are in the area to be. The problem is that atheist are never immoral. They never break their code. Have you read the examples given of admittedly bad behavior? Man, atheist do consider themselves the most moral of all humans, one might think.

The reason is simple, the rules are auto imposed.

How is this different from anyone else? Specifically, how is this necessary for Christians in a way that isn't necessary to everyone else?

I posted this before but I will do it again

There three big reasons why I should feel remorse and you shouldn't.

1. I believe that God has set up a system where I will pay for all I have done here on earth.

2. I believe that in the afterlife, the amount of rewards I will receive will be in direct proportion to my deeds.

3. I believe God examines my heart and he determines if my remorse is sincere as to constitute part of the payment of my penalty.

Note: It isn't your conclusion that I dispute, but the presentation. You haven't shown anything that is exclusive to atheists, other than the lack of a belief in a deity.

To me, generally speaking, atheists do not believe in a supernatural system of reward and punishment. Or a supernatural system where a count is kept on human actions for any purpose.

To me, this is the whole purpose of remorse and morality. I might be mistaken (do to my Christian bias) in concluding that these systems are associated with the belief in a god, and I did make the exceptions I thought were appropriate.

I believe my generalization is valid.

Loki wrote:
I think I have to bow out of this ... I can't figure out what you're saying.

Ok.

If you can't express your ideas as a simple logical proof, then I don't think I can debate them with you.

I will understand this to mean that if I can’t be coherent to you, you wont be able to debate with me. That sounds reasonable.

This is really a side-track I think (so maybe it needs it's own thread), but don't you think your morality is also at least partially a "personal thing"? Is abortion immoral? Why, or why not? Can you honestly say that in your life you have *never* changed you mind about the "morality" of anything? In other words, when you were a child you thought 'X' was moral/immoral, but as a young adult, or as a parent, you have come to view 'X' as the opposite?

What is a personal thing to me is my understanding of the code. My understanding will always be personal. The code will not. There is difference and a distinction.

I live in a country where every law is codified. It has many advantages over *common law*, (as a matter of fact, most law now is going the way of codification) One of them is that you can go to the specific norm and it is unmovable.

This does not mean it has it’s problems, one is interpretation. Even though the legislators try to be as precise as possible, sometimes this is not accomplished, so an interpretation thing comes about. And this also happens when new situations arise that the codified law did not contemplate.

But even with all of this, the norms are objective and referential.

This is how I view morality. I might be wrong in my interpretation but once I’m sure of the correct interpretation, I know I can’t be wrong about following the rule.

Take, monogamy. If anyone were to follow this rule, they would not go wrong for 2,000 years up to now or 2,000 more years.

Even if there is a "universal moral code" laid down by god, don't you, as a single fallible human, have to try a 'discover' this code? Do you accept that under some circumstances that human slavery is morally correct?

Yes, I do. But you are now introducing the element of hierarchies. Like I think it is morally correct to kill someone in certain circumstances, even though the code says it is immoral to kill.

Do you believe that sex outside of wedlock is *always* immoral? Is human cloning immoral? Is IVF treatment of infertile women immoral? In each case, how have you come to your decision on the morality of the issue? How do you know your current opinion of the morality of (for example) IVF is actually part of the "universal moral code"?

If we were to explore the hierarchy, then you would see that there are no inconsistencies. The proof of this is that most legal systems are not inconsistent, even with the complexity of the structure. And yes, I might not have all the answers but this is why I have a relationship with God, to guide me in understanding His code.



ShottleBop wrote:
You didn't answer the question.
You previously stated that, because one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law, it is impossible for ANY illegal act to be moral:

Yes, I stated this with the knowledge that there are (right now in the world today) universal human right laws that would make the statement always true.

As it stands today, It is impossible that one obeys the highest human law and not be moral.

Then, you accused me of playing games and created a fictitious scenario where my first premise would not apply ( a trap??).

I decided to address the question because it would serve well to our discussion.

But now, we are going on a tangent.

I asked you if, in the circumstances above, it would be immoral to provide assistance to a Jewish person. I have considered your answer very carefully, as requested, and I don't see any answer to it; you sidestepped it entirely.

I focused my answer on the topic.

What I read between the lines in your response is an unstated conclusion that violating the law would be MORAL--i.e. that you were backing off your prior assertion. You state that, while an atheist could anticipate no reward for having violated the law (by acting MORALLY)--and thus would have no reason to act morally, a Christian could anticipate receiving a reward from God for having acted morally--and thus would be more inclined to violate the law.

To be consistent with your prior assertion, you would had to conclude that it was immoral to violate the law, and that the Christian who violated the law would have had one more black mark to answer for on his or her day of judgment.

The inconsistency in the response is due to you changing the scenario. Listen, it is not hard to see that in many countries violating the law is the moral thing to do.

Christians do it all the time, there are many countries where proselytizing is illegal, yet Christian do it.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Christian,

I do not "arrive" at remorse at all. There is no conclusion involved. There is no reasoning or logic involved. I feel the emotion of remorse. That is a fact. I don't have to give myself permission to do it, any more than I have to give myself permission to feel pain when I cut myself.

This is crucial point where we must arrive at a objective conclusion based on evidence. I say you arrive at remorse you say you don’t. Either we do or we don’t. My argumentation is based on this premise, I first have to show that your premise is wrong.

Go for it. The fact that emotional responses are not voluntary is both trivial and obvious.

How do you figure? It is certainly not something that I decided to do. I am sure that it is a combination of instinct and learned responses, but then, so is feeling afraid when I see spiders. That isn't rational either. I know that the spider is harmless. It doesn't matter. I don't have to give myself permission to feel afraid. I don't want to feel afraid. I don't have any choice.

Ok, I’ll will do my best to try to show you that your premise is incorrect.

The fact that we can automate behavior does not mean it is a necessary or natural response. We can always override the automation (which we created in the first place). Let’s take “the afraid of spider example”, There was a time that you were not afraid of spiders. You decided to start feeling afraid of them after an analysis of information. Once the decision was made, you automated the response.

This is a vast oversimplification of the process involved, which involves both instinctive responses, and cognitive processes, working in tandem together.

But you can override the automation, and not be afraid of spiders anymore. I’m sure you know stories of people who were afraid of the dark and then not.

Once again, a vast oversimplification. Through the use of psychological conditioning, you can certainly alter the emotional responses that people have to certain stimulus. You could, potentially, make me no longer be afraid of spiders, or no longer feel empathy for other people. You could also condition me to become sexually excited everytime I hear an alarm clock. So what? This hardly supports your premise that the emotional response is voluntary, or that I make a conscious decision to feel the way I do.

I’m also certain that you know that there are strategies for overcoming phobias (which is by definition irrational fears)

Remorse is a learned behavior. Remember, when we say we feel bad, that is just a representation of a mental state. We have arrived at that mental state voluntarily. Now, that you have read the whole thread, you have seen my examples showing a rearrangement of the outside information can and does change our mental state.

You are wrong. Try studying some basic psychology. The situation is not nearly as simple as you seem to think it is.

Now, because we have automated this mental state to appear when certain information is present, does not mean it out of our volition. Normal people can always override their mental states or can decide what mental states to hold. Isn’t this what maturity is all about.

No, that isn't what maturity, or self control,m is all about. What it is about is controlling your own behavior, rather than allowing your emotions to control you.

What does being able to feel remorse have to do with the belief that feeling remorseful is appropriate? I feel remorse in some circumstances. Whether I think it is appropriate or not appears to be completely irrelevant.

You come to this conclusion because we are using different premises. I can decide when it is appropriate to get angry, meaning I have control of my mental states. Deciding the appropriateness of an emotion is a sign that can control them. If this were not the case, I would have emotions haphazardly triggered by the outside world. Although, there have been cases where people can control their laughter in serious event, most of us do control it (even if we suddenly have the urge to) because it would be inappropriate to have laugh.

Do you understand the difference between controlling your emotions, and controlling your behavior?

Since when do you need permission to get angry. I get angry without any good reason, from time to time, too. Emotions are like that. The question is, how do you act on those emotions? Do you allow emotions to dictate your actions and beliefs? That is what would be irrational.

You give yourself permission to get angry, and, although you can choose not to control your mental states, you can certainly control them.

This statement is plain and simply not true.

A poster correctly pointed out that a mental state constitutes and action, but if you mean an action that can be perceived by others, yes, you can have mental states without actions. But it is impossible to have actions without mental states. And please consider that if there are no actions associated with the mental state and this one is negative, you could concede it is unnecessary, even undesirable to have, irrational.

So what? Sure, it is unnecessary for me to feel angry if I am not going to act on that anger. That does not mean that I can magically cause myself to not feel angry.

You seem to be living in some sort of dream world here. Do you really believe that you have the ability to completely control your own emotions?

We aren't. We are responsible for our actions.

This is your paradigm. But it is an odd one. All actions (your context of actions) or lack of them are associated with mental states. The whole penal doctrine is based on this premise. You are simple mistaken in believing you can separate the two. And you are responsible for your mental state.

In what sense?

Prosecutors first look at what was going through the offenders mind before, during and after the commission of a crime. *Intent* is an essential component of typifying a crime. This is because we are responsible for our mental states.

Wrong. No action, no crime. The assessment of the mental state is useful for determining what the proper action should be. There may be extenuating circumstances, or even temporary insanity. Likewise, if the crime was premeditated, this may indicate that the person presents more of a threat to society.

There is no law against having a particular emotion, though. In fact, about the only time the emotional state of a criminal plays any role at all, is when it is determined that, due to extreme emotional stress, he is not responsible (or as responsible) for his actions.

In other words, not only is he not held responsible for his emotions, but he may not be held responsible for his actions, based on his emotional state.

And, I’m surprised you would take this position. Have you ever read any pop psychology book? Or did anyone ever told you you could control your temper, or decide to make the best of it (or see the glass half full instead of half empty)

No, I have studied real psychology. Perhaps that is the problem here? Because the kind of stuff you are talking about sounds like the standard sort of pseudo-scientific psycho-nonsense that has been going around since before the 50s. In fact, a lot of the stuff you are saying sounds an awful lot like Dianetics.

Why are number 1 and 3 irrational?

Even if you don’t agree with me, you can see the logic.

No, I can't. If I could, I wouldn't have asked.

All morality is, is a set of rules for behavior which are based on a set of values. If you have values, and set up rules for behavior for yourself that are designed to serve those values, then those rules are a code of morality

I could not have said it better. So morality is useless and unnecessary because each individual’s values are different and there is no way to uphold the code.

This does not follow. I can certainly try to live up to my values. I can try to convince others that my values are right (although my values prevent me from trying to force them to agree with me). I can even do my best to try to get society as a whole to agree with my values. And I can certainly enforce those values to whatever extent I am able.

And what is the purpose of having a code, if it can’t be enforced. This is my point. I don’t know if I can make it any more clear than this.]

Society is the proof that it can be enforced. Sure, it isn't perfect, and my values are not completely reflected in the rules my society operates by, but it is better than anarchy. And at least I have the power to try to change society in the way I think it should be changed.

Morality doesn't control people at all. People control themselves.

This is why I have singled out atheists, because this is exactly what you believe.

What about Theists who don't believe that morality comes from God? What about atheists who believe in some sort of absolute morality? You are making ridiculous generalizations here.

Besides, even if you accept that the rules of morality have been handed down by God, it is still up to you to decide whether you are going to follow them or not.

To you, morality is unilateral, to me it is bilateral.

I have no idea what that means.

I know you don’t accept that it is bilateral, and that is the point of this thread, I’m not arguing that it is. For the sake of argument (or to prove my point) I’m accepting the premise that morality is unilateral.

What's the difference?

A religion (or anybody, for that matter), can attempt to use morality to control other people, by convincing them that the code of morality being presented serves that person's values, even though it does not. This is exactly what many religions try to do. Rather than instilling values, and then encouraging reasonable debate on what the best way to serve those values is, religions demand that their followers submit to the authority of the religion to tell them what the best way to serve those values is.

Man, I’m so glad you are in this debate because now we are really discussing the meat of the thing. Yes, I understand exactly what you are saying and I’m saying your model does not work. This is the whole point.

You think that the correct route is to instill values (the correct values) into people so that when they (of their own volition) acquire these values, the will set a code for themselves that is not only consistent with their values but will translate to the common good.

There are no "correct values". I do not believe in absolute morality. I think that any social group, be it a religion, a family, a community, a nation, a cult, or whatever, is going to instil certain values in its members, whether it actively intends to or not.

What I’m stating is that that system does not work simply because there is no way to enforce the code. It is the equivalent to moral anarchy (each making his or her own rules that are unenforceable) So, it serves absolutely no purpose for me to set a rule that can and will be broken by everyone else.

What makes you think that I am opposed to enforcing the rules? I am not an anarchist, and I am not in any way suggesting that social groups should not have rules for their members.

That is why you get ridiculous things like people who value human life and happiness, torturing and murdering other people in the name of God. They have been convinced that actions that run completely contrary to their values, are actually the proper way to serve their values.

Suppose, you were speaking to another atheist (that I were one). The problem here would not be that people murder other’s because god said so, the problem is that there is no system to stop it. What I individually value becomes irrelevant. What become relevant is that we must make sure bilateral and coercible laws are in place to uphold the values that contribute to the common good.

There is a system to stop it. It is called society. And it doesn't need religion to be its basis, as evidenced by the success of the United States.

If you lived in the era were this was common place, would your morality have any relevance? And it has not relevance today. I’m sure you know that there are states in the US where atheists are prohibited by law to hold public office (this is terrible in my opinion). It does not matter what you value or your moral code, the legal code blows it away.

If it were not for individual people with their own moral codes, actively striving to change the laws, we would still all be living in theocracies. There are still many leftovers from those days, even in the US.

And incidentally, it is the laws you mentioned that cannot be enforced, because if they attempted to, the laws would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

If I were an atheist, I would put all my efforts into creating social and legal norms consistent with my values. Otherwise, having them is no more than a preference (choosing chocolate instead of vanilla)

Hello, this is exactly what many atheists do.

If anything, this just demonstrates my point. This has nothing to do with atheism. What it has to do with is whether people have a reason for holding a code of morality. Your reason may be fear of God. A Buddhist's reason may be Karma. What makes you think that other (non-buddhist) atheists don't have reasons? How can you assert that "an atheist has no reason for morality", and then turn around and clarify that Buddhists have a reason, and one which has nothing to do with God?

Sure, you can have all the reasons you want, but you have to admit they would be of a substantial different quality than mine (or a Buddhist). It is not the same to uphold a moral code for the common good than to uphold it just because I feel like it.

Just because I feel like it? I don't "just feel like it" any more than you do. I value the common good, just like you do. I just don't value it for the same exact reasons you do.

Do you have any idea how arrogant these kinds of statements sound? You don't have the slightest clue what the motivations and values of a person like me are. Just because you cannot imagine any other world view than your own, does not mean that other people's world views are "just what they feel like".

After all, your arguments are also equally applicable to people who believe in God, but simply don't believe that He cares what we do, or will punish or reward us for anything

Yes, I agree, and I made this clarification too.

Then why single out atheists? It looks like you argument has nothing to do with a belief in God, but rather with a belief in absolute morality. Guess what? Many atheists believe in that too.


In any event, I still don't see what your point is supposed to be. It is clear that society does not require absolute morality in order to function. It is clear that even if there is an absolute morality, that none of us know what it is. Your values were instilled in you by the social groups you grew up in, and currently live in, just like mine. Your code of morality is the one you think best reflects your values, just like mine. You strive to convince other people that your values should be their values as well, just like I do. You strive to get the laws in your society that violate your moral code changed, just like I do.

The only difference is that you have managed to convince yourself that your values, and your code of morality, are the "right ones", and I have no such delusions.

Dr. Stupid

[ShottleBop]

Yes, I stated this with the knowledge that there are (right now in the world today) universal human right laws that would make the statement always true.


OHHH. So, when you said, "This [the assertion that the commission of an illegal act might ever be moral] can't be, because, one of the laws in God's legal system is to follow man's law," you MEANT "This can't be, because, one of the laws in God's legal system is to follow man's law 'as it is in effect today'" (or, perhaps, "as I, Christian, understand it to be in effect today").

. . . and you accuse ME of laying a trap??!! There is no way that your flat statement to the effect that "one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law," can be read to imply that you meant only laws actually in effect today. I fervently hope that you do not intend to carry this same lack of intellectual honesty into your career as a lawyer.

[aerosolben]

Maybe I can logically phrase Christian's argument like this:

P1: Atheists value minimizing the time they waste in useless activities over all other values.

P2: An atheist should only act in ways to acheive that which he values.

P3: Feeling remorse is a waste of time.

P4: We feel remorse by default.

P5: We can cease feeling remorse by conditioning it out of our system.

P6: Conditioning remorse out of our system wastes time, but less than feeling remorse.

Conclusion: Atheists should cease feeling remorse.

Not phrased precisely and perhaps a few premises should be broken into smaller chunks, but more or less complete, I think. Premise 2 is on pretty firm ground (and probably 4), but the rest seem quite debatable. Enjoy.

[Mercutio]

When I dissected emotion into cognitive, affective, and behavioral components, Christian said:
"You are correct about me focusing on the cognitive component. If you look at your analysis, it is very much possible to that believing in God falls under the same explanations."

Wow. Who'd have thunk? I agree. So now, if you manage to prove your case (the irrationality of atheist remorse), you will have successfully, in your own words, have proven the irrationality of your own belief. Fortunately for you, Stimpy is preserving your right to have your beliefs for you.

[Christian]

Stimpson:

It is obvious that I’m not making a very good job at communicating my ideas, but I want you to be patient with me because the feedback I’m getting from you is helping me refine my approach.

I want to change my approach (start over in some assumptions) somewhat.

The first thing I want to do is a paradigm shift.

I want you to imagine, simply for the sake of this thread (discussion) that I’m an atheist and that I have come to 2 conclusions about reality. And that I want to share these conclusions with other atheists (including you).

1. I have arrived at the logical conclusion that remorse is totally irrational and unnecessary. (with this conclusion I take for granted that I can choose not to feel remorse.)

2. I have arrived at the conclusion that morality is unnecessary.

Do you understand the difference between controlling your emotions, and controlling your behavior?

Yes I do. I’m not going to respond to the comments before this one because they will be addressed with your subsequent comments.

This statement is plain and simply not true.

This is where we are at right now. You simply don’t accept that emotions are voluntary.

So what? Sure, it is unnecessary for me to feel angry if I am not going to act on that anger. That does not mean that I can magically cause myself to not feel angry.

There is nothing magical about it. You can make yourself not feel angry.

You seem to be living in some sort of dream world here. Do you really believe that you have the ability to completely control your own emotions?

I have the ability to control my emotions, maybe not 100% of the times, but most of the times.

In what sense?

This question is in regards to being responsible for your mental states. I just means you decide. You have the will to decide to feel angry, sad, remorseful, etc.

Wrong. No action, no crime. The assessment of the mental state is useful for determining what the proper action should be. There may be extenuating circumstances, or even temporary insanity. Likewise, if the crime was premeditated, this may indicate that the person presents more of a threat to society.

There is no law against having a particular emotion, though. In fact, about the only time the emotional state of a criminal plays any role at all, is when it is determined that, due to extreme emotional stress, he is not responsible (or as responsible) for his actions.

In other words, not only is he not held responsible for his emotions, but he may not be held responsible for his actions, based on his emotional state.

No, I’m not making myself clear here. Yes, of course no action no crime. Let me see if I can explain this.

The theory of crime had two major schools, the first was the causality school were what was studied was the action of the individual. It did not care about the mental state of the individual before, during or after the commission of the crime, all it was interested was the act itself.

The latter school (the criteria used today) was the finality school were the crime is studied not from the action but from the moment the crime is conceived. It is seen from a teleological perspective. To commit a crime one must go through specific steps that will get you there. The first is a thought process.

The point I’m trying to make here is that the whole foundation of this school is based on the idea that emotions are voluntary.

No, I have studied real psychology. Perhaps that is the problem here? Because the kind of stuff you are talking about sounds like the standard sort of pseudo-scientific psycho-nonsense that has been going around since before the 50s. In fact, a lot of the stuff you are saying sounds an awful lot like Dianetics.

I mentioned pop psychology as to mean “even the most basic pop psychology books teach this information.”

And ok, what I have to do is provide a link right. Fine.

This is the guy, (no pseudo-scientist here):

Robert C Solomon (http://www.cheltenhamalumni.org/halloffame/newest/solomon.htm)


This is the essay (just a sample of many modern theorists):

Emotion and Choice (http://membres.lycos.fr/silverplatter/GATEWAY/NETWORK/SERVICES/CATROOT30/Uploads/solomon_1.htm)

No, I can't. If I could, I wouldn't have asked.

Fair enough.

This does not follow. I can certainly try to live up to my values. I can try to convince others that my values are right (although my values prevent me from trying to force them to agree with me). I can even do my best to try to get society as a whole to agree with my values. And I can certainly enforce those values to whatever extent I am able.

Two points:

1. You can try to live up to your values (translation: follow your moral code of conduct) But, what is the use if other are following their own? And more importantly, what is the use if you have to follow societies values reflected in social and legal norms?
2. The only successful way to make society as a whole follow a moral code is by converting it to social or legal code, making a moral one totally unnecessary.

Society is the proof that it can be enforced. Sure, it isn't perfect, and my values are not completely reflected in the rules my society operates by, but it is better than anarchy. And at least I have the power to try to change society in the way I think it should be changed.

Society is the proof that the only *norms* that work are social and legal norms. Society shows that moral norms are irrelevant. This is why some priest can get away with pedophile, this is why some Iraqis can get away with looting.

What about Theists who don't believe that morality comes from God? What about atheists who believe in some sort of absolute morality? You are making ridiculous generalizations here.

Yes, I agree, and those theist would have to deal with the same proposition that morality is unnecessary for them too. As for those who believe there absolute principle of conduct that must be discovered, those are not excluded either. For those principles to have meaning or sense, they would have to make them social or legal norms.

Why is the generalization ridiculous? Most atheist believe morality is unilateral. I will explain this (did you read this thread?)

Besides, even if you accept that the rules of morality have been handed down by God, it is still up to you to decide whether you are going to follow them or not.

Yes, of course, the difference (to us atheists [remember my assumption]) is the there is no system of reward/punishment or compliance for morality.

I have no idea what that means.

This is from the Law and Morality thread:

[quote] There are basically four types of *norm* systems: Moral, religious, social, and judicial.

When someone says morality, they are referring to the first norm system. Clearly, that norm system is different from the other three.

Why are they different? All norm system have four characteristics/dichotomies. These are:

autonomous/heteronomous
interior/exterior
unilateral/bilateral
uncoercible/coercible.


The moral norm system is autonomous, interior, unilateral and uncoercible.

At the other end of the spectrum (the two compared are the ones that have the least in common) is the judicial norm system.

The judicial norm system is heteronomous, exterior, bilaterial and coercible.

According to legal theory, the judicial system *borrows* from the other three to add to its inventory, particularly from social and moral norms.[/B]

By what type of quality a norm has, it is classified as moral, religious, social or legal.

So, most legal and social norms were first moral ones. By changing the characteristics of them, we make them either social or legal.

Unilateral simply means it is a norm the does not have a active subject and passive subject. Bilateral is someone is exercising a right (demanding that you do or not do) on you. Moral norms do not possess this quality.
What's the difference?

I hope the explanation was clear.

There are no "correct values". I do not believe in absolute morality. I think that any social group, be it a religion, a family, a community, a nation, a cult, or whatever, is going to instil certain values in its members, whether it actively intends to or not.

This is what I understand you meant. You have certain values. To you they are correct. (why else would you hold them).

Yes, the point is morality is not (I’m speaking as an atheist now) absolute. The rules can be changed, modified by me for me. They are autonomous (no one imposes them on me) That is the problem.

The way society instill values on people is not through morality but through social and legal norms. The sole purpose of the penal system is to protect the values of society. (what society considers valuable.)

Society actively does this through those norm systems. Morality is ineffective in that regard.

What makes you think that I am opposed to enforcing the rules? I am not an anarchist, and I am not in any way suggesting that social groups should not have rules for their members.

Yes, this is precisely what I’m counting on to convince you of my conclusion.

There is a system to stop it. It is called society. And it doesn't need religion to be its basis, as evidenced by the success of the United States.

Yes, it uses two systems (well three, but I have left out religious norms because they only apply to members of religious groups, and one can argue they are part of social norms) social norms and legal norms.

If it were not for individual people with their own moral codes, actively striving to change the laws, we would still all be living in theocracies. There are still many leftovers from those days, even in the US.

This is an excellent conclusion. The only way make better societies is to change the laws and social norms. Moral norms are irrelevant.

And incidentally, it is the laws you mentioned that cannot be enforced, because if they attempted to, the laws would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

I read about them in an article. Let me check if they can’t be enforced. But, there are plenty that are enforced that you would consider immoral.

Hello, this is exactly what many atheists do.

Yes, but many do not realize the uselessness of their moral code. And many do not act to change them.

Just because I feel like it? I don't "just feel like it" any more than you do. I value the common good, just like you do. I just don't value it for the same exact reasons you do.

This is not what I mean. I’m sorry that my wording and approach is misunderstood. What I mean is that even if you have all the best intentions of the world, even if your moral code is superior in every sense, because of the nature of moral norms, it is equivalent to having them “just because you feel like it”.

Do you have any idea how arrogant these kinds of statements sound? You don't have the slightest clue what the motivations and values of a person like me are. Just because you cannot imagine any other world view than your own, does not mean that other people's world views are "just what they feel like".

I’m sorry, it is not my intention. I doing a very poor job at trying to tackle a discussion on morality on logical grounds and not subjective one. But this is what I’m trying to do.

Then why single out atheists? It looks like you argument has nothing to do with a belief in God, but rather with a belief in absolute morality. Guess what? Many atheists believe in that too.

No, even if one believes in absolute morality it is still unilateral, autonomous and incoercible. That is the whole problem.

In any event, I still don't see what your point is supposed to be. It is clear that society does not require absolute morality in order to function.

For an atheist, it only need social and legal norms.

It is clear that even if there is an absolute morality, that none of us know what it is.

Even if we did, they would not work until converted into social or legal norms.

Your values were instilled in you by the social groups you grew up in, and currently live in, just like mine. Your code of morality is the one you think best reflects your values, just like mine.

[atheist hat off]

This is the thing, this is the scenario for an atheist not for me. I believe God has taught me the moral code through various means. I believe is the giver of the code.

You strive to convince other people that your values should be their values as well, just like I do. You strive to get the laws in your society that violate your moral code changed, just like I do.

This should be your best strategy, as for me, no. I’m certain I can’t convince others about the code, only God can on an individual basis. And to me it is not central that I pursue human laws to be changed, because I believe there is already an infallible reward/punishment system (a system of justice).

This does not mean that if it’s God’s will to put in a position to change a law, I would not. In that case, it would be my responsibility to do it.

The only difference is that you have managed to convince yourself that your values, and your code of morality, are the "right ones", and I have no such delusions.

[atheist hat on]
True.


ShottleBop wrote:
OHHH. So, when you said, "This [the assertion that the commission of an illegal act might ever be moral] can't be, because, one of the laws in God's legal system is to follow man's law," you MEANT "This can't be, because, one of the laws in God's legal system is to follow man's law 'as it is in effect today'" (or, perhaps, "as I, Christian, understand it to be in effect today").

. . . and you accuse ME of laying a trap??!! There is no way that your flat statement to the effect that "one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law," can be read to imply that you meant only laws actually in effect today. I fervently hope that you do not intend to carry this same lack of intellectual honesty into your career as a lawyer.

Listen, if you want to attack me personally, that is fine. (you really think I would that ignorant as to think that no legal norm can be immoral. Well, so be it)

If you decide to continue with the discussion at hand, I would very much appreciate it. You have contributed to the discussion.


Aerosolben wrote:
P1: Atheists value minimizing the time they waste in useless activities over all other values.

P2: An atheist should only act in ways to acheive that which he values.

P3: Feeling remorse is a waste of time.

P4: We feel remorse by default.

P5: We can cease feeling remorse by conditioning it out of our system.

P6: Conditioning remorse out of our system wastes time, but less than feeling remorse.

Conclusion: Atheists should cease feeling remorse.

Hey, aerosolben, what’s up, nice to see you are here. Thanks for the contribution.

I don’t agree with 4, so 5 and 6 are out.

Let’s change it a little:

P1: Atheists value minimizing or eliminating when possible the time they waste in useless or irrational activities.

P2: An atheist should strive to act in ways to achieve that which he values.

P3: Feeling remorse is a waste of time.

Conclusion: Atheists should cease feeling remorse.


And the one on morality is like that too.

P1: Atheists value minimizing or eliminating when possible the time they waste in useless or irrational activities.

P2: An atheist should strive to act in ways to achieve that which he values.

P3: Having a moral code is a waste of time.

Conclusion: Atheists should cease to have a moral code.

Of course I have to prove P3. This is what I’m attempting to do.

I was hoping, it would be evident why I chose remorse (how naïve of me) I chose it because it is associated with doing the right thing later on, with morality, passing judgment on oneself, the road to redemption, etc.

[tamiO]

This does not mean that if it’s God’s will to put in a position to change a law, I would not. In that case, it would be my responsibility to do it.

How are you able to determine between God's will and your own will?

[tamiO]

P1: Atheists value minimizing or eliminating when possible the time they waste in useless or irrational activities.

I don't agree. I find engaging in some useless and/or irrational activities pleasurable. In other words, I don't feel like I have to make use of every second of my time just because I don't believe in a god.

I have been thinking and I have decided that if it were possible to remove remorse from my being I would do that. The past is past and feeling bad about the past is a waste of time for me. When remorse comes up I do not dwell on it, I get on with life.

I do not need remorse to be a good person. Being a good person comes naturally for me. I think before I act. If I mess up I make ammends and try better next time.

edited to add: I came to this conclusion because i went and looked the darn word up in the dictionary. I am using this meaning:

1. Moral anguish arising from repentance for past misdeeds; bitter regret.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Christian,

I want you to imagine, simply for the sake of this thread (discussion) that I’m an atheist and that I have come to 2 conclusions about reality. And that I want to share these conclusions with other atheists (including you).

1. I have arrived at the logical conclusion that remorse is totally irrational and unnecessary. (with this conclusion I take for granted that I can choose not to feel remorse.)

2. I have arrived at the conclusion that morality is unnecessary.

That's fine. As a "fellow atheist", I disagree on all counts.

1a) I think that the emotion of remorse is actually a beneficial thing, from the point of view of society, and that since society is beneficial to individuals, this makes remorse, as well as several other aspects of human nature, useful and beneficial.

1b) I disagree with your premise that a person can simply choose to not feel remorse. He could be conditioned not to, but there is a term for such people. They are called psychopaths.

2) I disagree with your conclusion that morality is unnecessary, and furthermore, I fail to see how anybody who values anything more than his own immediate benefit, could reach that conclusion.

Note also that none of the above has anything to do with me being an atheist, either. In fact, most people I know would agree with those points, and most of the people I know are not atheists.

So what? Sure, it is unnecessary for me to feel angry if I am not going to act on that anger. That does not mean that I can magically cause myself to not feel angry.

There is nothing magical about it. You can make yourself not feel angry.

How? When I feel angry, I can certainly do exercises (such as deep breathing, meditation, etc...) in order to suppress, or even eliminate the feeling. But when the event that made me angry occurred, there was no decision on my part to be angry or not angry.

You seem to be living in some sort of dream world here. Do you really believe that you have the ability to completely control your own emotions?

I have the ability to control my emotions, maybe not 100% of the times, but most of the times.

If by that you mean the ability to not act based on your emotions, or even the ability to consciously alter your emotional state through mental exercises, then I agree. But your claims imply that you mean more than this. Do you claim to have the ability to actually decide, before you have the emotional response, but after the stimulus, what your emotional response will be?

If so, I am sorry, but I simply don't believe you.

No, I’m not making myself clear here. Yes, of course no action no crime. Let me see if I can explain this.

The theory of crime had two major schools, the first was the causality school were what was studied was the action of the individual. It did not care about the mental state of the individual before, during or after the commission of the crime, all it was interested was the act itself.

The latter school (the criteria used today) was the finality school were the crime is studied not from the action but from the moment the crime is conceived. It is seen from a teleological perspective. To commit a crime one must go through specific steps that will get you there. The first is a thought process.

The point I’m trying to make here is that the whole foundation of this school is based on the idea that emotions are voluntary.

That is not the foundation of it at all. For one thing, this approach to dealing with crimes makes a clear distinction between emotional states and thought processes. Secondly, it in no way assumes that emotions are voluntary. On the contrary, one aspect of the way this approach works, is that it is understood that emotional responses are not voluntary. The entire framework is based on psychology, and the simple fact is that what you are claiming runs completely counter to current psychological knowledge.

I mentioned pop psychology as to mean “even the most basic pop psychology books teach this information.”

And ok, what I have to do is provide a link right. Fine.

This is the guy, (no pseudo-scientist here):

Robert C Solomon

This is the essay (just a sample of many modern theorists):

Emotion and Choice

Man, the ability of philosophers to go on and on about nothing truly amazes me. That entire essay seems to amount to nothing more than drawing a distinction between "feelings" (the involuntary response), and "emotions" (the cognitive interpretation of the feeling). In any event, it is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, since we are talking about the feeling of remorse.

Consider the example I gave from my own past. I no longer possess the "emotion" of remorse over that event, in the context presented in Dr. Solomon's essay. Only the feeling. And the fact remains that even if I were to adopt a completely utilitarian philosophy, whereby I attach absolutely no value to the happiness or pain of others, I am still going to "feel" a certain way when I see other people suffer.

This does not follow. I can certainly try to live up to my values. I can try to convince others that my values are right (although my values prevent me from trying to force them to agree with me). I can even do my best to try to get society as a whole to agree with my values. And I can certainly enforce those values to whatever extent I am able.

Two points:

1. You can try to live up to your values (translation: follow your moral code of conduct) But, what is the use if other are following their own? And more importantly, what is the use if you have to follow societies values reflected in social and legal norms?

If my own values were drastically different than those of society, and I had no means to try to make society better (from my point of view), then I would definitely have a problem. Fortunately, I do not live in such a society.

For example, if I found myself in Afghanistan 5 years ago under Taliban rule, I would have a real problem. Actions which I would feel morally compelled to take would get me killed. I would have only 3 choices:

1) Die for my beliefs.

2) Leave.

3) Abandon my morals, and try to adopt those of the society I am living in.

I suspect that I would try for number 2, and failing that, choose number 1.

2. The only successful way to make society as a whole follow a moral code is by converting it to social or legal code, making a moral one totally unnecessary.

This does not follow. Making it into a legal code is not sufficient. For one thing, in a free society, people will not tolerate laws that they find morally unacceptable. And freedom is one of my values. For another thing, even if I could live with a totalitarian society where everybody is forced by law to live the way I think they should, whether they like it or not, that isn't going to stop people from doing bad things when they think they can get away with it.

Furthermore, there historical evidence to prove you wrong. Social conditioning, meaning the instilling of values and morals through social interaction, rather than through laws and enforcement, works. It has worked in the US and Western Europe for several centuries now.

Society is the proof that it can be enforced. Sure, it isn't perfect, and my values are not completely reflected in the rules my society operates by, but it is better than anarchy. And at least I have the power to try to change society in the way I think it should be changed.

Society is the proof that the only *norms* that work are social and legal norms. Society shows that moral norms are irrelevant. This is why some priest can get away with pedophile, this is why some Iraqis can get away with looting.

Are you seriously suggesting that because some members of society are immoral, this somehow proves that morals are useless? That because there are some people who will behave in a selfish and antisocial manner if they are not forced to behave, that the only way to get people to behave is through threats of punishment?

Apparently you do not have a very high opinion of your fellow human beings. And I thought I was cynical.

What about Theists who don't believe that morality comes from God? What about atheists who believe in some sort of absolute morality? You are making ridiculous generalizations here.

Yes, I agree, and those theist would have to deal with the same proposition that morality is unnecessary for them too. As for those who believe there absolute principle of conduct that must be discovered, those are not excluded either. For those principles to have meaning or sense, they would have to make them social or legal norms.

I disagree, for the reasons I have given above. Modern society itself demonstrates that you are wrong. Look at the world around you. Most people have morals. Most people will behave in a reasonably civilized manner, even if they think they can get away with not doing so. Do you really believe that anybody who doesn't behave in a selfish manner when they can get away with it legally, is doing so only out of fear of punishment (or hope of reward) in the afterlife?

Besides, even if you accept that the rules of morality have been handed down by God, it is still up to you to decide whether you are going to follow them or not.

Yes, of course, the difference (to us atheists [remember my assumption]) is the there is no system of reward/punishment or compliance for morality.

I was once a Christian. My values and morals didn't change much when I quit being a Christian. I didn't behave in a certain way out of fear of Hell or hope for Heaven then, and I don't now. my whole family is Catholic, and yet none of them have ever indicated that morality is simply about punishment and reward. on the contrary, I am sure that they would all be horrified by the way you are characterizing theistic morality.

If this is truly all there is to your morals, then you are a sociopath, being held in control only through the most severe of possible threats. For the sake of society, I sincerely hope that you never lose your faith, and that nobody ever convinces you that God wants you to hurt people.

There are no "correct values". I do not believe in absolute morality. I think that any social group, be it a religion, a family, a community, a nation, a cult, or whatever, is going to instil certain values in its members, whether it actively intends to or not.

This is what I understand you meant. You have certain values. To you they are correct. (why else would you hold them).

Yes, the point is morality is not (I’m speaking as an atheist now) absolute. The rules can be changed, modified by me for me. They are autonomous (no one imposes them on me) That is the problem.

The way society instill values on people is not through morality but through social and legal norms. The sole purpose of the penal system is to protect the values of society. (what society considers valuable.)

Society actively does this through those norm systems. Morality is ineffective in that regard.

Wrong. Society instills values through social and legal norms. It is from these values that individuals establish a code of morality. In that sense, yes, morals are not imposed by society. Only rules are. But from these values, which a person actually adopts as his own (as oppose to simply respecting through force of law), morality arises. And morality is most definitely not ineffective in this regard. Indeed, it is capable of filling an important gap that mere legislation cannot.

There is a system to stop it. It is called society. And it doesn't need religion to be its basis, as evidenced by the success of the United States.

Yes, it uses two systems (well three, but I have left out religious norms because they only apply to members of religious groups, and one can argue they are part of social norms) social norms and legal norms.

No, the US also uses the third one. It uses amorality. One of the reasons that the US (and also Canada, Western Europe, and secular democratic republics in general) work, is because most of the people in these societies actually value the things that the society values, and agree with most of the laws. Most people in the free world really believe in things like freedom, liberty, justice, and tolerance. These values have been instilled in them by society, but they continue as the moral codes of the individuals.

If it were not for individual people with their own moral codes, actively striving to change the laws, we would still all be living in theocracies. There are still many leftovers from those days, even in the US.

This is an excellent conclusion. The only way make better societies is to change the laws and social norms. Moral norms are irrelevant.

Without morals, nothing is going to change. Nobody is going to go to the effort to change the laws if they don't think anything is wrong with them. The moral norms are not irrelevant. They are a necessary and integral part of the system.

And incidentally, it is the laws you mentioned that cannot be enforced, because if they attempted to, the laws would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

I read about them in an article. Let me check if they can’t be enforced. But, there are plenty that are enforced that you would consider immoral.

Absolutely. But you know what? There are fewer than there were 10 years ago. And there will be fewer still 10 years from now. With individuals with a strong sense of morality, this would not happen.

Just because I feel like it? I don't "just feel like it" any more than you do. I value the common good, just like you do. I just don't value it for the same exact reasons you do.

This is not what I mean. I’m sorry that my wording and approach is misunderstood. What I mean is that even if you have all the best intentions of the world, even if your moral code is superior in every sense, because of the nature of moral norms, it is equivalent to having them “just because you feel like it”.

The same is true for you, and for everybody else. That is the nature of morality. Even if the moral code you follow was handed down by God, you still follow it because you feel like it. You value doing what God tells you to, whether it is because you think that God is good, or because you fear Hell, or whatever. Like I said, the only difference is the reason we hold the values we do. That, and the fact that I don't pretend that mine are the unique absolutely "right" ones.

Then why single out atheists? It looks like you argument has nothing to do with a belief in God, but rather with a belief in absolute morality. Guess what? Many atheists believe in that too.

No, even if one believes in absolute morality it is still unilateral, autonomous and incoercible. That is the whole problem.

Then what does this have to do with atheists? It sounds like you are just saying that morality is nonsense, and that all that matters is that God is going to spank us if we don't do what he says.

Your values were instilled in you by the social groups you grew up in, and currently live in, just like mine. Your code of morality is the one you think best reflects your values, just like mine.

[atheist hat off]

This is the thing, this is the scenario for an atheist not for me. I believe God has taught me the moral code through various means. I believe is the giver of the code.

Irrelevant. You must still acknowledge that your values, and even your moral code, come from society. At the very least, society was the mechanism by which God gave you the code. Like I said, the only real difference is that you have convinced yourself, or allowed yourself to be convinced, that your moral code is the true "absolute" one.

You strive to convince other people that your values should be their values as well, just like I do. You strive to get the laws in your society that violate your moral code changed, just like I do.

This should be your best strategy, as for me, no. I’m certain I can’t convince others about the code, only God can on an individual basis. And to me it is not central that I pursue human laws to be changed, because I believe there is already an infallible reward/punishment system (a system of justice).

This does not mean that if it’s God’s will to put in a position to change a law, I would not. In that case, it would be my responsibility to do it.

I must say that I find it rather disturbing that your beliefs absolve you of any responsibility for trying to make society a better place. People ask why I say religion is harmful, this is a perfect example. You are only concerned with the afterlife, and a perfectly content to leave sorting out affairs here on Earth to God. If people are tortured and murdered, that's not your problem. It's God's will, right?

All I can say is that I am very glad that most modern Christians don't share your views on these issues. Unfortunately, there are still many in the US who do, and as such are perfectly willing to ignore the way we are destroying the environment, and to ignore the injustices occurring throughout the World, as long as we get the word of Jesus to everybody, so that they can go to heaven after they starve to death, or get murdered by tyrants and terrorists.

I am a Humanist. I don't care about God. If he does exist, he can take care of himself. I care about people. You may consider that value to be "irrational", but it is not. Society takes care of me, and I take care of it. That is not a very difficult concept to understand.

Dr. Stupid

[Clancie]

There's no reason a good idea like, "Do unto others...." requires a belief in God or Jesus to make it "stick". Perhaps there is even a biological basis for certain types of behavior like this, perhaps because it increases our chances of survival.

In any case, if one has a concept of what should be done and then doesn't do it, an atheist should have at least as much conscience about it as any religious person would (particularly as there's no atheistic way of getting absolution for doing wrong).

[tamiO]

I am still going to "feel" a certain way when I see other people suffer.

I think that is because you are a compassionate person, Stimpy.

I am also beginning to think that Christian is using words with a certain meaning attached that may not agree with others definitions.
The thread is so long now, it pains me to think about going back to see if he ever offered a definition of remorse according to him.

From what I can tell, remorse is to regret as rage is to mad.

:)

[Darat]

If the premise "Atheists value minimizing or eliminating when possible the time they waste in useless or irrational activities." was true (and we know for a fact not all atheists hold that view) then the simplest and most direct way to not "feel" the emotion of remorse is not to do anything that would cause you to feel remorseful.

On a personal note I can count on one hand the number of times I have acted in such a way to cause me to feel remorse in the past 15 years.

Why is this? Because I do everything in my power to avoid taking any action that I think is wrong!

You see I have to be able to live (I hope) a good number of years with the result and the feelings caused by me doing something wrong. I have to take the entire responsibility and the total remorse on my own shoulders.

Many religions however give their believers a way to at least share, if not totally avoid, the remorse that in a normal human follows a known wrong action. They can chose to do wrong, and for example, if they are a Catholic merely confess their wrong doing, do the penance and be assured that they need no longer feel remorse as the "big decider" has now cleared their slate. Many other religions have similar mechanisms.

Perhaps one of the reasons we have religions is that taking responsibility for your own wrong doing and living with the subsequent remorse can be very difficult?

[ShottleBop]

Listen, if you want to attack me personally, that is fine. (you really think I would that ignorant as to think that no legal norm can be immoral. Well, so be it)

This is the exchange between you and Loki:

So, as a theist, you believe that ideally some immoral behaviour should be legal?

Nope, to theist, ideally some immoral behavior should be illegal. The obvious conclusion is that God’s legal system is stricter than man’s.

It is good if you ask why I call my morality a legal system. Once you get that down, you will see where I’m coming from.

That some illegal behaviour is moral?

This can’t be, because, one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law.

Did I really think you would be that ignorant as to think that no legal norm can be immoral? That seemed to be what you were saying to Loki--I don't see any way to interpret that exchange to mean that "one of the laws in God's legal system is to follow man's law--unless man's law is immoral." I followed up with the questions I did to see if that was really what you believed.

My intial question was: So, anybody in Nazi Germany or one of its occupied territories who harbored Jews in violation of German law was acting immorally?

You responded:

No, Nazi Germany was acting against a higher human law. It is possible that lower laws violate higher ones. When they violate the highest one of the State, it is called unconstitutional. When they violate the highest of them all, it is called violation of universally accepte human rights.

Christian must uphold those first, and down the pyramid.

There is no indication in this answer that you really meant that some laws COULD, in fact, be immoral when measured against God's law. You simply stated that, when supranational laws conflict with national laws, Christians should obey the supranational laws first.

Then I asked you my follow-up question, positing a situation in which the highest human agency had enacted a law so far outside God's law that a person chosing to act morally might commit an illegal act. Even then, you did not seek to modify your initial statement. You chose to elide the issue:
Please consider my answer carefully. In those conditions, your morality would be completely irrelevant. It would not matter what you thought was right. You would have to comply, if you didn't you would have to suffer the consequences.

In my case, my morality would be of great use because God's law tells me the person harboring a Jew, will have his reward in heaven.

At this point your answer demonstrated that no, you did not really believe that, in all cases, God's law requires one to follow "man's law." You chose, however, not to admit that you misstated yourself in the first instance--that you really did not mean to make such a flat statement. Instead, you acted as if anyone paying attention SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD that you "stated this with the knowledge that there are (right now in the world today) universal human right laws that would make the statement always true. As it stands today, It is impossible that one obeys the highest human law and not be moral."

I am sorry, but that limitation on your statement is not implicit in the words you used.

You then stated that I "created a fictitious scenario where [your] first premise would not apply ( a trap??)."

That "fictitious scenario" was a "hypothetical," and such scenarios are commonly used in legal analysis specifically to explore the reach of a given principle. I set you the extreme example to see whether you really thought your first statement would apply in all circumstances. (Did I really think that you were so ignorant as to believe that there were no exceptions to your statement? No, but posing my questions proved to be the only way to find that out.

I accused you of intellectual dishonesty because I didn't see how your initial statement could be read as anything but the broad statement, admitting of no exceptions, that I took it to be, and, therefore, took your claim to the effect that it was made "with the knowledge that there are (right now in the world today) universal human right laws that would make the statement always true" to be disingenuous. If, in fact, you were entirely unaware that your first statement could have been understood in the absolute sense in which I took it, then you are not guilty of intellectual dishonesty, and I apologize.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Clancy
particularly as there's no atheistic way of getting absolution for doing wrong.

:)

That's because "absolution" is a religious idea involving sin. It's how you reconcile with yourself for a person you have wronged. I find it much more gratifying to take responsibility for my actions and actually work things out with the person I have harmed, instead of just myself and whatever deity that is supposed to be the only thing capable absolving me.

It's as though absolution is like clearing your conscience without actually making things better...

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Christian

Let’s change it a little:

P1: Atheists value minimizing or eliminating when possible the time they waste in useless or irrational activities.

P2: An atheist should strive to act in ways to achieve that which he values.

P3: Feeling remorse is a waste of time.

Conclusion: Atheists should cease feeling remorse.


By cutting mine down, you've simply assumed some of the premises without mentioning them. You have not established that "Atheists feel remorse" (how can you cease something unstarted), nor "Atheists can cease feeling remorse".

Additionally, you've cut out my bit about conditioning. Do you not understand the difference between first and second order desires (ie, liking cigarettes and wanting to like cigarettes)? Unless you really do think emotions are a rational higher-cognitive process...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Christian

I want you to imagine, simply for the sake of this thread (discussion) that I’m an atheist and that I have come to 2 conclusions about reality. And that I want to share these conclusions with other atheists (including you).

1. I have arrived at the logical conclusion that remorse is totally irrational and unnecessary. (with this conclusion I take for granted that I can choose not to feel remorse.)

2. I have arrived at the conclusion that morality is unnecessary.


Two points:

1. You can try to live up to your values (translation: follow your moral code of conduct) But, what is the use if other are following their own? And more importantly, what is the use if you have to follow societies values reflected in social and legal norms?
2. The only successful way to make society as a whole follow a moral code is by converting it to social or legal code, making a moral one totally unnecessary.



[atheist hat off]

This is the thing, this is the scenario for an atheist not for me. I believe God has taught me the moral code through various means. I believe is the giver of the code.


Hi Christian,

If I may say so sir, your atheist hat sits uneasily upon your head. :)

You seem to have a great many assumptions about "atheists" as if they are from another race or planet. The fact is that atheists are a very diverse group of folks. Your assumptions therefore won't get you very far if indeed you are in earnest about trying to understand "atheist morality".

My suggestion to you would be to read Micheal Shermer's next book which will delve into the non-religious origins of early human interaction from which the concept and adoption of morals arises. I don't know when it's due out,...but at TAM he spoke at length about this material.

In other words, the atheist is as human as you or I. He does not exist in a vacuum....he shares in human morality. Perhaps you call it Christian morality, and obviously believe it came down to us as a gift from God....but if your desire is to really understand these inscrutable atheists, you're going to need to accept the possibility that our morals were not handed down to us from God. When you can accept this possibility, I think you'll be ready to really open your mind to evidence which runs contrary to your belief.

Until you do that, you will be incapable of really understanding what you say you are trying to understand. And when/if you do get there, you will see the world as a agnostic does. Like me. ;) I don't know if there is a God or not,..but neither do you. When you face that fact you'll be ready to open that mind to an infinite array of possibilities and their attendant philosophies.

For instance, when Kant describes the law of morals, he is describing nothing less than human conscience. We cannot prove what our conscience tells us, but we know it nevertheless. Now please tell me why you think atheists have no human conscience! Good luck on that one. :)

-zilla

[chance]

Christian16 Apr
(chance) Christian Remorse likely has some evolutionary advantage, The emotional equivalent to physical pain.

(Christian)It seem to be, by all accounts, a conditioned response, a learned behavior. This is exactly like saying *thank you* to a favor or service. No I am not stating that it’s a learned behaviour at all, more instinctive for survival reasons. A learned behaviour would be like faking remorse to avoid punishment. e.g. DAD did you eat all the cookies? “I’m sorry daddy I wont do it again, …sob”. DAD “ahhhhhh, ok, just don’t do it again.”

(chance)Think of it as natures way of driving home the point that what you have done was not the best thing you could have done should you encounter similar circumstances in the future.

(Christian) If it was nature, all of us would feel it. Clearly, this is not the case. People feel or not feel remorse for such varied situations that we can safely say it is a conditioned behavior. Not necessarily, and certainly not to the same degree, all of us are part nature part nurture and the mix produces the end result. The basic instinct of remorse is present in all of us to some degree, but how we react or draw upon that instinct is partially due to circumstance.

[Loki]

Christian,

You quoted the following from another thread...
There are basically four types of *norm* systems: Moral, religious, social, and judicial.

When someone says morality, they are referring to the first norm system. Clearly, that norm system is different from the other three.

Why are they different? All norm system have four characteristics/dichotomies. These are:

autonomous/heteronomous
interior/exterior
unilateral/bilateral
uncoercible/coercible.

The moral norm system is autonomous, interior, unilateral and uncoercible.

Two questions :

First, who define "moral norms" as having these qualities, and how did they establish this? Is it simply a case of "this is my definition"?

Second, do you, as a theist, agree with the above definition of "moral norms"? If not, then what do you define as a "moral norm" using the above terms?

[Christian]

TamiO wrote:
How are you able to determine between God's will and your own will?

That is not hard to determine. There are irresistible forces that will against me, and I understand those to be the will of God.

I don't agree. I find engaging in some useless and/or irrational activities pleasurable.

If those activities are pleasurable then, they are not useless.

I have been thinking and I have decided that if it were possible to remove remorse from my being I would do that. The past is past and feeling bad about the past is a waste of time for me. When remorse comes up I do not dwell on it, I get on with life.

I do not need remorse to be a good person. Being a good person comes naturally for me. I think before I act. If I mess up I make ammends and try better next time.

edited to add: I came to this conclusion because i went and looked the darn word up in the dictionary. I am using this meaning:

1. Moral anguish arising from repentance for past misdeeds; bitter regret.

You can remove it.

Stimpson wrote:
1a) I think that the emotion of remorse is actually a beneficial thing, from the point of view of society, and that since society is beneficial to individuals, this makes remorse, as well as several other aspects of human nature, useful and beneficial.

Why is it beneficial? I have explained why it is useless. You have only asserted that is something you can’t stop from feeling. If you go the route of saying the pain it causes directs to a future better choice, you are back to the reward/punishment area you so much hate. Again an inconsistency. Which is it? It’s beneficial or I can’t help the emotion?

1b) I disagree with your premise that a person can simply choose to not feel remorse. He could be conditioned not to, but there is a term for such people. They are called psychopaths.

So you are saying it is necessary to feel pain for you in order for you to act subsequently in a good way?

2) I disagree with your conclusion that morality is unnecessary, and furthermore, I fail to see how anybody who values anything more than his own immediate benefit, could reach that conclusion.

Anyone that values more than his own immediate benefit can clearly see the uselessness of morality. The uselessness of having rules he can only enforce on himself and for which he has no accountability to others if he does not enforce them.

Note also that none of the above has anything to do with me being an atheist, either. In fact, most people I know would agree with those points, and most of the people I know are not atheists.

No so, morality is not upheld “just because”. It is because there is a reward/punishment/compliance system that exists.

How? When I feel angry, I can certainly do exercises (such as deep breathing, meditation, etc...) in order to suppress, or even eliminate the feeling. But when the event that made me angry occurred, there was no decision on my part to be angry or not angry.

I can believe we are actually arguing about this. [sarcasm on] So I suppose you get angry for the same reasons you did when you were 5 or 10 [sarcasm off] Of course not, part of maturity is taking care of our emotions. I used to get angry in traffic jams. I don’t anymore. Not one bit. I decided it was no use to get angry in a situation I could do nothing about. So, maybe the first couple of times, I had to do some breathing exercises, but then I got used to not getting angry at traffic jams (it became a thing not to get angry at).

Do you understand that remorse requires time and time and time. It’s just not feeling bad for a couple of seconds, it’s a deep sense of pain that leads to guilt. It is a persistent emotion. It is useless in an atheist context.

If by that you mean the ability to not act based on your emotions, or even the ability to consciously alter your emotional state through mental exercises, then I agree. But your claims imply that you mean more than this. Do you claim to have the ability to actually decide, before you have the emotional response, but after the stimulus, what your emotional response will be?

If so, I am sorry, but I simply don't believe you.

I sorry you don’t but that just tells me you have no recollection of your childhood and definitely you have no children of your own.

Man, the thing kids get angry about. When you grow up, you learn what type of stimulus do not warrant getting angry about so in effect, I know what emotional response I will have before or after the stimulus.

My daughter gets angry because she has to wait her turn. I don’t need scientific books to tell me that when she grow up she will not get angry at that at all. (well, hopefully)

That is not the foundation of it at all. For one thing, this approach to dealing with crimes makes a clear distinction between emotional states and thought processes.

Did you read the link. You have absolutely disregarded it. You absolutely disregard that “I was angry” is not a defense for a crime. And “I was angry” is the first step to the crime.

[Changing subject] People go to anger management classes not to learn how to not act on their anger but to learn how not to get angry for every little thing.

Secondly, it in no way assumes that emotions are voluntary. On the contrary, one aspect of the way this approach works, is that it is understood that emotional responses are not voluntary. The entire framework is based on psychology, and the simple fact is that what you are claiming runs completely counter to current psychological knowledge.

No, your notion is counter to all common fundamental psychological knowledge. [sarcasm on] For you falling in love is an involuntary thing, maybe like magic[sarcasm off]

Man, the ability of philosophers to go on and on about nothing truly amazes me. That entire essay seems to amount to nothing more than drawing a distinction between "feelings" (the involuntary response), and "emotions" (the cognitive interpretation of the feeling). In any event, it is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, since we are talking about the feeling of remorse.

Remorse is not like pain. Do you understand the definition of remorse, it is not the equivalent of feeling bad for a couple of seconds. It is exactly a cognitive interpretation of deep feelings. To feel guilty requires cognition. How else can you arrive at guilt.

Consider the example I gave from my own past. I no longer possess the "emotion" of remorse over that event, in the context presented in Dr. Solomon's essay. Only the feeling. And the fact remains that even if I were to adopt a completely utilitarian philosophy, whereby I attach absolutely no value to the happiness or pain of others, I am still going to "feel" a certain way when I see other people suffer.

What you are talking about is not remorse and by the way, it absolutely ridiculous that you still feel bad about a banana, get over it. you are a grown scientists for goodness sake

[b] If my own values were drastically different than those of society, and I had no means to try to make society better (from my point of view), then I would definitely have a problem. Fortunately, I do not live in such a society.

We will never know? [skepticism on] It is very convenient that you hold mostly the same values that the society you live in has[skepticism off]

For example, if I found myself in Afghanistan 5 years ago under Taliban rule, I would have a real problem. Actions which I would feel morally compelled to take would get me killed. I would have only 3 choices:

1) Die for my beliefs.

2) Leave.

3) Abandon my morals, and try to adopt those of the society I am living in.

I suspect that I would try for number 2, and failing that, choose number 1.

Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.

This does not follow. Making it into a legal code is not sufficient. For one thing, in a free society, people will not tolerate laws that they find morally unacceptable. And freedom is one of my values. For another thing, even if I could live with a totalitarian society where everybody is forced by law to live the way I think they should, whether they like it or not, that isn't going to stop people from doing bad things when they think they can get away with it.

Why totalitarian? Most countries are ruled by legal norms. And all must obey them, whether they like it or not. What a society holds as valuable is independent of individual’s values. It is mostly dependent on the values of the majority (and even that is not certain). And if even with legal norms people break them, imagine the moral ones.

In the US abortion is legal, in my country it is not. Maybe in a couple of year it wont be legal in the US again. Individual morality is irrelevant.

Furthermore, there historical evidence to prove you wrong. Social conditioning, meaning the instilling of values and morals through social interaction, rather than through laws and enforcement, works. It has worked in the US and Western Europe for several centuries now.

No, sir it does not work. If I’m an atheist, there is no way to explain that it works. There has been no other time in the history of the world where more laws are passed and enforced.

Man, you live in Europe, it is one of the areas more legislated in the world. They even have laws of to what size your dog house has to be. Why is that?

Are you seriously suggesting that because some members of society are immoral, this somehow proves that morals are useless? That because there are some people who will behave in a selfish and antisocial manner if they are not forced to behave, that the only way to get people to behave is through threats of punishment?

I going to say this clear to you. There is no other system that works but the reward/punishment/compliance one.

Apparently you do not have a very high opinion of your fellow human beings. And I thought I was cynical.

What world do you live in? Stimpson, every single action you take that involves other people requires external control, a norm system. Every single one. Hey, some guys wanted to get out of the matrimony contract, they decided not to get married, so the law created the “common law marriage” rule.

I disagree, for the reasons I have given above. Modern society itself demonstrates that you are wrong. Look at the world around you. Most people have morals.

Yes, and every single transaction I make, I depend on the system to protect me. Remember my exchanges with Victor, do you think he does not use profanity directed at me because the goodness of his heart (he suddenly had a change of heart) No, the system protect me.

Most people will behave in a reasonably civilized manner, even if they think they can get away with not doing so.

That’s not the assumption any organization takes. Show me your driver’s license, please fill out this application, let’s do inventory every month, hey, every bank with armed personnel and a thick vault.

Do you really believe that anybody who doesn't behave in a selfish manner when they can get away with it legally, is doing so only out of fear of punishment (or hope of reward) in the afterlife?

No, simply out of fear of punishment or certainty or hope of reward. No afterlife needed.

I was once a Christian. My values and morals didn't change much when I quit being a Christian. I didn't behave in a certain way out of fear of Hell or hope for Heaven then, and I don't now. my whole family is Catholic, and yet none of them have ever indicated that morality is simply about punishment and reward. on the contrary, I am sure that they would all be horrified by the way you are characterizing theistic morality.

Why horrified? If you are not a Catholic you go to hell, better be Catholic. What is the principal reason to be Catholic?

If this is truly all there is to your morals, then you are a sociopath, being held in control only through the most severe of possible threats.

Most severe of threats? Not necessary it can a little threat and it can be a little reward. I always make a cost/benefit analysis.

I’m sorry if I don’t take your word for it that absolutely nothing good motivates to do good. And that absolutely nothing bad motivates you not to do bad.

For the sake of society, I sincerely hope that you never lose your faith, and that nobody ever convinces you that God wants you to hurt people.

This simply does not follow. If God does not exist, I would still adhere to the reward/punishment/compliance system, even more so than before, specially since the only rewards I’m getting are here on earth. And if all the punishments are also here on earth, I would also want to minimize those.

Wrong. Society instills values through social and legal norms. It is from these values that individuals establish a code of morality. In that sense, yes, morals are not imposed by society. Only rules are. But from these values, which a person actually adopts as his own (as oppose to simply respecting through force of law), morality arises. And morality is most definitely not ineffective in this regard. Indeed, it is capable of filling an important gap that mere legislation cannot.

No, it is the other way around. But that is irrelevant, because, as I said, it serves no purpose. What gap? For atheists there isn’t a gap or distinction.

No, the US also uses the third one. It uses amorality. One of the reasons that the US (and also Canada, Western Europe, and secular democratic republics in general) work, is because most of the people in these societies actually value the things that the society values, and agree with most of the laws. Most people in the free world really believe in things like freedom, liberty, justice, and tolerance. These values have been instilled in them by society, but they continue as the moral codes of the individuals.

And the only reason these values are upheld is because they have been instituted as social or legal norms. This is the whole point I’m making. If they where not constitutional and downward, (secondary laws) that people held these values would be irrelevant. And don’t give me the story that these have evolved. The US constitution is the oldest (arguably) of these types of documents and the modifications to its values has been almost non-existent.

Without morals, nothing is going to change. Nobody is going to go to the effort to change the laws if they don't think anything is wrong with them. The moral norms are not irrelevant. They are a necessary and integral part of the system.

Before I can have social and legal norms, they first have to be thought up. Yes, of course, but morality is not that. Morality is a code to live by, and I repeat, it is useless to live by a code where there is no reward/punishment/compliance structure.

Absolutely. But you know what? There are fewer than there were 10 years ago. And there will be fewer still 10 years from now. With individuals with a strong sense of morality, this would not happen.

You are just proving my point. And it has nothing to do with a strong sense of morality. That they act to change the system says absolutely nothing about if they follow them. People can perfectly know how things should be without following the rules they set.

People can be immoral and still champion for a better system. I much rather trust that you will do the right thing because you are compelled to, than risk you do the right things just because you feel like it.

The same is true for you, and for everybody else. That is the nature of morality. Even if the moral code you follow was handed down by God, you still follow it because you feel like it.

No, that is not correct, I follow it because of he reward/punishment/compliance system.

You value doing what God tells you to, whether it is because you think that God is good, or because you fear Hell, or whatever. Like I said, the only difference is the reason we hold the values we do. That, and the fact that I don't pretend that mine are the unique absolutely "right" ones.

It is not a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of the efficacy of the system to make you comply.

Then what does this have to do with atheists? It sounds like you are just saying that morality is nonsense, and that all that matters is that God is going to spank us if we don't do what he says.

Morality is nonsense if you are not accountable for your morality. Why is this not obvious to you? Legal norms would be a joke if there was no way to enforce them or if people would not have to face the legal system.

That is the definition of anarchy, that everyone have his or her own rules and that no one can enforce them on others. By definition, morality is anarchical.

Irrelevant. You must still acknowledge that your values, and even your moral code, come from society. At the very least, society was the mechanism by which God gave you the code. Like I said, the only real difference is that you have convinced yourself, or allowed yourself to be convinced, that your moral code is the true "absolute" one.

You are missing the point, if God is the giver of the code, he is also the enforcer of the code. He can make us comply or punish or reward us. That is the only way morality makes sense.

I must say that I find it rather disturbing that your beliefs absolve you of any responsibility for trying to make society a better place. People ask why I say religion is harmful, this is a perfect example. You are only concerned with the afterlife, and a perfectly content to leave sorting out affairs here on Earth to God. If people are tortured and murdered, that's not your problem. It's God's will, right?


As someone else said, you are reading what you want to read. Even if I wanted to find a cure for cancer, I’m not in a position to accomplish that. I’m not a scientist and never will be. God clearly did not intend for me to find the cure for HIV. And millions of people will not have chance to change laws, for multiple reasons.

All I can say is that I am very glad that most modern Christians don't share your views on these issues. Unfortunately, there are still many in the US who do, and as such are perfectly willing to ignore the way we are destroying the environment,

Not addressing the ad hom, the only way to protect the environment is by enacting laws to protect it.

and to ignore the injustices occurring throughout the World, as long as we get the word of Jesus to everybody, so that they can go to heaven after they starve to death, or get murdered by tyrants and terrorists.

This is just silly.

I am a Humanist. I don't care about God. If he does exist, he can take care of himself. I care about people. You may consider that value to be "irrational", but it is not. Society takes care of me, and I take care of it. That is not a very difficult concept to understand.

Not difficult to understand at all. You are being totally inconsistent. You think your morality is not based on the reward/punishment/compliance when it is. But the sweet deal is that you never have to enforce that system on you.

Clancy wrote
There's no reason a good idea like, "Do unto others...." requires a belief in God or Jesus to make it "stick".

The only way to make it stick is with social and legal norms.

Perhaps there is even a biological basis for certain types of behavior like this, perhaps because it increases our chances of survival.

Do you see that the implication of this statement is that there must be a social reward/punishment/compliance system for the behavior to be of any use.

In any case, if one has a concept of what should be done and then doesn't do it, an atheist should have at least as much conscience about it as any religious person would (particularly as there's no atheistic way of getting absolution for doing wrong).

Good point. The only way for it to work if it is under a bilateral system.

TamiO wrote
I am also beginning to think that Christian is using words with a certain meaning attached that may not agree with others definitions.
The thread is so long now, it pains me to think about going back to see if he ever offered a definition of remorse according to him.

From what I can tell, remorse is to regret as rage is to mad.

I did give a definition, Webster’s and it is similar to the one you presented. By the definition, it is useless for an atheist.

Darat wrote:
On a personal note I can count on one hand the number of times I have acted in such a way to cause me to feel remorse in the past 15 years.

Please don’t take this as an attack or that I’m picking on you. But, this is only natural. You are the judge and jury. There is no one accuse of your lack or misdirected morality (if you had one). It is a useless standard because the standard is subjective.

Why is this? Because I do everything in my power to avoid taking any action that I think is wrong!

You see what I mean? “That you think is wrong”. This system is so easy to beat. All you have to do to not do anything wrong is change your mind of what is wrong. It is called rationalization. I’m not saying you do that, all I’m saying is that it can easily be done. And most people do it.

You see I have to be able to live (I hope) a good number of years with the result and the feelings caused by me doing something wrong.

No, you don’t. If you do is only because you want to. It serves absolutely no purpose. It is irrational.

I have to take the entire responsibility and the total remorse on my own shoulders.

Why, what is the purpose? It is useless to do this.

Many religions however give their believers a way to at least share, if not totally avoid, the remorse that in a normal human follows a known wrong action. They can chose to do wrong, and for example, if they are a Catholic merely confess their wrong doing, do the penance and be assured that they need no longer feel remorse as the "big decider" has now cleared their slate. Many other religions have similar mechanisms.

No, the bilateralism makes all the difference in the world. If I go against a moral code:

1. I know that I have been immoral, there is just no way around it.
2. I know that I will have to pay for it whether I like it or not.
3. And I know remorse is a mechanism that shows the other part that I’m beginning to pay for the offense.

Perhaps one of the reasons we have religions is that taking responsibility for your own wrong doing and living with the subsequent remorse can be very difficult?

Absolutely, trusting that people will take responsibility for their own wrong doing does not work.

Bottleshop wrote:
There is no indication in this answer that you really meant that some laws COULD, in fact, be immoral when measured against God's law. You simply stated that, when supranational laws conflict with national laws, Christians should obey the supranational laws first.

This is a tangent but I will address it.

Here my response:
No, Nazi Germany was acting against a higher human law. It is possible that lower laws violate higher ones. When they violate the highest one of the State, it is called unconstitutional. When they violate the highest of them all, [b]it is called violation of universally accepte human rights.

So I did clarify that today there are universal human rights laws. They were proclaimed as such by the UN in 1948 as a result of the Nazi genocide. This does not mean they did not exist.

Then I asked you my follow-up question, positing a situation in which the highest human agency had enacted a law so far outside God's law that a person chosing to act morally might commit an illegal act. Even then, you did not seek to modify your initial statement. You chose to elide the issue:

Because you presented a scenario that made my inicial statement irrelevant. In your scenario there is no other answer. It is a self-evident answer. Do you see that? You constructed a scenario that has no other answer.

What you fail to realize is that your scenario only supports my contention that morality is unnecessary (and that is the point of this thread). This is why I asked you to pay attention to the answer. Instead you have opted for proving something that is irrelevant to this discussion.

At this point your answer demonstrated that no, you did not really believe that, in all cases, God's law requires one to follow "man's law." You chose, however, not to admit that you misstated yourself in the first instance--that you really did not mean to make such a flat statement. Instead, you acted as if anyone paying attention SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD that you "stated this with the knowledge that there are (right now in the world today) universal human right laws that would make the statement always true. As it stands today, It is impossible that one obeys the highest human law and not be moral."

I am sorry, but that limitation on your statement is not implicit in the words you used.

You then stated that I "created a fictitious scenario where [your] first premise would not apply ( a trap??)."

That "fictitious scenario" was a "hypothetical," and such scenarios are commonly used in legal analysis specifically to explore the reach of a given principle. I set you the extreme example to see whether you really thought your first statement would apply in all circumstances. (Did I really think that you were so ignorant as to believe that there were no exceptions to your statement? No, but posing my questions proved to be the only way to find that out.

I accused you of intellectual dishonesty because I didn't see how your initial statement could be read as anything but the broad statement, admitting of no exceptions, that I took it to be, and, therefore, took your claim to the effect that it was made "with the knowledge that there are (right now in the world today) universal human right laws that would make the statement always true" to be disingenuous. If, in fact, you were entirely unaware that your first statement could have been understood in the absolute sense in which I took it, then you are not guilty of intellectual dishonesty, and I apologize.

Ok, fine. I misstated my initial response.

C4ts wrote:
I find it much more gratifying to take responsibility for my actions and actually work things out with the person I have harmed, instead of just myself and whatever deity that is supposed to be the only thing capable absolving me.

So the reward for you is the gratification you feel for taking responsibility for your actions. All this falls apart the minute you feel no such gratification or you don’t believe you are responsible. In either case, you are the sole controller of it.

Aerosolben wrote:
Unless you really do think emotions are a rational higher-cognitive process...

I am certain that by definition, remorse is a higher-cognitive process. If it is not, it is not remorse anymore.

Rikzilla wrote:
If I may say so sir, your atheist hat sits uneasily upon your head.

No argument there.

You seem to have a great many assumptions about "atheists" as if they are from another race or planet. The fact is that atheists are a very diverse group of folks. Your assumptions therefore won't get you very far if indeed you are in earnest about trying to understand "atheist morality".

Can you point out the wrong assumptions? No one seem to be disputing them personally (only in theory)

My suggestion to you would be to read Micheal Shermer's next book which will delve into the non-religious origins of early human interaction from which the concept and adoption of morals arises. I don't know when it's due out,...but at TAM he spoke at length about this material.

Thanks for the suggestion.

In other words, the atheist is as human as you or I. He does not exist in a vacuum....he shares in human morality. Perhaps you call it Christian morality, and obviously believe it came down to us as a gift from God....but if your desire is to really understand these inscrutable atheists, you're going to need to accept the possibility that our morals were not handed down to us from God. When you can accept this possibility, I think you'll be ready to really open your mind to evidence which runs contrary to your belief.

The point is not the source, that is irrelevant to our discussion. The point is that to me, morality is bilateral and to you it is unilateral.

Until you do that, you will be incapable of really understanding what you say you are trying to understand. And when/if you do get there, you will see the world as a agnostic does. Like me. I don't know if there is a God or not,..but neither do you. When you face that fact you'll be ready to open that mind to an infinite array of possibilities and their attendant philosophies.

The question to you as an agnostic is if personally believe there is someone other than you who enforces the moral norms on you. If you are the only enforcer, then morality is useless for you.

For instance, when Kant describes the law of morals, he is describing nothing less than human conscience. We cannot prove what our conscience tells us, but we know it nevertheless. Now please tell me why you think atheists have no human conscience! Good luck on that one

It is good that you mention Kant, he is one of the authors that describes the qualities of norm, moral norms are unilateral.

Chance wrote:
No I am not stating that it’s a learned behaviour at all, more instinctive for survival reasons. A learned behaviour would be like faking remorse to avoid punishment. e.g. DAD did you eat all the cookies? “I’m sorry daddy I wont do it again, …sob”. DAD “ahhhhhh, ok, just don’t do it again.”

If I tell you remorse is a learned behavior and that by definition it requires a lot of thinking and you don’t agree, I don’t see how else I can convince of it.

Not necessarily, and certainly not to the same degree, all of us are part nature part nurture and the mix produces the end result. The basic instinct of remorse is present in all of us to some degree, but how we react or draw upon that instinct is partially due to circumstance.

The problem is that you are not looking at the definition of remorse. Remorse requires a deep sense of feeling bad and guilty about a passed event. If the degree changes, then it is not remorse any more.

Two questions :

First, who define "moral norms" as having these qualities, and how did they establish this? Is it
simply a case of "this is my definition"?

Finally, you are on board. This is first year law theory. The books I have are all in Spanish, here the link.

http://dch.unne.edu.ar/libros.htm

But, if you know any lawyers, they will corroborate the information. You can also get law theory book, I’m sure you will find the inf. there.

Second, do you, as a theist, agree with the above definition of "moral norms"? If not, then what do you define as a "moral norm" using the above terms?

Good question. On my exams, I had to put moral norms are autonomous/internal/unilateral/incoercible because that is the secular perspective. It does not matter what religion I hold, to everyone else that is their quality.

But, do to my religious beliefs, to me moral norms are heteronymous/external/bilateral/coercible. Exactly the qualities of legal norms.

[Darat]

I'll post a reply shortly to Christian's response but a quick word of congratulations to Christian for perhaps the most comprehensive answering of multiple questions and points I've seen on this forum!

[Darat]

By Christian:
Darat wrote:
On a personal note I can count on one hand the number of times I have acted in such a way to cause me to feel remorse in the past 15 years.

Please don’t take this as an attack or that I’m picking on you. But, this is only natural. You are the judge and jury. There is no one accuse of your lack or misdirected morality (if you had one). It is a useless standard because the standard is subjective.

Darat Wrote
Why is this? Because I do everything in my power to avoid taking any action that I think is wrong!

You see what I mean? “That you think is wrong”. This system is so easy to beat. All you have to do to not do anything wrong is change your mind of what is wrong. It is called rationalization. I’m not saying you do that, all I’m saying is that it can easily be done. And most people do it.



So let’s try a thought experiment, and in this case I ask you to only answer for yourself not for what anyone else might or might not do:

In your country tomorrow there is a revelation that killing is no longer wrong and all the laws that make murder illegal are repealed.

You are caught in a terrible argument with another person, the most vilest of insults are exchanged, your family are threatened with harm.

Do you kill that person? Yes or No?


By Christian:
Darat wrote:
You see I have to be able to live (I hope) a good number of years with the result and the feelings caused by me doing something wrong.

No, you don’t. If you do is only because you want to. It serves absolutely no purpose. It is irrational.



Remember as an atheist I do not believe that I am anything but an organism that responds to stimuli, it would therefore be “irrational” to deny that I am an organism that responds in a certain manner to certain stimuli.

What you are trying to say is that I can behave in a manner that is different to the what “I” am - this would only be possible if I believed in something like a soul or held a dualist position, e.g. that “I” am more then a bag of chemicals.

By Christian:
Darat wrote:
I have to take the entire responsibility and the total remorse on my own shoulders.

Why, what is the purpose? It is useless to do this.



No purpose but it is the way human beings are, which is a result of evolution, which (presumably) is a result of how reality is!

By Christian:
Darat wrote:
Many religions however give their believers a way to at least share, if not totally avoid, the remorse that in a normal human follows a known wrong action. They can chose to do wrong, and for example, if they are a Catholic merely confess their wrong doing, do the penance and be assured that they need no longer feel remorse as the "big decider" has now cleared their slate. Many other religions have similar mechanisms.

No, the bilateralism makes all the difference in the world. If I go against a moral code:
1. I know that I have been immoral, there is just no way around it.


Unless the code is changed. Then your immoral action is now moral or vice-a-versa.

By Christian:

2. I know that I will have to pay for it whether I like it or not.


No quite often people get away with acting immoral. Punishment does NOT automatically follow the breaking of a “moral code”.

By Christian:

3. And I know remorse is a mechanism that shows the other part that I’m beginning to pay for the offense.


But why have remorse then? Remorse in these circumstances makes no sense, it is irrational since you know you’ve done wrong, you know the punishment, you’ve accepted the punishment, your moral code is telling you all that. You don’t need to feel anything.

By Christian:
Darat wrote:
Perhaps one of the reasons we have religions is that taking responsibility for your own wrong doing and living with the subsequent remorse can be very difficult?

Absolutely, trusting that people will take responsibility for their own wrong doing does not work.



Hmm.. yet you remain convinced your religion is the Truth….

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Christian,

1a) I think that the emotion of remorse is actually a beneficial thing, from the point of view of society, and that since society is beneficial to individuals, this makes remorse, as well as several other aspects of human nature, useful and beneficial.

Why is it beneficial? I have explained why it is useless. You have only asserted that is something you can’t stop from feeling.

Because it provides an incentive to behave yourself even when nobody is looking.

If you go the route of saying the pain it causes directs to a future better choice, you are back to the reward/punishment area you so much hate.

Who said I hated it? I already told you that I recognize that reward and punishment are effective ways of conditioning behavior. In fact, ultimately any motivating force fits into one of those categories.

Again an inconsistency. Which is it? It’s beneficial or I can’t help the emotion?

Both. Why would that be inconsistent?

1b) I disagree with your premise that a person can simply choose to not feel remorse. He could be conditioned not to, but there is a term for such people. They are called psychopaths.

So you are saying it is necessary to feel pain for you in order for you to act subsequently in a good way?

No, it is necessary to have a motivation to do so. That motivation could be to avoid the pain I feel when other people suffer. It could be to enjoy the pleasure I feel when other people are happy. It could be for more tangible rewards and punishments from external sources. They all work.

2) I disagree with your conclusion that morality is unnecessary, and furthermore, I fail to see how anybody who values anything more than his own immediate benefit, could reach that conclusion.

Anyone that values more than his own immediate benefit can clearly see the uselessness of morality. The uselessness of having rules he can only enforce on himself and for which he has no accountability to others if he does not enforce them.

I disagree, for the reasons I already explained. Anything which serves as a motivation to behave in a way that is beneficial to society, is useful to society. If you value society, then morals are a good thing.

Note also that none of the above has anything to do with me being an atheist, either. In fact, most people I know would agree with those points, and most of the people I know are not atheists.

No so, morality is not upheld “just because”. It is because there is a reward/punishment/compliance system that exists.

You can only speak for yourself in this regard. I know many Christians who have flat-out told me that they would keep their code of morality even if they found out that Christianity was bunk. I also know many ex-Christians who did just that. I am one of them.

How? When I feel angry, I can certainly do exercises (such as deep breathing, meditation, etc...) in order to suppress, or even eliminate the feeling. But when the event that made me angry occurred, there was no decision on my part to be angry or not angry.

I can believe we are actually arguing about this. [sarcasm on] So I suppose you get angry for the same reasons you did when you were 5 or 10 [sarcasm off] Of course not, part of maturity is taking care of our emotions. I used to get angry in traffic jams. I don’t anymore. Not one bit. I decided it was no use to get angry in a situation I could do nothing about. So, maybe the first couple of times, I had to do some breathing exercises, but then I got used to not getting angry at traffic jams (it became a thing not to get angry at).

Once again, you are over-simplifying a complex and long-term conditioning process. You didn't just decide one day to not get angry anymore, and suddenly not get angry any more. Over time, you simply got used to the irritation that angered you, until it no longer caused that emotional response anymore.

Do you understand that remorse requires time and time and time. It’s just not feeling bad for a couple of seconds, it’s a deep sense of pain that leads to guilt. It is a persistent emotion. It is useless in an atheist context.

I have already explained why it is not useless.

If by that you mean the ability to not act based on your emotions, or even the ability to consciously alter your emotional state through mental exercises, then I agree. But your claims imply that you mean more than this. Do you claim to have the ability to actually decide, before you have the emotional response, but after the stimulus, what your emotional response will be?

If so, I am sorry, but I simply don't believe you.

I sorry you don’t but that just tells me you have no recollection of your childhood and definitely you have no children of your own.

Man, the thing kids get angry about. When you grow up, you learn what type of stimulus do not warrant getting angry about so in effect, I know what emotional response I will have before or after the stimulus.

Once again, that is long term psychological conditioning. Do you understand the difference between such conditioning, and direct cognitive decisions?

My daughter gets angry because she has to wait her turn. I don’t need scientific books to tell me that when she grow up she will not get angry at that at all. (well, hopefully)

This is completely irrelevant. I have already acknowledged that I could potentially condition myself over time to be a sociopath. The question is, why would I want to?

That is not the foundation of it at all. For one thing, this approach to dealing with crimes makes a clear distinction between emotional states and thought processes.

Did you read the link. You have absolutely disregarded it. You absolutely disregard that “I was angry” is not a defense for a crime. And “I was angry” is the first step to the crime.

I did not disregard it. I told you that it is irrelevant. Being angry is not a defense for the crime, but it is not a requirement for it either. If you commit the crime without being angry, you have still committed a crime. And if anything, you will be punished more severely for that, then if it was a crime of passion.

[Changing subject] People go to anger management classes not to learn how to not act on their anger but to learn how not to get angry for every little thing.

Actually, they do it for both. That is how psychological conditioning works. Your mental state tends to follow your behavior. If you actively strive to control your behavior, by not acting out when you get angry under certain conditions, one of the effects of this is that you tend to stop being angered by those conditions.

Once again, this is not what I am arguing against. What I am arguing against is the idea that if something happens right now that makes me angry, that I actually have to make a conscious decision to be angry or not. That is nonsense.

Secondly, it in no way assumes that emotions are voluntary. On the contrary, one aspect of the way this approach works, is that it is understood that emotional responses are not voluntary. The entire framework is based on psychology, and the simple fact is that what you are claiming runs completely counter to current psychological knowledge.

No, your notion is counter to all common fundamental psychological knowledge. [sarcasm on] For you falling in love is an involuntary thing, maybe like magic[sarcasm off]

Why the sarcasm? I have never consciously decided to fall in love, but I have been in love before.

Man, the ability of philosophers to go on and on about nothing truly amazes me. That entire essay seems to amount to nothing more than drawing a distinction between "feelings" (the involuntary response), and "emotions" (the cognitive interpretation of the feeling). In any event, it is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, since we are talking about the feeling of remorse.

Remorse is not like pain. Do you understand the definition of remorse, it is not the equivalent of feeling bad for a couple of seconds. It is exactly a cognitive interpretation of deep feelings. To feel guilty requires cognition. How else can you arrive at guilt.

Are you talking about remorse, or guilt? I am not talking about guilt here. I thought I made it clear in my example that I no longer feel any guilt about knocking the banana out of my brother's hand. What I feel is remorse, that being the bad feeling that I involuntarily get when I remember the event.

If you are talking about guilt, then I agree. Guilt is pointless. Take responsibility for what you have done, Try to make up for it if you can, and move on.

Consider the example I gave from my own past. I no longer possess the "emotion" of remorse over that event, in the context presented in Dr. Solomon's essay. Only the feeling. And the fact remains that even if I were to adopt a completely utilitarian philosophy, whereby I attach absolutely no value to the happiness or pain of others, I am still going to "feel" a certain way when I see other people suffer.

What you are talking about is not remorse and by the way, it absolutely ridiculous that you still feel bad about a banana, get over it. you are a grown scientists for goodness sake[bad humor off]

I think maybe you should have been more clear in your original post, then. What I am talking about certainly seems to be what I think of as "remorse". What you are describing sounds more like guilt.

In any event, all of my points with respect to morality are still valid, because morality does not depend on things like guilt. All it requires is the feelings that are associated with our values.

[b]If my own values were drastically different than those of society, and I had no means to try to make society better (from my point of view), then I would definitely have a problem. Fortunately, I do not live in such a society.

We will never know? [skepticism on] It is very convenient that you hold mostly the same values that the society you live in has[skepticism off]

Not at all. Society is one of the primary sources of my values. We learn our values from the people we associate with. Family, friends, classmates, neighbors, our community, and so on.

This does not follow. Making it into a legal code is not sufficient. For one thing, in a free society, people will not tolerate laws that they find morally unacceptable. And freedom is one of my values. For another thing, even if I could live with a totalitarian society where everybody is forced by law to live the way I think they should, whether they like it or not, that isn't going to stop people from doing bad things when they think they can get away with it.

Why totalitarian? Most countries are ruled by legal norms. And all must obey them, whether they like it or not. What a society holds as valuable is independent of individual’s values. It is mostly dependent on the values of the majority (and even that is not certain). And if even with legal norms people break them, imagine the moral ones.

How is this relevant? The point is that a person who does not share the values of society is not only going to break the rules whenever he thinks he can get away with it, but he is also going to abuse those rules. This happens all the time, but it would happen a lot more in a society in which the rules did not reflect the values of most of the people. That is because of morality.

In the US abortion is legal, in my country it is not. Maybe in a couple of year it wont be legal in the US again. Individual morality is irrelevant.

Hardly. Just look at the people arguing on each side of this issue. They are trying to either change the law to be consistent with their individual morality, or they are fighting to keep it the same, because it already is.

Without personal morality, it wouldn't even be an issue, since it is not significantly good or bad for society. In terms of the actual effects, it is a pretty minor issue. It is only because of its relevance to personal morality that it is such a big issue at all.

Furthermore, there historical evidence to prove you wrong. Social conditioning, meaning the instilling of values and morals through social interaction, rather than through laws and enforcement, works. It has worked in the US and Western Europe for several centuries now.

No, sir it does not work. If I’m an atheist, there is no way to explain that it works. There has been no other time in the history of the world where more laws are passed and enforced.

Once again, it has nothing to do with atheism. It is simply psychology. Psychology doesn't require, or forbid, a God.

Man, you live in Europe, it is one of the areas more legislated in the world. They even have laws of to what size your dog house has to be. Why is that?

Don't ask me. I am an American.

Are you seriously suggesting that because some members of society are immoral, this somehow proves that morals are useless? That because there are some people who will behave in a selfish and antisocial manner if they are not forced to behave, that the only way to get people to behave is through threats of punishment?

I going to say this clear to you. There is no other system that works but the reward/punishment/compliance one.

And I am going to say this clear to you. You are wrong.

Apparently you do not have a very high opinion of your fellow human beings. And I thought I was cynical.

What world do you live in? Stimpson, every single action you take that involves other people requires external control, a norm system. Every single one. Hey, some guys wanted to get out of the matrimony contract, they decided not to get married, so the law created the “common law marriage” rule.

In the world I live in, I associate with people all the time without the laws coming into it. I make agreements with people that, were they to go back on them, I would lose a lot of money. Yet I have no legal recourse if they decide to screw me, and we both know it. I help people I don't even know, with no expectation of reward, and no law compelling me to. And others have done the same for me.

Sure, we need laws. But the world would be a much uglier place if those laws were the only things keeping people from acting like selfish sociopaths.

I was once a Christian. My values and morals didn't change much when I quit being a Christian. I didn't behave in a certain way out of fear of Hell or hope for Heaven then, and I don't now. my whole family is Catholic, and yet none of them have ever indicated that morality is simply about punishment and reward. on the contrary, I am sure that they would all be horrified by the way you are characterizing theistic morality.

Why horrified? If you are not a Catholic you go to hell, better be Catholic. What is the principal reason to be Catholic?

Is that supposed to somehow refute my point? It is a complete non-sequitur.

If this is truly all there is to your morals, then you are a sociopath, being held in control only through the most severe of possible threats.

Most severe of threats? Not necessary it can a little threat and it can be a little reward. I always make a cost/benefit analysis.

I’m sorry if I don’t take your word for it that absolutely nothing good motivates to do good. And that absolutely nothing bad motivates you not to do bad.

Good, because that isn't what I said. What I said is the external motivations are not always necessary. My values are my motivation.

For the sake of society, I sincerely hope that you never lose your faith, and that nobody ever convinces you that God wants you to hurt people.

This simply does not follow. If God does not exist, I would still adhere to the reward/punishment/compliance system, even more so than before, specially since the only rewards I’m getting are here on earth. And if all the punishments are also here on earth, I would also want to minimize those.

Sure, and the first time you meet an elderly person alone somewhere, you will beat him to death for the money in his wallet. After all, if you are certain you can get away with it, reward/punishment doesn't enter into it, right?

Who are you kidding? I know you wouldn't do that. You wouldn't do it, because like the vast majority of people, you would feel bad if you did. That is motivation enough.

Wrong. Society instills values through social and legal norms. It is from these values that individuals establish a code of morality. In that sense, yes, morals are not imposed by society. Only rules are. But from these values, which a person actually adopts as his own (as oppose to simply respecting through force of law), morality arises. And morality is most definitely not ineffective in this regard. Indeed, it is capable of filling an important gap that mere legislation cannot.

No, it is the other way around. But that is irrelevant, because, as I said, it serves no purpose. What gap? For atheists there isn’t a gap or distinction.

I have explained what the gap is, and why it exists. All you have done is claim that for an atheist it does not. You have not explained why, or even how belief in God has anything at all to do with it.

No, the US also uses the third one. It uses amorality. One of the reasons that the US (and also Canada, Western Europe, and secular democratic republics in general) work, is because most of the people in these societies actually value the things that the society values, and agree with most of the laws. Most people in the free world really believe in things like freedom, liberty, justice, and tolerance. These values have been instilled in them by society, but they continue as the moral codes of the individuals.

And the only reason these values are upheld is because they have been instituted as social or legal norms. This is the whole point I’m making. If they where not constitutional and downward, (secondary laws) that people held these values would be irrelevant.

Are you seriously suggesting that most of these people don't actually hold these values, and only behave as if they did, because of the law?

And don’t give me the story that these have evolved. The US constitution is the oldest (arguably) of these types of documents and the modifications to its values has been almost non-existent.

Values within the US have changed considerably over the last 200 years.

Without morals, nothing is going to change. Nobody is going to go to the effort to change the laws if they don't think anything is wrong with them. The moral norms are not irrelevant. They are a necessary and integral part of the system.

Before I can have social and legal norms, they first have to be thought up. Yes, of course, but morality is not that. Morality is a code to live by, and I repeat, it is useless to live by a code where there is no reward/punishment/compliance structure.

The act of trying to change society for the better is an act of living by your code of morality.

Absolutely. But you know what? There are fewer than there were 10 years ago. And there will be fewer still 10 years from now. With individuals with a strong sense of morality, this would not happen.

You are just proving my point. And it has nothing to do with a strong sense of morality. That they act to change the system says absolutely nothing about if they follow them. People can perfectly know how things should be without following the rules they set.

People can be immoral and still champion for a better system. I much rather trust that you will do the right thing because you are compelled to, than risk you do the right things just because you feel like it.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would somebody who doesn't value improving the system go to the effort of doing so? And if he does value improving the system, then by doing so, he is acting according to his values. That is morality!

The same is true for you, and for everybody else. That is the nature of morality. Even if the moral code you follow was handed down by God, you still follow it because you feel like it.

No, that is not correct, I follow it because of he reward/punishment/compliance system.

Then by the very definitions you gave, that is not morality. You are declaring yourself to be amoral.

Then what does this have to do with atheists? It sounds like you are just saying that morality is nonsense, and that all that matters is that God is going to spank us if we don't do what he says.

Morality is nonsense if you are not accountable for your morality.

Why? If it serves as a motivation, then it is useful.

Why is this not obvious to you? Legal norms would be a joke if there was no way to enforce them or if people would not have to face the legal system.

We are not talking about legal norms. We are talking about morality. Just because legal norms require enforcement to work, does not mean that morality does.

That is the definition of anarchy, that everyone have his or her own rules and that no one can enforce them on others. By definition, morality is anarchical.

That is some of the most backwards reasoning I have ever seen. Anarchy is lawlessness. Without laws, you have anarchy. Morality alone is not enough to prevent anarchy. I have never suggested that morals could replace laws.

I must say that I find it rather disturbing that your beliefs absolve you of any responsibility for trying to make society a better place. People ask why I say religion is harmful, this is a perfect example. You are only concerned with the afterlife, and a perfectly content to leave sorting out affairs here on Earth to God. If people are tortured and murdered, that's not your problem. It's God's will, right?

As someone else said, you are reading what you want to read. Even if I wanted to find a cure for cancer, I’m not in a position to accomplish that. I’m not a scientist and never will be. God clearly did not intend for me to find the cure for HIV. And millions of people will not have chance to change laws, for multiple reasons.

No, you clearly stated that you have no interest in changing laws for the better, not that you are unable to do so. If you had the ability to contribute to the efforts to find a cure for cancer, would you bother?

All I can say is that I am very glad that most modern Christians don't share your views on these issues. Unfortunately, there are still many in the US who do, and as such are perfectly willing to ignore the way we are destroying the environment,

Not addressing the ad hom, the only way to protect the environment is by enacting laws to protect it.

You already asserted that you have no interest in doing so.

and to ignore the injustices occurring throughout the World, as long as we get the word of Jesus to everybody, so that they can go to heaven after they starve to death, or get murdered by tyrants and terrorists.

This is just silly.

I agree. But the alternative is to actively strive to change the laws to be consistent with your individual code of morality. Something which you have declared useless.

I am a Humanist. I don't care about God. If he does exist, he can take care of himself. I care about people. You may consider that value to be "irrational", but it is not. Society takes care of me, and I take care of it. That is not a very difficult concept to understand.

Not difficult to understand at all. You are being totally inconsistent. You think your morality is not based on the reward/punishment/compliance when it is. But the sweet deal is that you never have to enforce that system on you.

How so? I do many of the things I do because of my morals, and not because of external rewards or punishment.

Dr. Stupid

[chance]

Christian If I tell you remorse is a learned behavior and that by definition it requires a lot of thinking and you don’t agree, I don’t see how else I can convince of it. It’s not difficult Christian, provide a hypothetical example or two, and we will see if they withstand your logic or mine.

And The problem is that you are not looking at the definition of remorse. Remorse requires a deep sense of feeling bad and guilty about a passed event. If the degree changes, then it is not remorse any more. Nope no problem with a definition, my dictionary defines remorse as “regret and repentance”. If the degree of remorse felt changes with circumstance what would it become, I fail to understand you interpretation on this point. Would you say that accidentally driving over your friend’s cat would produce the same amount of remorse as accidentally shooting your mother? You need to better define your point of view.

[ShottleBop]

What you fail to realize is that your scenario only supports my contention that morality is unnecessary (and that is the point of this thread). This is why I asked you to pay attention to the answer. Instead you have opted for proving something that is irrelevant to this discussion.

How does my scenario prove that morality is unnecessary? Does it not establish that there are circumstances in which adhering to the law would be immoral?

[Loki]

Christian,

Finally, you are on board.
Well, it would appear that I've finally caught up with your basic premises, yes.

This is first year law theory.
...
On my exams, I had to put moral norms are autonomous/internal/unilateral/incoercible because that is the secular perspective. It does not matter what religion I hold, to everyone else that is their quality.
...
But, do to my religious beliefs, to me moral norms are heteronymous/external/bilateral/coercible. Exactly the qualities of legal norms.
Okay. I *really* think I'm with you now! So you are saying :

1. Your law course has defined "moral norms" to be "autonomous/internal/unilateral/incoercible".
2. Your law course claims this definition of "moral norms" is the secular definition.
3. Atheists are secular.
4. Therefore, atheists must believe that "moral norms" are "autonomous/internal/unilateral/incoercible".
5. You believe that "moral norms" are "heteronymous/external/bilateral/coercible".

Clear enough? I guess the problem is that I don't agree with #1. In fact, I think I agree with #5! I guess that means either I don't have a secular "moral system", or that you've been mislead as to what secular morals are.

Can you explain what the four characteristics mean, and why you believe secular thinking would assign those characteristcis to "moral norms"?

[Loki]

Christian,

Just following up on this "definition of secular morals" stuff...

From here : (http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html)
We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
Using your four characteristics, how would you define the above statement?

(And just a clarification - I think I would agree that "moral norms" are autonomous in practise, yet heteronymous in theory).

[Loki]

Christian,

And another alternative system of "moral norms"...

From here : (http://www.iserv.net/~merriman/natrprem.htm)
KEY CONCEPT OF THIS THESIS: - That which facilitates the survival of our species defines 'good'; and conversely, that which deters from the survival of our species defines 'bad'.

Agin, using your four characteristics, how would you define such a moral norm?

[ShottleBop]

So I did clarify that today there are universal human rights laws. They were proclaimed as such by the UN in 1948 as a result of the Nazi genocide. This does not mean they did not exist.

If they were proclaimed in 1948, then they didn't exist as recognized "man's law" in the 1930s, and when I asked, "So, anybody in Nazi Germany or one of its occupied territories who harbored Jews in violation of German law was acting immorally?", you couldn't have answered that the German laws would have been superseded by the universal human rights laws. Is a law of which no one is aware a law that people can be expected to adhere to?

From the UDHR website (Cataclysm and World Response (http://www.udhr.org/history/overview.htm#Cataclysm and World Response): Although the world had made great progress in defining human rights, it was the events of the late 1930’s and early 1940’s that threatened humanity’s most firmly held convictions. By the end of World War II, six million Jews – of whom more than a million were children not yet in their teens -- were killed in Nazi concentration camps, gas chambers and extermination centers. In the middle of the 20th century, at the hands of a technologically advanced, cultured nation-state, the idea of human rights was simply extinguished. In the beginning, the Nazi regime established discriminatory laws controlling who could own property, hold jobs, and go to school; in the end, they smashed dissent, launched a world war and enslaved and murdered millions of civilians.

The results of the Nazi attempt to annihilate all the Jews of Europe and to enslave and destroy millions of others as well -- Poles, gypsies, Soviet prisoners of war, homosexuals, the mentally and physically handicapped and political opponents -- had shocked leaders and citizens throughout all cultures and societies of the post-war world. Winston Churchill called the Nazi atrocities a "crime without a name." In the early 1940’s, a Polish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin coined the word "genocide."

The Holocaust altered forever the way in which people considered human rights. Prior to World War II the prevalent attitude had been that the protection of human rights was primarily a domestic concern, that is, a concern of sovereign governments. Efforts to defeat the Axis, however, became for many people synonymous with a struggle to make human rights a universal concern, that is, a concern of all human beings. The world united to defeat fascism and to secure human rights for everyone -- everywhere.

During the war, the momentum toward universal recognition of inalienable human rights was propelled by the Atlantic Charter and by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech before the United States Congress in 1941. In his address, Roosevelt proclaimed four basic freedoms that could never be legitimately abridged; they were freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. In Britain, Prime Minister Winston Churchill echoed the American President, asserting that an Allied victory would be marked by the "enthronement of human rights."

This message was communicated to the people very explicitly in statements like the "United Nations Declaration" and pamphlets like the "United Nations Fight for the Four Freedoms". As the War neared an end, the need to codify human rights was not on the minds of diplomats and leaders alone. After Germany’s unconditional surrender, further information of Nazi atrocities slowly became available. With these horrific revelations the determination to secure enduring respect for human rights became indelibly ingrained in the minds of all peoples.

Thus, there WAS no recognized international rule of law in the 1930s that would have made the Nazis' laws "immoral." I would contend that, notwithstanding the absence of such an international rule of law, a person's decision to harbor Jews--an illegal act--would nevertheless have been moral. I suspect that you would have, as well.

[Ceinwyn]

I'm sorry, I didn't read the entire thread. I was simply stunned by the OP's question.

So here we are, in the 21st century, and religious people still can't figure out that atheists have morals.

Yes, we are living, breathing humans. No, we are not possessed by devils. Yes, we care about the same things you do: health, wealth and happiness.

We just don't believe there's a being that looks at us and judges us as we live. We prefer to do that on our own.

So could I please ask that you just live your own lives and let us live ours? Is that such a hardship for you?

I like to live my life by the golden rule. If you're not familiar with it, I suggest you google it, or ask a friend.

edit: I must reiterate how insulted I felt by the Original Post. It's like "do you think monkeys feel guilt?" It's that offensive to me.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Christian
Rikzilla wrote:
If I may say so sir, your atheist hat sits uneasily upon your head.

No argument there.

You seem to have a great many assumptions about "atheists" as if they are from another race or planet. The fact is that atheists are a very diverse group of folks. Your assumptions therefore won't get you very far if indeed you are in earnest about trying to understand "atheist morality".

Can you point out the wrong assumptions? No one seem to be disputing them personally (only in theory)

My suggestion to you would be to read Micheal Shermer's next book which will delve into the non-religious origins of early human interaction from which the concept and adoption of morals arises. I don't know when it's due out,...but at TAM he spoke at length about this material.

Thanks for the suggestion.

In other words, the atheist is as human as you or I. He does not exist in a vacuum....he shares in human morality. Perhaps you call it Christian morality, and obviously believe it came down to us as a gift from God....but if your desire is to really understand these inscrutable atheists, you're going to need to accept the possibility that our morals were not handed down to us from God. When you can accept this possibility, I think you'll be ready to really open your mind to evidence which runs contrary to your belief.

The point is not the source, that is irrelevant to our discussion. The point is that to me, morality is bilateral and to you it is unilateral.

Until you do that, you will be incapable of really understanding what you say you are trying to understand. And when/if you do get there, you will see the world as a agnostic does. Like me. I don't know if there is a God or not,..but neither do you. When you face that fact you'll be ready to open that mind to an infinite array of possibilities and their attendant philosophies.

The question to you as an agnostic is if personally believe there is someone other than you who enforces the moral norms on you. If you are the only enforcer, then morality is useless for you.

For instance, when Kant describes the law of morals, he is describing nothing less than human conscience. We cannot prove what our conscience tells us, but we know it nevertheless. Now please tell me why you think atheists have no human conscience! Good luck on that one

It is good that you mention Kant, he is one of the authors that describes the qualities of norm, moral norms are unilateral.


Can you point out the wrong assumptions? No one seem to be disputing them personally (only in theory)

You seem to be assuming that atheists either are, or should be incapable of feeling remorse for past transgressions. This is at least a sweeping generalization. I was merely pointing out that you have no logical basis for such an assumption, and even if you did you would still be incorrect by applying it in such a general way.

The point is not the source, that is irrelevant to our discussion. The point is that to me, morality is bilateral and to you it is unilateral.


No, the source of morality is your entire implied point! If indeed morality is a gift from the Christian God, then you would be quite right that atheists (and many others) would be wasting their limited time on earth by attempting to appease this entity which none of them actually believe exists.

OTOH, if morality and ethics were learned during early man's first attempts at organized society as I am supposing, then the atheist's moral emotions/feelings become more logical. This only works if you look at morals and ethics in a purely secular way.

An example from this website: (ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/Papers_Heylighen/Memes&Cooperation.txt)
The evolutionary instability of the purely altruist strategy may be
circumvented by a strategy of "conditional" altruism. Such an altruist
would only help another individual if he expects the other one to return
the favor. If the other one does not cooperate, the conditional altruist
will stop cooperating, and hence will not incur the costs of spending
resources from which his selfish companion would gain more than he does. In
that sense, such a "reciprocal" altruist strategy (Trivers, 1971) may be
stable against invasion from cheaters, while still keeping the advantages
of synergy among those individuals that are willing to cooperate.

This idea was illustrated in a spectacular way by Axelrod (1984).
Axelrod organized a tournament in which different game theorists were
invited to submit a computer program which would implement the best
strategy for winning a repeated prisoner's dilemma game. In the tournament
two programs would play each other in a long sequence of prisoner's
dilemma. The points they gained in each game were added. Each program would
then play such a sequence against each other program. At the end the points
gained in all sequences were added, and this allowed to designate the
overall winner of the tournament.

Though the most complicated and cunning strategies were proposed by some
of the most expert game theorists, the strategy that consistently won the
tournament was extremely simple: "tit for tat". This strategy starts by
cooperating. However when the opponent defects, "tit for tat" defects too.
If afterwards, or from the beginning, the opponent starts to cooperate,
"tit for tat" will reciprocate by cooperating. The characteristics of "tit
for tat" (and of the other more successful strategies) can be summarized by
three concepts:

1) the strategy is "nice": this means that it will never be the first to
defect;

2) the strategy is "provocable": if the opponent defects, it retaliates by
defecting too;

3) the strategy is "forgiving": as soon as the opponent cooperates again,
the strategy forgets about the previous defection, and cooperates.

Niceness is advantageous because it opens the way to mutually beneficial
cooperation. Retaliation is necessary in order to avoid being invaded by
selfish profiteers. Forgivingness has the advantage of avoiding mutual
rounds of retaliation. Indeed, suppose that an individual because of
distrust, by way of test or just because of a misunderstanding would defect
just once, then a non-forgiving strategy would continue to defect in
reaction, and mutual cooperation could never emerge or be restored.


In light of this information I'm sure you can see how your assertion: The question to you as an agnostic is if personally believe there is someone other than you who enforces the moral norms on you. If you are the only enforcer, then morality is useless for you. is mistaken.

Christian, you seem to be quite happy in your faith, and I am glad for you. But it seems to me that you are so content in your belief that you honestly can't see how other humans can function without it. I understand that as well. What I think you need to do is open your mind to other possiblities and perceptions. That is if you really do wish to understand others.

I don't say this to encourage you to drop your faith in God. Faith is a very personal thing, and I'm guessing that you don't wish to step too far outside it. If so, you're just going to have to stop asking these questions! ;) The answers to your questions will inevitably lead you outside Christian dogma, and that my friend may be quite dangerous to your faith.

-zilla

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Christian
Before anyone continues, please read the warning:

Warning:

1. This is an intellectual *assault* on atheist's morality, if you feel you cannot answer objectively without feeling personally insulted, please do not engage in this discussion.

2. The discussion is strictly on intellectual grounds (logical conclusions or philosophical implications), but do to the identification of the atheist's position, it can be perceived as a personal attack. It is not.

3. I will accept an intellectual attack on the Christian position without thinking it is an attack on me.

I have placed the warning above specifically so that no one accusses me of setting them up.

ON REMORSE


Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?

Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?

Let's get started ;)

I didn't bother to read the rest of this thread, but I am sure others have answered this better than I will.

Inherent in your question are certain specific assumptions which I would contend are simply not true.

Your question presumes that any sort of morality or ethics or sense of human decency can only have an external source. I am certain that, along with all sorts of other less attractive inclinations, human beings have an inate sense, generally speaking, of basic decency. of compassion. of fair play. of empathy. and of regret and remorse. Those who don't have those aspects of personality represent deviations from the norm. I think it is childish and absurd to presume that a sense of decency (I will use this term as short hand for the various qualities implied by your use of the word "remorse".) can not spring from within human beings and must have as their source some sort of external dictum.

I don't know why or where people get the notion that people will turn in vicous maniacs were they not coerced by some sort of moral code to behave decently or humanely. Clearly, there is a vast spectrum of human inclination which can result in behaviors ranging from that of, say, Ted Bundy to Ghandi. (I don't really know how much of a "saint" Ghandi was, but that is beside the point.) Most of us are somewhere in the middle of the bell curve. Those at the extremes are anomalies. It is a little frightening to believe that there are a whole bunch of people who feel that the only thing constraining their antisocial behavior is their religious doctrine. I believe people are fundamentally decent overall. If it were not so I rather doubt the species would have done as well as it has. I can not believe that without your religion to "guide" you, you would lose your moral bearing altogether.

One thing that always irritated the hell out of me about those old "religious" movies was the way, for example, everybody would turn into psychotic maniacs when Moses disappeared up into the mountains. There is this old notion in Christianity and Judaism (probably other religions too) that there is god and there is nature. God is good, Nature is evil. and, of course, human nature is evil. This is patently assinine.

The nature religions - the original religions of the europeans, native american religions, south sea island religions, all those pagan religions - all of these were considered heretical and evil by the crusading christians and hundreds of thousands were tortured and killed in the name of Christian morality. I think anyone who feels compelled to find their sense of "morality" in their religion has a serious problem. If you don't have an inherent sense of decency without needing it proscribed for you by some authority, then there is a serious void in your humanity.

[Christian]

Right now I'm a little tide up. I'm going to respond during the week end. Please hold on.

[Christian]

Ok, I'm back. I try to answer all tonite. Thanks

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
I'll post a reply shortly to Christian's response but a quick word of congratulations to Christian for perhaps the most comprehensive answering of multiple questions and points I've seen on this forum!

Thank you Darat, I really appreciate that.

So let’s try a thought experiment, and in this case I ask you to only answer for yourself not for what anyone else might or might not do:

In your country tomorrow there is a revelation that killing is no longer wrong and all the laws that make murder illegal are repealed.

You are caught in a terrible argument with another person, the most vilest of insults are exchanged, your family are threatened with harm.

Do you kill that person? Yes or No?

No.

Remember as an atheist I do not believe that I am anything but an organism that responds to stimuli, it would therefore be “irrational” to deny that I am an organism that responds in a certain manner to certain stimuli.

This is the argument that is taking us time isn’t it. Your contention is that you can’t help it. My contention is that you can and that your best strategy as an atheist is that you should.

What you are trying to say is that I can behave in a manner that is different to the what “I” am - this would only be possible if I believed in something like a soul or held a dualist position, e.g. that “I” am more then a bag of chemicals.

I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either morality is taught or it is inborn in you. You don’t feel bad for doing something because you this internal moral compass, you feel bad because you have been conditioned to feel bad about it.

No purpose but it is the way human beings are, which is a result of evolution, which (presumably) is a result of how reality is!

You are going to argue that you were never taught stealing was wrong, it was a concept you had genetically?

The problem is that you are not talking about remorse.

Unless the code is changed. Then your immoral action is now moral or vice-a-versa.

This is what I’m saying. When you have a bilateral code, the code is less prone to change. And when it comes from God, it is immutable.

In the case of your moral code, it is prone to constant change or disregard.

No quite often people get away with acting immoral. Punishment does NOT automatically follow the breaking of a “moral code”.

This is what an atheist would say. I believe no one gets away with acting immorally. You or I might not see how God punishes or how He dispenses justice, but it is my belief He does and that his justice is perfect.

But, if I’m an atheist, this should be total nonsense to me.

But why have remorse then? Remorse in these circumstances makes no sense, it is irrational since you know you’ve done wrong, you know the punishment, you’ve accepted the punishment, your moral code is telling you all that. You don’t need to feel anything.

Let me be more clear. Remorse is part of the punishment. I owe $10 for the offense, with remorse I pay $1. Although I still have $9 to go, with remorse I’m making a down payment on what I owe. And if God sees that my remorse is genuine, He can even double my down payment.

If I’m an atheist, remorse adds or pays absolutely nothing (well, some could argue that the pain one feels makes us feel better, but that is just self serving and the offended get absolutely nothing for it). And the offender can never judge if you penitence is genuine or not.

The only way you can pay for the offense is to give him back the $10. And consider that that is sometimes impossible for us to do.

In the case of God, He can do any restitution He wants and our remorse is integral to that process.

For an atheist, this should all be nonsense.

Hmm.. yet you remain convinced your religion is the Truth….

Yes, because my trust is not on human justice but God’s.

Stimpson wrote:
Because it provides an incentive to behave yourself even when nobody is looking.

This is what I’m saying Stimpson. You are contradicting yourself. Remorse is good because it is natural punishment (your probable explanation is evolution). In other words, if there is no punishment, there is no incentive to behave. Yet, this is exactly what you are criticizing. That you make the distinction between external and internal punishment is irrelevant because you can’t help the punishment, might as well it be external.

And why do I have to accept that self-punishment is more effective than external source punishment. It goes against all I know of human behavior.

Who said I hated it? I already told you that I recognize that reward and punishment are effective ways of conditioning behavior. In fact, ultimately any motivating force fits into one of those categories.

And now that we got that cleared up, the new objection to overcome is your internal/external distinction.

Both. Why would that be inconsistent?

You are been inconsistent because you are saying human act morally based on a punishment that is automatic (out of your control). This is exactly like saying that the punishment is external to humans. That the by product of this evolutionary mechanism is beneficial purely coincidental.

And remember that my contention is that is not beneficial, it is detrimental if there is no God.

No, it is necessary to have a motivation to do so. That motivation could be to avoid the pain I feel when other people suffer. It could be to enjoy the pleasure I feel when other people are happy. It could be for more tangible rewards and punishments from external sources. They all work.

As you can clearly see, you can’t avoid think in terms of reward/punishment scenarios.

There are lots of scenarios that would not let you see anybody suffer, and still be immoral to you? What then. What about paying less taxes, or getting extra money from a government employee? No one person you can pinpoint that they have suffered because of your actions. What then?

I disagree, for the reasons I already explained. Anything which serves as a motivation to behave in a way that is beneficial to society, is useful to society. If you value society, then morals are a good thing.

This is the other point of contention. From an atheist perspective, there is no way to link morality as beneficial to society. You might intuitively think that it is so. But, what is your evidence that morality is beneficial to society.

This is exactly like an atheist asking a Christian what is his evidence Christianity is beneficial to society, is it not?

You can only speak for yourself in this regard. I know many Christians who have flat-out told me that they would keep their code of morality even if they found out that Christianity was bunk. I also know many ex-Christians who did just that. I am one of them.

This is not the point I’m making, I’m saying that the only reason it works if because of the reward/punishment/compliance system. That you choose to hold on to your morality is an entirely different matter. I can choose to hold on to many useless things, that does not make them useful

Once again, you are over-simplifying a complex and long-term conditioning process. You didn't just decide one day to not get angry anymore, and suddenly not get angry any more. Over time, you simply got used to the irritation that angered you, until it no longer caused that emotional response anymore.

So, what’s the difference if it took me 2 days or two years. We do it all the time. We constantly condition our brain to suit our needs. When I was younger, I could never study for more than 15 minutes at a time, now I can go for hours. That conditioning was good.

Fine, if you want to argue that remorse is an automatic mechanism. But, you can get rid of it because it is useless. It only drains your brain of negative things and it contributes nothing.

Once again, that is long term psychological conditioning. Do you understand the difference between such conditioning, and direct cognitive decisions?

Let’s go the other way then, most human brain functions are the result of conditioning. The way you want to play it, direct cognitive decision are seldom compared to conditioned behavior.

This is completely irrelevant. I have already acknowledged that I could potentially condition myself over time to be a sociopath. The question is, why would I want to?

You keep using this term.

sociopath:
One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

Please explain how a lack of remorse translate to antisocial *behavior*. Are you suggesting you need external pain in order to avoid behaving immorally?

I did not disregard it. I told you that it is irrelevant. Being angry is not a defense for the crime, but it is not a requirement for it either. If you commit the crime without being angry, you have still committed a crime. And if anything, you will be punished more severely for that, then if it was a crime of passion.

I’m just going to drop this for the sake focusing on the principal parts of the discussion. You are still wrong, though.

Actually, they do it for both. That is how psychological conditioning works. Your mental state tends to follow your behavior. If you actively strive to control your behavior, by not acting out when you get angry under certain conditions, one of the effects of this is that you tend to stop being angered by those conditions.

This one too.

Once again, this is not what I am arguing against. What I am arguing against is the idea that if something happens right now that makes me angry, that I actually have to make a conscious decision to be angry or not. That is nonsense.

What you forget (or omit) is that somewhere in this long complex process you say happens you conditioned yourself to feel angry in an instant about whatever is making you feel angry right now. We don’t come with a pre angry manual, you know.

Why the sarcasm? I have never consciously decided to fall in love, but I have been in love before.

We are hopelessly deadlock in this line of discussion. If you are going to argue that you fall in love unconsciously, then it is impossible to come to an agreement on this issue.

Are you talking about remorse, or guilt? I am not talking about guilt here. I thought I made it clear in my example that I no longer feel any guilt about knocking the banana out of my brother's hand. What I feel is remorse, that being the bad feeling that I involuntarily get when I remember the event.

If you are talking about guilt, then I agree. Guilt is pointless. Take responsibility for what you have done, Try to make up for it if you can, and move on.

Then you have been arguing out of complete ignorance.

All the definition of remorse include guilt. Without guilt, no remorse Stimpson.

Webster’s:
A deep torturing sense of guilt felt over a wrong that one has done
dictionary.com
The anguish, like gnawing pain, excited by a sense of guilt; compunction of conscience for a crime committed, or for the sins of one's past life.

I think maybe you should have been more clear in your original post, then. What I am talking about certainly seems to be what I think of as "remorse". What you are describing sounds more like guilt.

I suggested that you read the whole thread. I posted the definition of remorse at the beginning.
You corroborated at some point that you had read the thread. And besides, I’m using the standard definition of remorse. That you thought it was something else is understandable, nevertheless.

In any event, all of my points with respect to morality are still valid, because morality does not depend on things like guilt. All it requires is the feelings that are associated with our values.

Aha, and now you begin to see the connection. Morality depends on guilt to work. Now that we are this far, we can tackle why.

Now, you cannot argue that morality does not required higher cognitive analysis. That would be absurd.

And that is exactly what I need to show you that morality is useless, unnecessary.

Not at all. Society is one of the primary sources of my values. We learn our values from the people we associate with. Family, friends, classmates, neighbors, our community, and so on.

So if you had been born under the Taliban rule, you would have learned your values from that society?

How is this relevant? The point is that a person who does not share the values of society is not only going to break the rules whenever he thinks he can get away with it, but he is also going to abuse those rules. This happens all the time, but it would happen a lot more in a society in which the rules did not reflect the values of most of the people. That is because of morality.

A person who does not share the values of the society he lives in will try to break the rules and bend them, yes. And I agree that the rules of society must reflect the values of most people. And this is the atheist scenario. I’m saying that you should take the shortcut and dispense with the rules that can be enforced and directly enforce values with social and legal norms.

Values do not have to translate to moral norms. They can translate directly to social an legal norms.

I tell you the difference with how I see it. Regardless of what society values and what rules it enacts (legal or social) God’s moral norms are supreme. Maybe to you, it is not immoral to have multiple partners, but to God it is, so if you break that rule, you might think that you will get away with it. But, from my perspective you wont escape the consequences. There will be no way for you to avoid them.

But to you that is nonsense, so you can disregard the monogamy rule.

Hardly. Just look at the people arguing on each side of this issue. They are trying to either change the law to be consistent with their individual morality, or they are fighting to keep it the same, because it already is. Without personal morality, it wouldn't even be an issue, since it is not significantly good or bad for society. In terms of the actual effects, it is a pretty minor issue. It is only because of its relevance to personal morality that it is such a big issue at all.

Again, from my irrational perspective, there are consequences that a woman who has an abortion cannot avoid.

To an atheist, this is nonsense. There are no consequences for this action in the future. The boogie man is not going to come to get you.


To atheists, this is all coincidence and nonsense. To me it is the inescapable justice of God.

In the world I live in, I associate with people all the time without the laws coming into it. I make agreements with people that, were they to go back on them, I would lose a lot of money. Yet I have no legal recourse if they decide to screw me, and we both know it. I help people I don't even know, with no expectation of reward, and no law compelling me to. And others have done the same for me.

I would suggest that in any money matter you secure a contract or enforceable agreement of some type. You will never regret having to do it. It is people like you who make excellent targets for swindlers. (specially scientists who are very smart at some things and not so on others).

You do have multiple rewards from giving, even better rewards that money or material things.

Sure, we need laws. But the world would be a much uglier place if those laws were the only things keeping people from acting like selfish sociopaths.

Do you know who are the biggest philanthropists of the world? Do you know why they do it?

Is that supposed to somehow refute my point? It is a complete non-sequitur.

All Christians are so because of the reward/punishment system.

Good, because that isn't what I said. What I said is the external motivations are not always necessary. My values are my motivation.

Ok, now on to the external/internal motivation thing. Explain to me why internal motivators are qualitatively better than external ones?

Sure, and the first time you meet an elderly person alone somewhere, you will beat him to death for the money in his wallet. After all, if you are certain you can get away with it, reward/punishment doesn't enter into it, right?

An atheist can do this and get away with it free and clear. The only thing stopping him is his internal motivation. (wow, that is scary)

I have a God that watches over everything and everybody and dispenses justice for all our actions.

If there is no god, forgive if I don’t trust that everyone’s internal value system is as yours. I much rather have my elder father live in a very secure neighborhood.

But I do believe in God, and I trust He will protect my elderly father from people who can get away with these types of crimes.

Who are you kidding? I know you wouldn't do that. You wouldn't do it, because like the vast majority of people, you would feel bad if you did. That is motivation enough.

Sorry, if I were an atheist I would not trust that that is motivation enough. I would try to live in a neighborhood that is as secure as can be. Or would campaign for very stiff penalties for that type of crime.

I have explained what the gap is, and why it exists. All you have done is claim that for an atheist it does not. You have not explained why, or even how belief in God has anything at all to do with it.

That is what I’m trying to do.

Are you seriously suggesting that most of these people don't actually hold these values, and only behave as if they did, because of the law?

Oh, I’m sure most people hold these values, but would find it difficult to follow the rules if they were not social or legal?

Have you ever read Hobbes or Rousseau? This is not stuff I just took out thin air.

Values within the US have changed considerably over the last 200 years.

Not the most fundamental ones. What has changed are the laws that reflect those values.

The act of trying to change society for the better is an act of living by your code of morality.

No, it is not. Once you want to enact your morality on others, it is not morality anymore.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would somebody who doesn't value improving the system go to the effort of doing so?

I don’t know how your question follows but, it’s in an atheist best interest to improve the system.

And if he does value improving the system, then by doing so, he is acting according to his values. That is morality!

If you are improving the system, as I said, it is not morality anymore. And acting according to your values is virtually impossible if the system doe not hold the same ones.

Then by the very definitions you gave, that is not morality. You are declaring yourself to be amoral.

From your point of you, I’m am being moral, because, even though deluded, I’m self-imposing a code of conduct. From my point of view, I’m willingly accepted that norm system. That is morality to me.

Why? If it serves as a motivation, then it is useful.

That is why it is useless, self-motivation does not exist (it is a figment of your imagination). You think you motivate yourself, I challenge you give an example of any accomplishment you have ever had, and I will show that the motivation was external.

We are not talking about legal norms. We are talking about morality. Just because legal norms require enforcement to work, does not mean that morality does.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. Look at any norm system, any, and you will see the only reason it works is because there is a reward/punishment/compliance system at work. Again, give me any example you like.

That is some of the most backwards reasoning I have ever seen. Anarchy is lawlessness. Without laws, you have anarchy. Morality alone is not enough to prevent anarchy. I have never suggested that morals could replace laws.

Morality is not only not enough, without laws, the uselessness would be evident. I’m saying that laws can replace morality.

No, you clearly stated that you have no interest in changing laws for the better, not that you are unable to do so. If you had the ability to contribute to the efforts to find a cure for cancer, would you bother?

No, I did not clearly state that, and if there was a misinterpretation or with my comment, this was inferred, let’s correct that now, I believe in predestination therefore my interest in changing laws is irrelevant to my ability to do that. If I had the ability to contribute to finding a cure for cancer, I would inevitably contribute. As of today, I have no such ability, regardless of my interest, I simply cannot contribute. I hope this point is clear.

You already asserted that you have no interest in doing so.

This is not what I meant.

I agree. But the alternative is to actively strive to change the laws to be consistent with your individual code of morality. Something which you have declared useless.

To me it is not useless, morality is useless for you.

How so? I do many of the things I do because of my morals, and not because of external rewards or punishment.

You do all because of your own reward/punishment/compliance system. Just because you claim your system to be superior because it is internal does not make it so. What it does is making 100% subjective which translates to highly unreliable.

chance wrote:
It’s not difficult Christian, provide a hypothetical example or two, and we will see if they withstand your logic or mine.

Tell you what, you give me an instance were you felt remorse ( or a hypothetical one if that is more comfortable) and I will show you the cognitive process.

Nope no problem with a definition, my dictionary defines remorse as “regret and repentance”. If the degree of remorse felt changes with circumstance what would it become, I fail to understand you interpretation on this point. Would you say that accidentally driving over your friend’s cat would produce the same amount of remorse as accidentally shooting your mother? You need to better define your point of view.

I’m working with the standard definition of remorse. Even though you are defining remorse as succinct as can be, there is no way to avoid the obvious implication: higher cognitive process.

from dictionary.com
regret: A feeling of disappointment or distress about something that one wishes could be different.

How do you describe the process of wishing something in the past were different? What are the necessary components to this mental exercise?

from dictionary.com
repentance: Repentance is the relinquishment of any practice from the conviction that it has offended God. Sorrow, fear, and anxiety are properly not parts, but adjuncts, of repentance; yet they are too closely connected with it to be easily separated.

Aside from the obvious religious connotation of the meaning in repentance (in other words, repentance is a word associated with religion, it is ad hoc to sin [and by the way, so is remorse]) suppose we expunged the religious connotation, you this change of mind requires higher cognitive processes.

Add both and I’m sure that if you want to be objective, you will see this is something that requires lots of thought.

Shottlebop wrote:
How does my scenario prove that morality is unnecessary? Does it not establish that there are circumstances in which adhering to the law would be immoral?

Yes, exactly and by establishing that in your worldwide scenario it makes morality irrelevant, useless. So, the question then is, if it is irrelevant and useless, what is it necessary for?


Loki wrote:
Okay. I *really* think I'm with you now! So you are saying :

1. Your law course has defined "moral norms" to be "autonomous/internal/unilateral/incoercible".
2. Your law course claims this definition of "moral norms" is the secular definition.
3. Atheists are secular.
4. Therefore, atheists must believe that "moral norms" are "autonomous/internal/unilateral/incoercible".
5. You believe that "moral norms" are "heteronymous/external/bilateral/coercible".

Clear enough?

You are a freaking genius.

I guess the problem is that I don't agree with #1. In fact, I think I agree with #5! I guess that means either I don't have a secular "moral system", or that you've been mislead as to what secular morals are.

There is no way you cannot agree with #1. The characteristics are self-evident. If you agreed with #5, then you would have a major contradiction in your hands.

Can you explain what the four characteristics mean, and why you believe secular thinking would assign those characteristcis to "moral norms"?

Yes, of course.

Autonomous: a norm that is has been adopted by me out of my own volition and that was not imposed by anyone else.

Internal: I’m the only one that with certainty knows if I’m complying with the norm. I’m the only official judge of whether I’m being moral or not.

Unilateral: There are no obligations to someone other than me, there isn’t the active and passive subject is the same person.

Incoercible: No one can force me to comply.


If you’d like we can take these characteristics for a spin and start classifying norms according to them.

For example, social norms are heteronymous/external/bilateral/incoercible.

Heteronymous: A norm that has been imposed by someone else on me. The source is someone external.

External: My behavior is proof to that external source that I’m complying.

Bilateral: There are two parties, one that is obligating and the other that is obligated.

Incoercible: No can force you to comply (they can punish you if you don’t comply, but they can’t force you to comply)

Using your four characteristics, how would you define the above statement?

As not inconsistent with the characteristics of moral norms.

(And just a clarification - I think I would agree that "moral norms" are autonomous in practise, yet heteronymous in theory).

I tried to explain the difference before and I know have refined the definition of autonomous as to avoid the semantic problem. But, once one understands the meaning, it is easy to see that one can say that autonomous means *a rule created by me for me* .

Let me show you what I mean. The clear difference between heteronomy and autonomy can be seen it the content of the norm. If I can change the content to my convenience, it is clearly an autonomous norm.

For example, you can’t change the % of sales tax you have to pay. You can certainly change the % of the charity contribution you pay.

You can’t change the direction of the line in a theme park, but you can change the direction of your morning health walk (run).


Quoted by Loki:
KEY CONCEPT OF THIS THESIS: - That which facilitates the survival of our species defines 'good'; and conversely, that which deters from the survival of our species defines 'bad'.

Loki wrote:
Agin, using your four characteristics, how would you define such a moral norm?

Ok, ethics is the study of correct conduct. For most atheists, there is no other source to find what is correct conduct. The fundamental premise is the one you have quoted. It is a logical necessity. This is a way to try to make the norms somehow objective, in this case, that we can deduce them from nature. That is fine. The problem is that morality, at the end, is personal, it is not a group thing.

Yes, if all were to deduce the same norms and follow them out of the goodness of their heart, everything would be wonderful. This is just impossible, do to the nature of the four characteristics. For atheists, morality is subjective and relative.

Thus, there WAS no recognized international rule of law in the 1930s that would have made the Nazis' laws "immoral." I would contend that, notwithstanding the absence of such an international rule of law, a person's decision to harbor Jews--an illegal act--would nevertheless have been moral. I suspect that you would have, as well.

I fail to see the point here. I stated that before the proclamation, these laws existed. The proclamation only made it a universal imperative throughout the world. In other words, morality was irrelevant locally. Until legal norms were enacted, Jews were protected. All of the moral outrage did not protect them.

Is it not ironic that three Christian Presidents are the only ones who have legally upheld these moral principles after the proclamation (Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan)


buki wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't read the entire thread. I was simply stunned by the OP's question.

If you are going to comment (in the manner you have) I suggest you do read the entire thread.

So here we are, in the 21st century, and religious people still can't figure out that atheists have morals.

Who said you did not? Not me.

Yes, we are living, breathing humans. No, we are not possessed by devils. Yes, we care about the same things you do: health, wealth and happiness.

We just don't believe there's a being that looks at us and judges us as we live. We prefer to do that on our own.

There are lots of beings that look over you and judge you.

So could I please ask that you just live your own lives and let us live ours? Is that such a hardship for you?

I was not aware that you were force to participate in this discussion.

I like to live my life by the golden rule. If you're not familiar with it, I suggest you google it, or ask a friend.

I suggest you don’t patronize me.

edit: I must reiterate how insulted I felt by the Original Post. It's like "do you think monkeys feel guilt?" It's that offensive to me.

Many ideas can be insulting to you. Christianity would be insulting to me, if I were an atheist. It is something that can’t be helped.

rikzilla wrote:
You seem to be assuming that atheists either are, or should be incapable of feeling remorse for past transgressions.

No, this is either a strawman or a unintentional misinterpretation of my point of view. I have stated that remorse should be eliminated (for logical reasons) from the atheist lives.

No, the source of morality is your entire implied point! If indeed morality is a gift from the Christian God, then you would be quite right that atheists (and many others) would be wasting their limited time on earth by attempting to appease this entity which none of them actually believe exists.

No, it is not my implied point. Whether morals codes come from Allah, The Sun God, or the Christian God, if they come from any god, they are *bilateral*. To atheists, they don’t come from *any* external god.

OTOH, if morality and ethics were learned during early man's first attempts at organized society as I am supposing, then the atheist's moral emotions/feelings become more logical. This only works if you look at morals and ethics in a purely secular way.

How you arrive at your morality is irrelevant. You are the only one imposing it on you.

In light of this information I'm sure you can see how your assertion: The question to you as an agnostic is if personally believe there is someone other than you who enforces the moral norms on you. If you are the only enforcer, then morality is useless for you. is mistaken.

No, it is not. Once you start doing something because it is convenient socially, you are in the realm of social norms. I hope you can see that the prisoners dilemma is a external reward/punishment/compliance system. It has absolutely nothing to do with conviction to do what is right just because it is right. The best strategy saves you from prison.

Christian, you seem to be quite happy in your faith, and I am glad for you. But it seems to me that you are so content in your belief that you honestly can't see how other humans can function without it. I understand that as well. What I think you need to do is open your mind to other possiblities and perceptions. That is if you really do wish to understand others.

Is it possible for you not to be condescending?

Let me tell where I come from. To me, this forum is where I debate ideas. I like debating, it helps develop my skills. Do to the nature of the subjects, they do become personal, but that is not the intention. Ideally, we should just debate the merits of the theories or arguments.

I’m trying to do just that, debate ideas. If you remember, I put on the atheist hat, and the purpose was to show that an atheist can come to theorize this way.

I may be wrong, but that is the point. To understand the merits of the arguments and discard those that are lacking. So far, I feel comfortable about the level of argumentation.

billydkid wrote:
Your question presumes that any sort of morality or ethics or sense of human decency can only have an external source.

This is totally incorrect, no such presumption can be made. The premise or hypothesis is that whatever sort of morality an atheist has (the best or the worst kind) it is useless.

I am certain that, along with all sorts of other less attractive inclinations, human beings have an inate sense, generally speaking, of basic decency. of compassion. of fair play. of empathy. and of regret and remorse.

Are you going to argue that the concept of fair play is innate? So whatever the *game* it was innate in us to know. Sorry, that just does not work. Please read above on remorse and regret?

So, when a poet says, “I have no regrets” he is simply lying?

Those who don't have those aspects of personality represent deviations from the norm. I think it is childish and absurd to presume that a sense of decency (I will use this term as short hand for the various qualities implied by your use of the word "remorse".) can not spring from within human beings and must have as their source some sort of external dictum.

Why deviations. What is decency? Are you going to argue you were not taught to be decent?
And if you conclude you weren’t taught, could you deduction or induction of decency not be a learned process?

I don't know why or where people get the notion that people will turn in vicous maniacs were they not coerced by some sort of moral code to behave decently or humanely.

The news maybe, or societies that have weak legal systems? (looting in Iraq, S&L scandals, Enron, the creation of internal affairs for cops, etc. etc. etc.) Or maybe the direct proportion the amount of legal norms and an advance society (the more advance the society, the more legal norms there are)


It is a little frightening to believe that there are a whole bunch of people who feel that the only thing constraining their antisocial behavior is their religious doctrine.

As an atheist, you should be scared that the only thing constraining antisocial behavior is each person’s code of morality. To Christians, God is in control.

I believe people are fundamentally decent overall. If it were not so I rather doubt the species would have done as well as it has. I can not believe that without your religion to "guide" you, you would lose your moral bearing altogether.

The species has done well do to the concept of the *social contract* (Hobbes and Rosseau). This is an external system. If I became an atheist, it would be detrimental for me to believe people are fundamentally decent overall. It would be illogical for me to conclude this.

Communism made this assumption. Capitalism makes the assumption that we are all looking out for #1 (selfishness) and that my best interest is not necessarily others. And that is the best functioning system (exactly because of the social contract principle)

One thing that always irritated the hell out of me about those old "religious" movies was the way, for example, everybody would turn into psychotic maniacs when Moses disappeared up into the mountains. There is this old notion in Christianity and Judaism (probably other religions too) that there is god and there is nature. God is good, Nature is evil. and, of course, human nature is evil. This is patently assinine.

Human nature is evil in the sense that self-interest is above the other. This is why lawlessness, anarchy is destructive. The only way any system works is to have a third party doing the judging. Can you image a NBA game, without referees? Moses was the referee.

The social contract comes from the understanding that I can trust the others to do the right thing. So, both parties relinquish some of our self-interest in favor or security.

The nature religions - the original religions of the europeans, native american religions, south sea island religions, all those pagan religions - all of these were considered heretical and evil by the crusading christians and hundreds of thousands were tortured and killed in the name of Christian morality. I think anyone who feels compelled to find their sense of "morality" in their religion has a serious problem. If you don't have an inherent sense of decency without needing it proscribed for you by some authority, then there is a serious void in your humanity.

This is a strawman.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Christian,

Because it provides an incentive to behave yourself even when nobody is looking.

This is what I’m saying Stimpson. You are contradicting yourself. Remorse is good because it is natural punishment (your probable explanation is evolution). In other words, if there is no punishment, there is no incentive to behave. Yet, this is exactly what you are criticizing.

When did I criticize that? I already acknowledged both that punishment/reward is an effective method of behavior modification, and that ultimately all of our motivations are derived from our instinctual desire to avoid pain and seek pleasure.

That you make the distinction between external and internal punishment is irrelevant because you can’t help the punishment, might as well it be external.

The distinction is whether the incentive is dependent on external enforcement. Certainly you must recognize the value of an incentive to behave in a way that is beneficial to society, even when society is not able to compel you to?

And why do I have to accept that self-punishment is more effective than external source punishment. It goes against all I know of human behavior.

I never said it was more effective I said that it is also effective. And more importantly, it is effective in situations where external punishment is not. Namely in situations where no external incentive is present.

You are been inconsistent because you are saying human act morally based on a punishment that is automatic (out of your control). This is exactly like saying that the punishment is external to humans. That the by product of this evolutionary mechanism is beneficial purely coincidental.

I explained what the difference is, and why that difference is important.

And remember that my contention is that is not beneficial, it is detrimental if there is no God.

The explain why. And address my explanation of how and why it is beneficial, regardless of whether there is a God or not.

No, it is necessary to have a motivation to do so. That motivation could be to avoid the pain I feel when other people suffer. It could be to enjoy the pleasure I feel when other people are happy. It could be for more tangible rewards and punishments from external sources. They all work.

As you can clearly see, you can’t avoid think in terms of reward/punishment scenarios.

That is how human behavioral conditioning works. I have never denied this.

There are lots of scenarios that would not let you see anybody suffer, and still be immoral to you?

Of course. I value the lives and happiness of other people. Burying my head in the sand isn't going to change anything.

What then. What about paying less taxes, or getting extra money from a government employee? No one person you can pinpoint that they have suffered because of your actions. What then?

Are you serious? This all comes down to the idea of personal responsibility. I have a responsibility to society, because I value society. What you are suggesting would be inconsistent with my values.

I disagree, for the reasons I already explained. Anything which serves as a motivation to behave in a way that is beneficial to society, is useful to society. If you value society, then morals are a good thing.

This is the other point of contention. From an atheist perspective, there is no way to link morality as beneficial to society. You might intuitively think that it is so. But, what is your evidence that morality is beneficial to society.

I have already explained both why it is beneficial, and why it has nothing to do with atheism.

This is exactly like an atheist asking a Christian what is his evidence Christianity is beneficial to society, is it not?

Sure, and I have answered the question at least three separate times now.

You can only speak for yourself in this regard. I know many Christians who have flat-out told me that they would keep their code of morality even if they found out that Christianity was bunk. I also know many ex-Christians who did just that. I am one of them.

This is not the point I’m making, I’m saying that the only reason it works if because of the reward/punishment/compliance system. That you choose to hold on to your morality is an entirely different matter. I can choose to hold on to many useless things, that does not make them useful

That your compliance to your morals ultimately stems from the reward/punishment system is not in question. If the things you value were not sources of pleasure and/or pain, you would not value them. That is simple psychology. What is in question is whether morals are useful or not.

Once again, you are over-simplifying a complex and long-term conditioning process. You didn't just decide one day to not get angry anymore, and suddenly not get angry any more. Over time, you simply got used to the irritation that angered you, until it no longer caused that emotional response anymore.

So, what’s the difference if it took me 2 days or two years. We do it all the time. We constantly condition our brain to suit our needs. When I was younger, I could never study for more than 15 minutes at a time, now I can go for hours. That conditioning was good.

Fine, if you want to argue that remorse is an automatic mechanism. But, you can get rid of it because it is useless. It only drains your brain of negative things and it contributes nothing.

The question is, why do you think that as an atheist, I would want to get rid of it? My values are both a source of pleasure and pain for me. You cannot get rid of one without getting rid of the other. Sure, I could potentially condition myself to value nothing, but why would I want to do so? I would argue that doing so would be counter-productive to society, and thus ultimately to individuals.

This is completely irrelevant. I have already acknowledged that I could potentially condition myself over time to be a sociopath. The question is, why would I want to?

You keep using this term.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sociopath:
One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain how a lack of remorse translate to antisocial *behavior*.

Because without any internal motivation to not behave selfishly (and thus anti-socially) you will do so as soon as you are in a situation where you think you can "get away with it".

Are you suggesting you need external pain in order to avoid behaving immorally?

No, you are, when you say that values are useless. If I were to abandon my values, as you have claimed I should, then the above would be true.

If you are talking about guilt, then I agree. Guilt is pointless. Take responsibility for what you have done, Try to make up for it if you can, and move on.

Then you have been arguing out of complete ignorance.

All the definition of remorse include guilt. Without guilt, no remorse Stimpson.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Webster’s:
A deep torturing sense of guilt felt over a wrong that one has done
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dictionary.com
The anguish, like gnawing pain, excited by a sense of guilt; compunction of conscience for a crime committed, or for the sins of one's past life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, perhaps you should have been more specific in what you meant. I see three definitions there, and only two of them include the word guilt. Such is the nature of language. In any event, this is irrelevant to your argument, since you are arguing that morality itself is useless to atheists, and using "remorse" only as an example.

In any event, all of my points with respect to morality are still valid, because morality does not depend on things like guilt. All it requires is the feelings that are associated with our values.

Aha, and now you begin to see the connection. Morality depends on guilt to work. Now that we are this far, we can tackle why.

Dude, I just said that it does not depend on guilt to work.

Now, you cannot argue that morality does not required higher cognitive analysis. That would be absurd.

I have not argued that at all.

And that is exactly what I need to show you that morality is useless, unnecessary.

The present your argument, already! And while you are at it, address mine.

Not at all. Society is one of the primary sources of my values. We learn our values from the people we associate with. Family, friends, classmates, neighbors, our community, and so on.

So if you had been born under the Taliban rule, you would have learned your values from that society?

Of course. It would be insane to think that I would have the same values even if I had grown up in a different culture.

How is this relevant? The point is that a person who does not share the values of society is not only going to break the rules whenever he thinks he can get away with it, but he is also going to abuse those rules. This happens all the time, but it would happen a lot more in a society in which the rules did not reflect the values of most of the people. That is because of morality.

A person who does not share the values of the society he lives in will try to break the rules and bend them, yes. And I agree that the rules of society must reflect the values of most people. And this is the atheist scenario. I’m saying that you should take the shortcut and dispense with the rules that can be enforced and directly enforce values with social and legal norms.

Did you mean "cannot be enforced" in the last sentence? If so, I don't understand what you are suggesting. Should we have values or not? If we have values, then we are going to try to live in accordance with those values, regardless of whether society requires us to or not. That is morality.

Values do not have to translate to moral norms. They can translate directly to social an legal norms.

They can come from social and legal norms, but when you say "I am going to behave this way, even if nobody else forces me to, because it is what I think is right", that is morality.

I tell you the difference with how I see it. Regardless of what society values and what rules it enacts (legal or social) God’s moral norms are supreme. Maybe to you, it is not immoral to have multiple partners, but to God it is, so if you break that rule, you might think that you will get away with it. But, from my perspective you wont escape the consequences. There will be no way for you to avoid them.

This is irrelevant.

But to you that is nonsense, so you can disregard the monogamy rule.

I can, and do. Monogamy is not a part of my moral framework.

Hardly. Just look at the people arguing on each side of this issue. They are trying to either change the law to be consistent with their individual morality, or they are fighting to keep it the same, because it already is. Without personal morality, it wouldn't even be an issue, since it is not significantly good or bad for society. In terms of the actual effects, it is a pretty minor issue. It is only because of its relevance to personal morality that it is such a big issue at all.

Again, from my irrational perspective, there are consequences that a woman who has an abortion cannot avoid.

To an atheist, this is nonsense. There are no consequences for this action in the future. The boogie man is not going to come to get you.

There are most definitely consequences. Burning in Hell for all eternity just isn't one of them.

To atheists, this is all coincidence and nonsense. To me it is the inescapable justice of God.

What coincidence are you talking about?

In the world I live in, I associate with people all the time without the laws coming into it. I make agreements with people that, were they to go back on them, I would lose a lot of money. Yet I have no legal recourse if they decide to screw me, and we both know it. I help people I don't even know, with no expectation of reward, and no law compelling me to. And others have done the same for me.

I would suggest that in any money matter you secure a contract or enforceable agreement of some type. You will never regret having to do it. It is people like you who make excellent targets for swindlers. (specially scientists who are very smart at some things and not so on others).

Don't be ridiculous. I am not naive or stupid. I just trust some people who I know, because I know what their values are. Are you seriously suggesting that I should not loan money to friends without securing a contract first? Aren't there any people in the world you trust?

You do have multiple rewards from giving, even better rewards that money or material things.

Sure, but Heaven isn't one of them. I am nice to people because it makes me feel good to be nice to people. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Sure, we need laws. But the world would be a much uglier place if those laws were the only things keeping people from acting like selfish sociopaths.

Do you know who are the biggest philanthropists of the world? Do you know why they do it?

How is this relevant? If an atheist sees somebody faint on the street, and nobody else is around, which of the following do you think the typical atheist would do?

1) Ignore the person.

2) Help the person.

3) Rob the person.

Your argument seems to be that the atheist should reject morality as "useless", and pick number 3. This just illustrates that morality is not useless, because it compels us to choose number 2 instead, which is better for society.

Is that supposed to somehow refute my point? It is a complete non-sequitur.

All Christians are so because of the reward/punishment system.

That is misleading. Some are Christians only because of the threat/promise of hell/heaven. Some are Christians because they value the Christian values, and Heaven/Hell is simply seen as a deserved reward or punishment, but not the actual reason for following the rules. Many are a mixture of both.

Good, because that isn't what I said. What I said is the external motivations are not always necessary. My values are my motivation.

Ok, now on to the external/internal motivation thing. Explain to me why internal motivators are qualitatively better than external ones?

They aren't, and I never claimed they were. They are different, and as such, are applicable to different situations.

Sure, and the first time you meet an elderly person alone somewhere, you will beat him to death for the money in his wallet. After all, if you are certain you can get away with it, reward/punishment doesn't enter into it, right?

An atheist can do this and get away with it free and clear. The only thing stopping him is his internal motivation. (wow, that is scary)

And this is why those internal motivations are not useless. Isn't that obvious?

I have a God that watches over everything and everybody and dispenses justice for all our actions.

If there is no god, forgive if I don’t trust that everyone’s internal value system is as yours. I much rather have my elder father live in a very secure neighborhood.

I don't trust that everyone's internal value system is the same as mine either. That is beside the point.

But I do believe in God, and I trust He will protect my elderly father from people who can get away with these types of crimes.

That is pretty silly. It is pretty clear from direct observation that he will not. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Why should God protect your father from being mugged, when he clearly does not protect innocent children from being raped, tortured, and murdered?

You may believe in an afterlife, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think that anything other than people is going to make the world a safer place.

Who are you kidding? I know you wouldn't do that. You wouldn't do it, because like the vast majority of people, you would feel bad if you did. That is motivation enough.

Sorry, if I were an atheist I would not trust that that is motivation enough. I would try to live in a neighborhood that is as secure as can be. Or would campaign for very stiff penalties for that type of crime.

I never said anything about trusting that other people would share those morals. If I could do that, we wouldn't need laws. The point is that society is better off with people having morals than not.

Are you seriously suggesting that most of these people don't actually hold these values, and only behave as if they did, because of the law?

Oh, I’m sure most people hold these values, but would find it difficult to follow the rules if they were not social or legal?

And this is relevant how? Sometimes it is difficult to do the right thing. But without morals, nobody would ever do the right thing when they thought they could get away with being selfish. That is why morals are useful.

Have you ever read Hobbes or Rousseau? This is not stuff I just took out thin air.

Yes, we all know there are bad people in the World. That is why we need laws. But we also need morals.

The act of trying to change society for the better is an act of living by your code of morality.

No, it is not. Once you want to enact your morality on others, it is not morality anymore.

That is not true. Morality is the set of rules that I follow because of my values. It is not an either/or thing. Murder is illegal. It is also immoral.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would somebody who doesn't value improving the system go to the effort of doing so?

I don’t know how your question follows but, it’s in an atheist best interest to improve the system.

Not always. There are many rules that I support, which are not in my best interest, but instead in the best interest of society. For example, I would support government spending on education, even though I am past the point where I would benefit from it. That is because I value more than just my own personal well-being.

And if he does value improving the system, then by doing so, he is acting according to his values. That is morality!

If you are improving the system, as I said, it is not morality anymore.

Why not? What, as soon as a rule becomes a law, it is not a part of your moral framework anymore? That is silly.

And acting according to your values is virtually impossible if the system doe not hold the same ones.

No, just difficult. And as I said, that is how things change. Personal values, and the morals that go with them, are the engine of social change.

Then by the very definitions you gave, that is not morality. You are declaring yourself to be amoral.

From your point of you, I’m am being moral, because, even though deluded, I’m self-imposing a code of conduct. From my point of view, I’m willingly accepted that norm system. That is morality to me.

No, from my point of view, you are not self-imposing a code of conduct at all. From my point of view, your code of conduct is being imposed on you by an imaginary dictator.

Why? If it serves as a motivation, then it is useful.

That is why it is useless, self-motivation does not exist (it is a figment of your imagination). You think you motivate yourself, I challenge you give an example of any accomplishment you have ever had, and I will show that the motivation was external.

Oh please! Saying that our values ultimately come from outside of ourselves has no relevance to the argument. I have already acknowledged that my values come from my family, friends, and society. But they are my values. The point is that I have values. That is very different than abandon my values, and acting only in accordance with the laws that can be enforced on me.

We are not talking about legal norms. We are talking about morality. Just because legal norms require enforcement to work, does not mean that morality does.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. Look at any norm system, any, and you will see the only reason it works is because there is a reward/punishment/compliance system at work. Again, give me any example you like.

That is not enforcement. Do you at least acknowledge that there is a difference between rewards and punishment that are imposed on you by other people, and those which come from your own values?

That is some of the most backwards reasoning I have ever seen. Anarchy is lawlessness. Without laws, you have anarchy. Morality alone is not enough to prevent anarchy. I have never suggested that morals could replace laws.

Morality is not only not enough, without laws, the uselessness would be evident. I’m saying that laws can replace morality.

And the fact that without morality, people will break the laws when they think they can get away with it, clearly demonstrates that they cannot.


Let me give you an example. Consider your children. I suspect that like most parents, you love them. That means several things. It means that you value their lives and their happiness. It means that you feel joy when they are happy, and pain when they are sad. In other words, your values are a source of both pleasure and pain for you.

Now, since you believe that God wants you to behave the way that these values tend to make you want to behave (namely taking care of your children, and treating them well), these values are seen as useful by you.

So now you become an atheist. Are you going to stop loving your children? Assuming that you could condition yourself to do so, would you want to? Would it be beneficial to society, or to you, to do so?

I think not.

Clearly your love for your children is beneficial to society.

As for being beneficial to you, if that love was only a source of pain, then maybe it would make sense for you to condition it away, thus eliminating that source of pain. But it is also a source of joy. You have to take the bad with the good.

That is the case for all of your values. The fact that you have values is what makes life interesting. It is what gives you actual reasons to live (other than just survival instinct).

But more than that, those values are vital to society. Without values, there is no motivation to even have a free society at all. Without values, the only kind of society that would ever develop would be an anarchistic one, where might makes right, and those who have the power to do so, use others for their own personal gain.

Values are most definitely useful. And with values comes morality. Also note that this has nothing to do with there being a God or not. Consider again your children. If your love for them were only a source of pain, it would still make sense for you to condition away that love. Sure, you will continue to take care of them, because God wants you to. But you don't need to love them to do that.

If your only motivation for doing anything was external punishment and rewards (either from God, or from society), then your values would be pointless, with or without God. But they are not, because your values themselves provide motivations. That is why values are useful. And morals are simply the rules you live by in order to reflect your values.

Dr. Stupid

[tamiO]

Good morning Christian,

Before I assemble some replies to your questions and rebuttals to your suppositions, I would like to clarify some things so I do not formulate some of my points on a baseless assumption.


1. Do you believe that there is a Devil or Satan?

1. a. If so, can you define his role in reality as you see it?

In a previous post you said:
But I do believe in God, and I trust He will protect my elderly father from people who can get away with these types of crimes.

2. Why would God protect your elderly father and not other elderly fathers?

When you have a bilateral code, the code is less prone to change. And when it comes from God, it is immutable.

and
Maybe to you, it is not immoral to have multiple partners, but to God it is, so if you break that rule, you might think that you will get away with it. But, from my perspective you wont escape the consequences. There will be no way for you to avoid them.

3. Given by what you said, one of God's rules would be to be monogamous. How do you determine God's rules?

Thank you for your patience. :)

[tamiO]

Christian,

I was looking over your post and saw the phrase "From your point of you".

I took it as a mistake and understood you to mean "From your point of view".

Phonetically they are the same! :) In this case the main point of the phrase is understood and not detrimental to our understanding each other.

Makes me wonder about other phrases and how different languages cause confusion in oral discussion.

How many teenagers China think our discussions about aiding someone to achieve death is somehow realted to the youth in Asia?
:D

This is neither here nor there,
just thought it was fun
to think about and share.

[Christian]

Stimpson wrote:
When did I criticize that? I already acknowledged both that punishment/reward is an effective method of behavior modification, and that ultimately all of our motivations are derived from our instinctual desire to avoid pain and seek pleasure.

Ok.

The distinction is whether the incentive is dependent on external enforcement. Certainly you must recognize the value of an incentive to behave in a way that is beneficial to society, even when society is not able to compel you to?

Absolutely. In Christianity you are compelled to behave even when no one is looking. From the atheist’s perspective, I’m not compelled by anything external, only by something internal.

And I understand completely what you are saying, that this is the purpose of morality, to act correctly even though no one is looking. This is your point. My hypothesis is that this model does not work. I’ll explain what the model is and you tell if I’m getting it right.

[atheist hat on]
We teach our children values (and directly or indirectly, the rules that uphold them [morality]). By doing this, we contribute to the welfare of society as a whole because, even when no one is looking, they will act accordingly. Even if there are no external rewards or punishments, they will act morally because acting in accordance to their values, will be internally satisfactory (they will derive pleasure). Doing the right thing (acting according to one’s values) is a source of pleasure and satisfaction.

[atheist hat off]

This model does not work. It’s an utopia. There is overwhelming evidence that people don’t do the right thing when no one is looking (if it is in their best interest not to). On the other hand, the only evidence you might have that your model works is your personal experience (with your own actions). By the scenario, how can you know that people do the right *when no one is looking*. The only thing you have is their word.

I never said it was more effective I said that it is also effective. And more importantly, it is effective in situations where external punishment is not. Namely in situations where no external incentive is present.

How can you know it is effective? What is your evidence that people behave against their best interest when no one is watching? (we wont bother with the scenario of doing the right thing is also in the best interest of the doer)

As I’ve said, all tangible evidence points to the notion people don’t behave other than to serve their best interest regardless of whether it is moral or not. The more advanced the civilization, the more laws, technology and the such are used to protect society. Businesses don’t trust shoppers to not steal when no one is looking, the put signs up warning shoplifters of the consequences of theft. They install cameras, tags on items, and have security guards patrolling. And still by far, the biggest loss for retailers is shoplifting.

The explain why. And address my explanation of how and why it is beneficial, regardless of whether there is a God or not.

[atheist hat on]
It is detrimental because you are putting your chips on the wrong model. You say it is beneficial because people will act morally even though no one is watching. I say this premise is not true. I’m saying that when no one is watching, if it is in a person’s best interest to do the wrong thing, they will.

So, maybe that’s why they invented an imaginary dictator. So that the masses would do the right thing even when no is watching. If you tell them there is a God that will punish or reward you and sees everything you do. That my prevent you from doing the wrong thing even if no is watching.

If there is absolutely no negative consequence and only benefits for doing the wrong thing, and no one will ever know, that simply will lead people to do the wrong thing.

The other solution is to close the gap of what we as a society can find out, that everyday, there are less and less things people can do that can be seen by others (e.g. DNA testing) and enacting social and legal norms to prevent people from acting against the welfare of society.

[atheist hat off]

Of course. I value the lives and happiness of other people. Burying my head in the sand isn't going to change anything.

This is not the point I was making. In your *injured person* scenario, there is something wrong that will happen if you don’t act. But there are many scenarios where nothing wrong will happen if you don’t do the right thing. What would compel anyone to do the right thing if it not harmful to society to do the wrong thing (because it is beneficial to you). (e.g. paying one less dollar in taxes than you should)

Are you serious? This all comes down to the idea of personal responsibility. I have a responsibility to society, because I value society. What you are suggesting would be inconsistent with my values.

Yes, personal responsibility. That is the model that does not work. Show me an institution that works under your model Stimpson. Where you graduated, did they trust you were going to be responsible for studying? Did they take your word for it that you knew the material? Or did they test you, did they require you to prove your responsibility? Where you work, do they trust that you are doing your job or does the funding (or whatever other system there is) depend on tangible results?

I’m not picking on you, I’m just pointing out that your worldview is contradicted by reality.

That your compliance to your morals ultimately stems from the reward/punishment system is not in question. If the things you value were not sources of pleasure and/or pain, you would not value them. That is simple psychology. What is in question is whether morals are useful or not.

Correct.

The question is, why do you think that as an atheist, I would want to get rid of it? My values are both a source of pleasure and pain for me. You cannot get rid of one without getting rid of the other. Sure, I could potentially condition myself to value nothing, but why would I want to do so? I would argue that doing so would be counter-productive to society, and thus ultimately to individuals.

You would want to get rid of the idea that morality makes people act correctly. Or that morality makes a better society.

Now, the is a communication problem here (I’m struggling to make myself clear).

[atheist hat on]

We need values, they are indispensable. They are the compass to what rules we must set. I’m not saying we don’t need personal rules, we do. I’m saying that these rules must be placed in a higher ground (the social and legal one). If they stay in the personal arena and do not transcend, the are inoperative. A personal code of conduct that does not transcend is useless.

[atheist hat off]

Because without any internal motivation to not behave selfishly (and thus anti-socially) you will do so as soon as you are in a situation where you think you can "get away with it".

But this is exactly the premise that the system is built on. All society, everywhere in the world is built according to this system. If that were not the case, banks would loan money on people’s words.

No, you are, when you say that values are useless. If I were to abandon my values, as you have claimed I should, then the above would be true.

No, let’s correct this. I’m not saying that values are useless. Values are indispensable. Morality is not.

Once again, perhaps you should have been more specific in what you meant. I see three definitions there, and only two of them include the word guilt. Such is the nature of language. In any event, this is irrelevant to your argument, since you are arguing that morality itself is useless to atheists, and using "remorse" only as an example.

Fine, let’s dispense with the example and stick to morality. But, I’m right about remorse.

The present your argument, already! And while you are at it, address mine.

This is what I’m trying to do. I’m presenting my arguments.

Did you mean "cannot be enforced" in the last sentence? If so, I don't understand what you are suggesting. Should we have values or not? If we have values, then we are going to try to live in accordance with those values, regardless of whether society requires us to or not. That is morality.

Yes, sorry, that is what I meant. Yes, we must have values. Yes, we must try to live in accordance to them.

[atheist hat on]
Now, this is were we don’t agree. You say, “we must try o live in accordance to them, regardless of whether society requires us to do so or not”.

Here is the thing (and maybe this time my point will get across). You wont be able to live according to your values if society does not require it. And most people will only follow what society requires them to or according to their best interest, if society does not forbid it.

So, my point is, what is the use of a code you cannot live by. My suggestion is to make sure that the code is required by society.

[atheist hat off]

They can come from social and legal norms, but when you say "I am going to behave this way, even if nobody else forces me to, because it is what I think is right", that is morality.

Yes, I understand that. What I’m saying is that if it is not in their best interest, most people wont behave morally.

Posted by me:
I tell you the difference with how I see it. Regardless of what society values and what rules it enacts (legal or social) God’s moral norms are supreme. Maybe to you, it is not immoral to have multiple partners, but to God it is, so if you break that rule, you might think that you will get away with it. But, from my perspective you wont escape the consequences. There will be no way for you to avoid them.

Stimpson wrote:
This is irrelevant.

No, it shows why morality is necessary to me, even if society does not require it. It shows that the system can’t be beaten.

I can, and do. Monogamy is not a part of my moral framework.

I understand, and I’m telling you that there are negative consequences for breaking this rule.

There are most definitely consequences. Burning in Hell for all eternity just isn't one of them.

Correct, it is not. Please note I did not put my atheist hat on.

What coincidence are you talking about?

Well, you will never associate a future negative result on something you consider to be a past unrelated event.

Don't be ridiculous. I am not naive or stupid. I just trust some people who I know, because I know what their values are. Are you seriously suggesting that I should not loan money to friends without securing a contract first? Aren't there any people in the world you trust?

Well, that would depend on the sum and the % that sum represents of you total cash assets. It also depends on the what you consider a friend. If it is a long time friend where you have many ties, there is a contract working (whether you realize it or not).

Most swindles, cons, and frauds occur from people who have gained our trust.

Sure, but Heaven isn't one of them. I am nice to people because it makes me feel good to be nice to people. That's pretty much all there is to it.

I can understand this. Now, I’m sure that you know this is not the norm. Most people have the *what is in it for me* mode (regardless of what they say)

How is this relevant? If an atheist sees somebody faint on the street, and nobody else is around, which of the following do you think the typical atheist would do?

1) Ignore the person.

2) Help the person.

3) Rob the person.

Your argument seems to be that the atheist should reject morality as "useless", and pick number 3. This just illustrates that morality is not useless, because it compels us to choose number 2 instead, which is better for society.

[atheist hat on]

This is an interesting scenario and multiple tests have been conducted (Caldini). You know what most people do? They choose #1. It is the best strategy if there is no God. #3 is not acceptable because the risk outweighs the benefits.

And if you do choose #1, what negative consequences will there be in the future for having acted like this? Absolutely zero, none, nada.

So now, having the scientific data and understanding that #1 is wrong. What do we do? Do we pound more morality on people? No, we create a law that says it is illegal for you to do #1. And that is exactly what has happened in many countries.



[atheist hat off]

That is misleading. Some are Christians only because of the threat/promise of hell/heaven. Some are Christians because they value the Christian values, and Heaven/Hell is simply seen as a deserved reward or punishment, but not the actual reason for following the rules. Many are a mixture of both.

Whatever the reward/punishment (either internal or external, earthly or heavenly) Christian are so because of this system.

They aren't, and I never claimed they were. They are different, and as such, are applicable to different situations.

Ok.

And this is why those internal motivations are not useless. Isn't that obvious?

Yes, I understand that you believe (without much evidence, [hidden camera evidence points the other direction]) that people will do the right thing just because. If your premise is false, the system collapses, does it not?

I don't trust that everyone's internal value system is the same as mine either. That is beside the point.

No, that is exactly the point. If only you do the right thing, and most everyone else does not. The system is chaos. As I said before anarchy.

Suppose, you believe in helping the injured person. What if everyone else does not? In term of the common welfare, what is the use of you to help? You can’t build a house with a single stone.

That is pretty silly. It is pretty clear from direct observation that he will not. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Why should God protect your father from being mugged, when he clearly does not protect innocent children from being raped, tortured, and murdered?

Yes, I understand this is silly to you. That is precisely the point. It is silly to have a moral code, if by direct observation we can clearly see that the only way to stop rape, torture, and murder is by strong legal system.

You may believe in an afterlife, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think that anything other than people is going to make the world a safer place.

[atheist hat on]

Wonderful analysis. Exactly. The only way to make a safer world is by enacting social and legal norms (effective ones that are enforce by people and technology). Moral norms are useless in this sense. Trusting that people will do the right thing is as much of a fantasy as trusting there is divine justice in the world.

[atheist hat off]

This is why I singled out atheists. They don’t believe in divine justice. This would be only logical reason to have uphold a personal code of conduct that no other human can enforce. (morality)

I never said anything about trusting that other people would share those morals. If I could do that, we wouldn't need laws. The point is that society is better off with people having morals than not.

How do you know this? What is the proof that a society with morals is better off? All the evidence shows that morality is irrelevant in society.

And this is relevant how? Sometimes it is difficult to do the right thing. But without morals, nobody would ever do the right thing when they thought they could get away with being selfish. That is why morals are useful.

Well, you have to show why you believe people do the right thing even if it does not serve their best interest (and they are sure they can get away with it).

That is not true. Morality is the set of rules that I follow because of my values. It is not an either/or thing. Murder is illegal. It is also immoral.

This could be a semantic problem. From my framework (and this is just a technicality), a norm can only belong in one category in any given moment. I understand this is not the way we usually look at them, but please follow my framework for the sake of the discussion.


Once a norm is contemplated in the legal arena, the moral classification is dropped. That someone may chose not to kill people because it goes against his or her morality takes a back seat to the fact that it is illegal.

Not always. There are many rules that I support, which are not in my best interest, but instead in the best interest of society. For example, I would support government spending on education, even though I am past the point where I would benefit from it. That is because I value more than just my own personal well-being.

And this would be a great a example of our morality being irrelevant to the big picture. The only way that your rule (that the government spend more money on education) could have any efficacy would be if it transcended you personal code.

Why not? What, as soon as a rule becomes a law, it is not a part of your moral framework anymore? That is silly.

I understand where you are coming from. You are saying that a rule can be moral and legal at the same time. And you are correct about that. (in the way we usually look at it) But, I want you to understand the viewpoint that once a norm becomes a legal norm, it changes in quality.

The moral norm then, stop being moral (per se) and becomes an empowered norm. Please read my part of the difference between a moral and legal norm based on the qualities of norms.
The point is that even if it is not part of your personal norm system, legal norms have the quality to make you comply.

To say that when a rule become a norm stays as part of your moral framework looses its meaning, purpose. Because even it was not part of it, in the first place, you are obligated to have it.

And legal norms are unique in one aspect, like no other norm. They are coercible. The State can make you even if you don’t want to. There is no other norm system that can make you comply.

This is why, whether it is part of your moral code or not, it is irrelevant to the fact that you have to comply whether you like it or not. Sure, if you agree anyway, well that is way much better, but that becomes a mute point.

No, just difficult. And as I said, that is how things change. Personal values, and the morals that go with them, are the engine of social change.

It is impossible because the State can force you to comply in a manner that, if your values are different than the one’s you hold, would render your morality meaningless.

I will give you the perfect example. If you want to make transactions in dollars, you have to carry in your wallet at some point or another a statement that goes against what you believe. And that the State prints money with a statement contrary to your convictions and the convictions of many should be immoral to you.

Still, you have no choice, you have to hand out the “In God we trust” message. Your morality, in this sense is irrelevant, useless.

No, from my point of view, you are not self-imposing a code of conduct at all. From my point of view, your code of conduct is being imposed on you by an imaginary dictator.

Same difference, whether I’m a schizophrenic or just deluding myself, (from your point of view) I’m still doing it to myself. There is no dictator.

Oh please! Saying that our values ultimately come from outside of ourselves has no relevance to the argument. I have already acknowledged that my values come from my family, friends, and society. But they are my values. The point is that I have values. That is very different than abandon my values, and acting only in accordance with the laws that can be enforced on me.

All I’m saying is that the world around us indicate that motivation to act correctly is external and not internal.

That is not enforcement. Do you at least acknowledge that there is a difference between rewards and punishment that are imposed on you by other people, and those which come from your own values?

[atheist hat on]

The distinction would be irrelevant because, to my brain it is always caused by something external. The joy I feel of watching someone else laugh is indistinguishable from the joy I feel of buying a brand new car.

[atheist hat off]

So now you become an atheist. Are you going to stop loving your children? Assuming that you could condition yourself to do so, would you want to? Would it be beneficial to society, or to you, to do so?

If I became and atheist, I would not need morality to love my children. Why would I need rules to do what I already spontaneously want to do in the first place. All I have to do is follow what comes natural and pleasurable, that will guarantee their happiness.

But suppose, you don’t agree with me, that that simply does not guarantee nothing. To me, point a code on myself, will not help me from valuing what I value already. But, if what I value is wrong (like thinking incest is ok, remember our discussion on that subject, many atheist saying incest is not immoral) then the best strategy is to enact a law forbidding it.

And if one is an atheist that does not think incest is wrong, is it relevant that he does not. It is a crime.

Clearly your love for your children is beneficial to society.

That the love from my children is beneficial to society is a nice byproduct, but that is not the reason I love them. I can’t help but love them. It is so pleasurable to love them, that I don’t need any other motivation. I do it for purely selfish reasons. I don’t love other children the way I love mine. Other children don’t even come close to how I love mine.

That is the case for all of your values. The fact that you have values is what makes life interesting. It is what gives you actual reasons to live (other than just survival instinct).

But more than that, those values are vital to society. Without values, there is no motivation to even have a free society at all. Without values, the only kind of society that would ever develop would be an anarchistic one, where might makes right, and those who have the power to do so, use others for their own personal gain.

As I said, values are indispensable.

Values are most definitely useful. And with values comes morality.

[atheist hat on]
This is where we don’t agree. I would say with values comes the tools to make social and legal norms. Moral norms are for the religious people who believe that there is an imaginary dictator who will enforce that code.

[atheist hat off]

If your only motivation for doing anything was external punishment and rewards (either from God, or from society), then your values would be pointless,

No, no, no. Values are the building block of norms. For example, the penal system (totally secular) is based on the protection of what humans in a society value. That is the whole point of the penal code. “If you harm this value, you will suffer this consequence”.

I can’t help having values, they are innate. If I value nothing, there is nothing to motivate me. The reward/punishment/compliance model works because I value stuff.

When I say my only motivation for doing anything is reward or punishment, implicit is the fact that there is something I value that is motivating me. The reward has something to do with what I value as the punishment.

TamiO wrote:
Do you believe that there is a Devil or Satan?

Yes.

1. a. If so, can you define his role in reality as you see it?

He is God’s enemy.

2. Why would God protect your elderly father and not other elderly fathers?

Why do you think he does not?

Or what you are implying is that there are many elderly fathers that are not protect because you see evidence of this in the news and your personal experience?

If that is the case, I have a question of my own. How many thing go right in the world compared to how many things go wrong? What is the ratio?

3. Given by what you said, one of God's rules would be to be monogamous. How do you determine God's rules?

Thank you for your patience.

The Bible, and personal experience.

I was looking over your post and saw the phrase "From your point of you".

I took it as a mistake and understood you to mean "From your point of view".

Yes, I did.

Phonetically they are the same! In this case the main point of the phrase is understood and not detrimental to our understanding each other.

Makes me wonder about other phrases and how different languages cause confusion in oral discussion. Phonetically they are the same! In this case the main point of the phrase is understood and not detrimental to our understanding each other.

Makes me wonder about other phrases and how different languages cause confusion in oral discussion.

Although English is my second language (and I’m very well versed in Spanish), the mistakes are just sloppiness. If you have noticed, I’m making most of talking in here (answering to multiple posters). I simply don’t have the time to proofread what I have written (which would eliminate the types of mistakes you are pointing out)

Now, I’m trying to get better at succinctness and clarity (at the moment failing miserably). But, I think that with time, I will get better at it.

Thanks for the comment and if you can help me with style (how to say something better), I would love to hear your input.

[Loki]

Christian,

In your reply to Stimpy :
This model does not work. It’s an utopia. There is overwhelming evidence that people don’t do the right thing when no one is looking (if it is in their best interest not to).
Can you provide the evidence that this is true? Can you offer some evidence where the people who "did the wrong thing when no one was looking" were shown to be "atheists who were taught their morals as children"?

I would think that most of the examples you would bring forward are of *theists* who don't do the right thing when no one is looking.

The gneeral looting and ransacking of the hospitals in Iraq immediately after the fall of Saddam - gosh, isn't that a theist state? How come this god fearing people were'nt kept in line by the invisible eye that always watches, and judges accordingly?

[tamiO]

2. Why would God protect your elderly father and not other elderly fathers?

Why do you think he does not?
Or what you are implying is that there are many elderly fathers that are not protect because you see evidence of this in the news and your personal experience?

I guess I find my source of questioning from personal experience. First, I was orphaned, then adopted by my paternal grandparents.
One by one everyone in half my family/my father's family has died, and the other half of my family/my mother's family is a mystery.

If there is a God, then I cannot understand why he would show compassion in some cases and disregard in others. Does he not feel, like I feel. Doesn't he see the people who suffer at the hands of others and hear their prayers? How can he tune those voices out.

A friend recently told us of how her apartment building was broken into by a gang of men with guns; using force they burst in and plundered through the building trying doors, stealing and threatening. After all was said and done, a lady in the apartment building said "Thank God I was spared" (or something similar to that.)

So I wonder, why did God spare her and not the family down the hall?

I watched a documentary on HBO a few weeks back. One man explained he was a prisoner of the Nazi's during the war. He said they pleaded with God during their incarceration. People who prayed vigilantly, his family, his wife. All ignored by God.

I think about all this, and as I said, I don't know. I don't understand the apparent lack of compassion in God.

You said earlier that
I have a God that watches over everything and everybody and dispenses justice for all our actions.

If there is no god, forgive if I don’t trust that everyone’s internal value system is as yours. I much rather have my elder father live in a very secure neighborhood.

But I do believe in God, and I trust He will protect my elderly father from people who can get away with these types of crimes.

So I ask you again, why would God protect your elderly father and not other elderly fathers?

If that is the case, I have a question of my own. How many thing go right in the world compared to how many things go wrong? What is the ratio?

There are so many things that go on in the world that it is impossible for me to know everything that happens, let alone a ratio of positive to negative. I would also have a hard time in saying what was good and what was bad, most things are closer to the middle and exist in grey areas.

We live in a micro world. By this I mean, what happens on a large scale, like war, does not affect everyone's life in the same way. For me, the war was on television, it was a topic of discussion, I know people who have loved ones there. One of the posters on this forum is currently deployed and logs in when he can to say hello.

Genocide, war, murder, rape, burglary. All can be seen as bad and good. All are wrong to do according to what I have gathered along the way; my own personal moral code. I have also gathered that a lot of people are able to compromise their values for personal gain, regardless of their professed beliefs. There is temptation in the world. There are tests of your moral character in every day life.

So we have people from all walks of life, people who constantly fail the test. Their actions affect others sometimes. Sometimes their actions are deadly. An act of random violence will most likely occur sometime in your life.

But you can find good in bad. When it happens it is truly wrong and bad and should have been prevented. After it has happened, a healthy person looks for something good that resulted.

For instance, I may have a bad morning and be slow in getting ready. Maybe it's raining and the car won't start and the taxi is late.
The taxi will take almost all my money and it looks like Ramen Noodles for dinner tomorrow.

I finally arrive at the doctor's office wet and late. So now I have to sit in the waiting room, wet and cold and wait until they can squeeze me in. This is not a good day.

Sitting close to me is a man who is wet from the rain, too. He mentions that it sure is rainy today and the conversation begins. It turns out he is the owner of a prominent business and he has been looking for someone to do his website.

If I hadn't been late, if the car had not had problems, if everything that happened that morning had not happened, I would not have met a most important person in my life.

When my cousin/brother was killed, it was tragic. It felt like a knife in my heart. But he was an organ donor. He ended up giving sight to a blind man, a heart to someone else, a liver, etc. He death helped many many people.

So when you ask me "How many thing go right in the world compared to how many things go wrong? What is the ratio?"
I cannot answer that and I don't think anyone else can either.

my other question asked:
Given by what you said, one of God's rules would be to be monogamous. How do you determine God's rules?

The Bible, and personal experience.

Would you agree that you have a personal understanding of the Bible?

When I really think about it, it seems that everything we experience while we are alive is a personal experience. I don't know if I was born with it, but I do know I was guided and taught by my family and the people in my micro world. I didn't accept everything I was taught, though. The older I got, the more I thought about things and began to question.

First came Santa Claus. Then the Easter Bunny. And on and so forth. My father and older brother liked to tell me things that were not true. My father even said things like "When I was a little girl, blah blah blah."

This was vaguely possible in my little mind. I was maybe 3 or 4 when I first thought about him saying that. By the time I hit kindergarten I was on to him. He congratulated me on my thinking and laughed with me about how silly the idea was. That it was fun to imagine but didn't make sense when you thought about it. He told me funny jokes and bought me riddle books. He had a sharp wit and was very smart. I came up with my own jokes that he laughed at (even though they were terrible!)

The point is, I was raised to think critically. To not take anything, really, at face value. I was raised an Episcopalian (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/panama/). I only heard children's Bible stories, colored pictures of Jesus and made crafts. On Palm Sunday we all had these crosses that we made from palm tree leaves. We got to carry them in a procession at the church. We sang and when it was time to pray there were these neat little benches that folded out for you to kneel on. They were covered with velvet and I loved them.

I never heard about hell except when someone in my world would swear. When some people got mad, they told the other person to go to hell. I didn't think much about where that was until I was older. Hell just was not part of my world. There was no sense of punishment associated with Christianity until I moved to a different world.

I had never read the grown-up Bible much. I had a special Bible that had pictures and just told the story of Jesus' life. Imagine my culture shock when I came to the United States and went to school with Southern Baptists! I heard things about God that did not make sense, so I studied the Bible to see where they got these ideas from.

I still, to this day, cannot see how a set of rules for being a Christian can be determined by what is written in the Bible.

I have a joke, :D
A man dies and goes to heaven's gates. He is met by St. Peter and is judges to be worthy of entering heaven. So in they go to the registration office, through the gates and down a long hall with doorways along the way on either side. As they pass each doorway, the man looks in and sees groups of people having a good time. Some of them go from room to room, crossing the hall and mingling like heaven is a party.

At the end of the hall, there is a door. St. Peter opens it and there is another hallway, but the doors are closed and it is quiet. St. Peter tells the man "shhhhh" be very quiet as we pass through here.

The man asks "Why?"

St. Peter points to one of the closed doors and says "The Southern Baptists are in this room; we have to be quiet because they think they are the only ones here."

So I guess I am back to my questions.
How are you able to determine between God's will and your own will?

It seems that among Christians, there are many different interpretations and some commonalities. How are you able to determine the rules of God and be satisfied that your interpretation is the correct one?

There are so many conflicting things in the Bible and people deal with two thoughts that are dissonant in many ways. All the contradictions in the Bible set up a cognitive dissonance. Rationalisation is called for to make sense of what is apparently a very important book. Some choose to disregard the Old Testament and only read the New.

This whole punishment thing is a foreign concept to me. In my little world, I was rarely punished. I was rewarded for every good thing I did.

How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance ? How do you rationalise the punishing God with the rewarding God?

Although English is my second language ...
Thanks for the comment and if you can help me with style (how to say something better), I would love to hear your input.

I really thought that you spoke english as a first language:) You really do very well and I meant no insult or critique. You have done such a good job in this discussion (really everyone has) it's one of the few threads I read and post in the Religion & Philosophy section.

I think we are all very much the same here in this thread. We probably share many commonalities in our personal moral codes, whether we attribute them to the Bible and personal experience or just personal experience. If we weren't more the same than different, the discussion would certainly be more heated.

Would you say that most or all atheists are more different than the same, or more same than different?

My apologies for writing a book. Congratulations if you made it this far without glazing over ;)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by tamiO:
............Whole lot a' snipping going on .......... (couple of points left for reference..)
...........................
A friend recently told us of how her apartment building was broken into by a gang of men with guns; using force they burst in and plundered through the building trying doors, stealing and threatening. After all was said and done, a lady in the apartment building said "Thank God I was spared" (or something similar to that.)

So I wonder, why did God spare her and not the family down the hall?

I think about all this, and as I said, I don't know. I don't understand the apparent lack of compassion in God.
.................................................. .......................

So I ask you again, why would God protect your elderly father and not other elderly fathers?



This is the old "person on the ground near a plane crash saying " thank God no one was hurt "( on the ground) " syndrome...

It says a lot more about the person making the statement, than about the nature of God..


;)

[tamiO]

............Whole lot a' snipping going on ..........

:D

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Christian,

The distinction is whether the incentive is dependent on external enforcement. Certainly you must recognize the value of an incentive to behave in a way that is beneficial to society, even when society is not able to compel you to?

Absolutely. In Christianity you are compelled to behave even when no one is looking. From the atheist’s perspective, I’m not compelled by anything external, only by something internal.

And I understand completely what you are saying, that this is the purpose of morality, to act correctly even though no one is looking. This is your point. My hypothesis is that this model does not work. I’ll explain what the model is and you tell if I’m getting it right.

[atheist hat on]
We teach our children values (and directly or indirectly, the rules that uphold them [morality]). By doing this, we contribute to the welfare of society as a whole because, even when no one is looking, they will act accordingly. Even if there are no external rewards or punishments, they will act morally because acting in accordance to their values, will be internally satisfactory (they will derive pleasure). Doing the right thing (acting according to one’s values) is a source of pleasure and satisfaction.

[atheist hat off]

This model does not work. It’s an utopia. There is overwhelming evidence that people don’t do the right thing when no one is looking (if it is in their best interest not to). On the other hand, the only evidence you might have that your model works is your personal experience (with your own actions). By the scenario, how can you know that people do the right *when no one is looking*. The only thing you have is their word.

There is not overwhelming evidence that people don't do the right thing when nobody is looking. On the contrary, it is an easily observed fact that many people do do the right thing, even when it is not in their best interest. Sure, they do not all do so. And sure, nobody always does so. But that is irrelevant. All that is necessary to establish the usefulness of morality is that a significant number of people do the right thing (when nobody is looking), a significant portion of the time.

Furthermore, even if you could establish that, from a societal point of view, morality was useless, this would still not support your thesis that, as an atheist, I should abandon my values and morals. Because as I already pointed out, if my values are a source of both pleasure and pain, then simply eliminating those values is not necessarily beneficial to me. And like I said before, you have to take the bad with the good.

I never said it was more effective I said that it is also effective. And more importantly, it is effective in situations where external punishment is not. Namely in situations where no external incentive is present.

How can you know it is effective? What is your evidence that people behave against their best interest when no one is watching? (we wont bother with the scenario of doing the right thing is also in the best interest of the doer)

Look at the world around you! It happens all the time! Are you seriously going to try to tell me that nobody ever does the right thing unless they think it is in their best interest to do so? Or are you just convinced that all of those people who do are just doing so out of a belief in heaven/hell?

As I’ve said, all tangible evidence points to the notion people don’t behave other than to serve their best interest regardless of whether it is moral or not. The more advanced the civilization, the more laws, technology and the such are used to protect society. Businesses don’t trust shoppers to not steal when no one is looking, the put signs up warning shoplifters of the consequences of theft. They install cameras, tags on items, and have security guards patrolling. And still by far, the biggest loss for retailers is shoplifting.

Completely irrelevant. All it takes is for a small portion of the population to be immoral, to necessitate laws. Or, for a larger portion of the population to occasionally act immorally. This happens. Morality isn't perfect. That is not in dispute. But simply pointing out that it isn't perfect doesn't demonstrate that it is not effective, and thus useful.

The explain why. And address my explanation of how and why it is beneficial, regardless of whether there is a God or not.

[atheist hat on]
It is detrimental because you are putting your chips on the wrong model. You say it is beneficial because people will act morally even though no one is watching. I say this premise is not true. I’m saying that when no one is watching, if it is in a person’s best interest to do the wrong thing, they will.

So, maybe that’s why they invented an imaginary dictator. So that the masses would do the right thing even when no is watching. If you tell them there is a God that will punish or reward you and sees everything you do. That my prevent you from doing the wrong thing even if no is watching.

If there is absolutely no negative consequence and only benefits for doing the wrong thing, and no one will ever know, that simply will lead people to do the wrong thing.

The other solution is to close the gap of what we as a society can find out, that everyday, there are less and less things people can do that can be seen by others (e.g. DNA testing) and enacting social and legal norms to prevent people from acting against the welfare of society.

[atheist hat off]

OK. Now all you have to do is present your evidence. Simply claiming that nobody ever behaves morally when it is not in their best interest to do so, and when they think they can get away with it, isn't going to convince anybody. Remember, you have made the claim here. You are the one trying to convince us poor deluded atheists to reject our values, and become amoral sociopaths. Present your evidence.

Of course. I value the lives and happiness of other people. Burying my head in the sand isn't going to change anything.

This is not the point I was making. In your *injured person* scenario, there is something wrong that will happen if you don’t act. But there are many scenarios where nothing wrong will happen if you don’t do the right thing. What would compel anyone to do the right thing if it not harmful to society to do the wrong thing (because it is beneficial to you). (e.g. paying one less dollar in taxes than you should)

This is a nonsense question. If the action in question is not harmful to society, or anybody else, then by definition, it is not immoral.

Of course, your cheating on taxes example is not valid, since cheating on my taxes harms society. Sure, cheating by one dollar doesn't hurt it much, but it doesn't help me much either.

Are you serious? This all comes down to the idea of personal responsibility. I have a responsibility to society, because I value society. What you are suggesting would be inconsistent with my values.

Yes, personal responsibility. That is the model that does not work. Show me an institution that works under your model Stimpson. Where you graduated, did they trust you were going to be responsible for studying? Did they take your word for it that you knew the material? Or did they test you, did they require you to prove your responsibility? Where you work, do they trust that you are doing your job or does the funding (or whatever other system there is) depend on tangible results?

I’m not picking on you, I’m just pointing out that your worldview is contradicted by reality.

No, what you are doing is perpetuating a false dilemma, by suggesting that either personal responsibility and morals can be relied on completely, with no need whatsoever for laws, or that they are completely ineffective and useless.

We need laws. Nobody is disputing that. This does not support your argument in the slightest bit.

The question is, why do you think that as an atheist, I would want to get rid of it? My values are both a source of pleasure and pain for me. You cannot get rid of one without getting rid of the other. Sure, I could potentially condition myself to value nothing, but why would I want to do so? I would argue that doing so would be counter-productive to society, and thus ultimately to individuals.

You would want to get rid of the idea that morality makes people act correctly. Or that morality makes a better society.

If that idea was wrong, I would. But you have not even come close to convincing me that it is.

Now, the is a communication problem here (I’m struggling to make myself clear).

[atheist hat on]

We need values, they are indispensable. They are the compass to what rules we must set. I’m not saying we don’t need personal rules, we do. I’m saying that these rules must be placed in a higher ground (the social and legal one). If they stay in the personal arena and do not transcend, the are inoperative. A personal code of conduct that does not transcend is useless.

[atheist hat off]

If you have values, then you will have morals. You started this argument by saying that we should condition away the emotional responses we have to events, because these things serve no purpose. But that means getting rid of those values. As long as you value something (human life, for example), you are going to have an emotional response to the loss of human life. You are going to feel bad when people die. And that is going to serve as a motivation to regulate your behavior. That is morality.

And if the fact that most people value human life means that, in a given period of time, fewer people are murdered than would have been if these people did not value human life (given exactly the same laws, and enforcement methods), then morality is useful. End of story.

Because without any internal motivation to not behave selfishly (and thus anti-socially) you will do so as soon as you are in a situation where you think you can "get away with it".

But this is exactly the premise that the system is built on. All society, everywhere in the world is built according to this system. If that were not the case, banks would loan money on people’s words.

Wrong. Society is based on the premise that some people will behave selfishly at least some of the time. That is all it takes to make things like laws and security measures necessary.

No, you are, when you say that values are useless. If I were to abandon my values, as you have claimed I should, then the above would be true.

No, let’s correct this. I’m not saying that values are useless. Values are indispensable. Morality is not.

This is nonsensical. If you have values, you will have morals. If you value human life, but find yourself in a situation where you could murder somebody for 5 dollars, and get away with it, would you do so, or not?

If you would, then you clearly do not place much value on human life. If you would not, then you have morals.

And in any event, your prior argument that atheists should condition away their emotional responses, contradicts this claim, since the way you do so is by eliminating your values. The only way I am not going to have a negative emotional response when I see another human being suffer, is by no longer valuing human happiness. And as long as I do value human happiness, I am going to act accordingly (morally).

Did you mean "cannot be enforced" in the last sentence? If so, I don't understand what you are suggesting. Should we have values or not? If we have values, then we are going to try to live in accordance with those values, regardless of whether society requires us to or not. That is morality.

Yes, sorry, that is what I meant. Yes, we must have values. Yes, we must try to live in accordance to them.

[atheist hat on]
Now, this is were we don’t agree. You say, “we must try o live in accordance to them, regardless of whether society requires us to do so or not”.

Here is the thing (and maybe this time my point will get across). You wont be able to live according to your values if society does not require it. And most people will only follow what society requires them to or according to their best interest, if society does not forbid it.

I do not agree with either of these statements. First of all, it is not impossible for me to live according to my values if society does not require it. All that is necessary is that society does not forbid it. And even if it does, I can still attempt to do so illegally. Many people in the past have done exactly that. For example, Germans who illegally sheltered Jews during World War 2. Or Americans who helped slaves escape from the Southern states in the US's past. And so on.

And second, you have not demonstrated your second point. You have merely repeated the claim over and over again.

So, my point is, what is the use of a code you cannot live by. My suggestion is to make sure that the code is required by society.

[atheist hat off]


Many parts of my own code are not required by society. For example, there are many things I could legally do, which would be to my benefit, but which I won't do because it goes against my values.

If I was the sociopath that you seem to think I should be, I wouldn't be working as a scientist for $40,000 a year. I would have started my own pseudo-scientific religion, and would probably be a millionaire by now.

How is this relevant? If an atheist sees somebody faint on the street, and nobody else is around, which of the following do you think the typical atheist would do?

1) Ignore the person.

2) Help the person.

3) Rob the person.

Your argument seems to be that the atheist should reject morality as "useless", and pick number 3. This just illustrates that morality is not useless, because it compels us to choose number 2 instead, which is better for society.

[atheist hat on]

This is an interesting scenario and multiple tests have been conducted (Caldini). You know what most people do? They choose #1. It is the best strategy if there is no God. #3 is not acceptable because the risk outweighs the benefits.

And if you do choose #1, what negative consequences will there be in the future for having acted like this? Absolutely zero, none, nada.

So now, having the scientific data and understanding that #1 is wrong. What do we do? Do we pound more morality on people? No, we create a law that says it is illegal for you to do #1. And that is exactly what has happened in many countries.

I am not familiar with those studies. But what constitutes "most"? And what were the mitigating circumstances? For example, how many of those people chose not to get involved out of fear of negative consequences, such as being robbed, or blamed for the assault?

In any event, if even a significant minority of the people chose option number 2, then that establishes that morality is useful.

And what do these studies say about the effectiveness of the heaven/hell promise/threat? Given that it is almost certain that most of the subjects were Christian, apparently it either isn't much of an incentive, or they don't think they are really going to be punished or rewarded for their actions.

And this is why those internal motivations are not useless. Isn't that obvious?

Yes, I understand that you believe (without much evidence, [hidden camera evidence points the other direction]) that people will do the right thing just because. If your premise is false, the system collapses, does it not?

That is not my premise. My premise is that moral people will do the right thing. Not all people are moral, and not all people agree with what the right thing to do is.

You are not arguing that morality is useless, you are arguing that it is nonexistent!

I don't trust that everyone's internal value system is the same as mine either. That is beside the point.

No, that is exactly the point. If only you do the right thing, and most everyone else does not. The system is chaos. As I said before anarchy.

Thus we need laws. But that does not mean that morality is useless.

Suppose, you believe in helping the injured person. What if everyone else does not? In term of the common welfare, what is the use of you to help? You can’t build a house with a single stone.

The use is that I have still helped those few people. Even if the effect is slight, the World is still a better place for my having been here. That is reason enough. And of course, I am not the only one.

That is pretty silly. It is pretty clear from direct observation that he will not. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Why should God protect your father from being mugged, when he clearly does not protect innocent children from being raped, tortured, and murdered?

Yes, I understand this is silly to you. That is precisely the point. It is silly to have a moral code, if by direct observation we can clearly see that the only way to stop rape, torture, and murder is by strong legal system.

Huh? What does your irrational belief that God is going to protect your father from being mugged, when He clearly doesn't protect other innocent people from such harm, have to do with morality?

I never said anything about trusting that other people would share those morals. If I could do that, we wouldn't need laws. The point is that society is better off with people having morals than not.

How do you know this? What is the proof that a society with morals is better off? All the evidence shows that morality is irrelevant in society.

My proof is that I, personally, have benefited from other people helping me, even though they were not required to, and even though it was not in their best interest to do so. And I know many other people who have as well. In many of those cases I was the one doing the helping.

And if anybody at all benefits from morality in such a way, then that proves it is useful. The only question then is how useful?

And your statement that the evidence shows that morality is irrelevant to society is simply false. At best, you could try to claim that the benefit of morality is negligible. And you certainly have not done that.

That is not true. Morality is the set of rules that I follow because of my values. It is not an either/or thing. Murder is illegal. It is also immoral.

This could be a semantic problem. From my framework (and this is just a technicality), a norm can only belong in one category in any given moment. I understand this is not the way we usually look at them, but please follow my framework for the sake of the discussion.

Sorry, no can do. The definition of morality is not consistent with it being impossible for something to be both a moral rule, and a legal requirement.

Once a norm is contemplated in the legal arena, the moral classification is dropped. That someone may chose not to kill people because it goes against his or her morality takes a back seat to the fact that it is illegal.

The fact that there are situations where laws can be circumvented, renders this argument ridiculous.

And even if it were possible to enforce laws with 100% effectiveness, the fact remains that many laws start as moral rules, and then become laws when people who hold those morals demand that it do so.

Not always. There are many rules that I support, which are not in my best interest, but instead in the best interest of society. For example, I would support government spending on education, even though I am past the point where I would benefit from it. That is because I value more than just my own personal well-being.

And this would be a great a example of our morality being irrelevant to the big picture. The only way that your rule (that the government spend more money on education) could have any efficacy would be if it transcended you personal code.

On the contrary, this is an example of morality being vital to the big picture, because the only way the rule is ever going to transcend people's personal codes, is if they act on those values, and actively seek to change the laws. Without morality, there would be no reason to change the laws. The people who make the laws are not going to benefit from increased spending on education. The only way it is going to happen is if people who are not going to benefit from it, and who are not required to do it, nevertheless actively work towards changing the laws. That is morality at work.

So now you become an atheist. Are you going to stop loving your children? Assuming that you could condition yourself to do so, would you want to? Would it be beneficial to society, or to you, to do so?

If I became and atheist, I would not need morality to love my children. Why would I need rules to do what I already spontaneously want to do in the first place. All I have to do is follow what comes natural and pleasurable, that will guarantee their happiness.

The rules come from the values. Like I said before, if you value something, you will behave accordingly.

Clearly your love for your children is beneficial to society.

That the love from my children is beneficial to society is a nice byproduct, but that is not the reason I love them. I can’t help but love them. It is so pleasurable to love them, that I don’t need any other motivation. I do it for purely selfish reasons. I don’t love other children the way I love mine. Other children don’t even come close to how I love mine.

That is exactly my point. You impose rules of behavior on yourself due to your values (your love for your children). Your adherence to those rules benefits society. I rest my case.

Values are most definitely useful. And with values comes morality.

[atheist hat on]
This is where we don’t agree. I would say with values comes the tools to make social and legal norms. Moral norms are for the religious people who believe that there is an imaginary dictator who will enforce that code.

[atheist hat off]


That is self-contradictory. If you are only following the rules because some dictator is enforcing them, then they are just another set of laws you have to follow because somebody will punish you if you don't. It is, in effect, just another legal norm.

Morals are only relevant to values. Morals are the rules you follow because you personally feel it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether somebody else is going to enforce those rules or not.

If your only motivation for doing anything was external punishment and rewards (either from God, or from society), then your values would be pointless,

No, no, no. Values are the building block of norms. For example, the penal system (totally secular) is based on the protection of what humans in a society value. That is the whole point of the penal code. “If you harm this value, you will suffer this consequence”.

I can’t help having values, they are innate. If I value nothing, there is nothing to motivate me. The reward/punishment/compliance model works because I value stuff.

When I say my only motivation for doing anything is reward or punishment, implicit is the fact that there is something I value that is motivating me. The reward has something to do with what I value as the punishment.

And that is morality. If you are doing something because it is consistent with your values, then that is morality. If you are doing something because you are compelled to by an external agency, then that is compliance.

The only way to eliminate morality is to eliminate values. As long as people have values, they will have morals. It's that simple.

What was your original point again? Do you agree that atheists are going to have values? If so, then do you agree that this necessarily implies that atheists are going to have moral codes of conduct, and that the only way to eliminate those morals would be to eliminate the associated values?

Dr. Stupid

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Loki
Christian,

In your reply to Stimpy :

Can you provide the evidence that this is true? Can you offer some evidence where the people who "did the wrong thing when no one was looking" were shown to be "atheists who were taught their morals as children"?

I would think that most of the examples you would bring forward are of *theists* who don't do the right thing when no one is looking.

The gneeral looting and ransacking of the hospitals in Iraq immediately after the fall of Saddam - gosh, isn't that a theist state? How come this god fearing people were'nt kept in line by the invisible eye that always watches, and judges accordingly?

Or an even better example; Catholic priests who sexually abused altar boys! They, above most other Christians, should have known best that the divine eye was on them! Yet still they sated their base desires under the gaze of, and sometimes in the house of, their Lord!

Christian, by your logic we should be able to look into the demographics of the incarcerated, and find a preponderance of atheists. Instead most studies that I have heard of show the precise opposite.

Originally posted by Christian:
rikzilla wrote:
You seem to be assuming that atheists either are, or should be incapable of feeling remorse for past transgressions.

No, this is either a strawman or a unintentional misinterpretation of my point of view. I have stated that remorse should be eliminated (for logical reasons) from the atheist lives.
You say I've misrepresented your POV,...then you restate almost exactly the second part of what I said!? This goes to the heart of why it's so hard to debate you, your misperceptions are disturbing to the flow of debate, and end up becoming the thing that gets debated!
No, the source of morality is your entire implied point! If indeed morality is a gift from the Christian God, then you would be quite right that atheists (and many others) would be wasting their limited time on earth by attempting to appease this entity which none of them actually believe exists.

No, it is not my implied point. Whether morals codes come from Allah, The Sun God, or the Christian God, if they come from any god, they are *bilateral*. To atheists, they don’t come from *any* external god.
Okay...the Taoists would tell you that the "Tao" is within you. That in order to know "God", one must look within. By your logic Taoists should also eliminate remorse. Taoism has been around for 600 years prior to the birth of Christ...you'd think that by now they'd have adopted your logic and become a remorseless bunch of folks eh? :rolleyes:

Another thing, what perchance is an "external" God??

God : A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. -----(dictionary.com)

Is not "God" limitless? If you believe God to be limitless, then please show me the place where God is not. If there is no place that God "is not" then there is no such thing as an "external" God.


OTOH, if morality and ethics were learned during early man's first attempts at organized society as I am supposing, then the atheist's moral emotions/feelings become more logical. This only works if you look at morals and ethics in a purely secular way.

How you arrive at your morality is irrelevant. You are the only one imposing it on you.

Oh? Look Christian, we have morals,...we make laws,....laws are an extension of our morals, not the other way around. Our morals inform the law.

In light of this information I'm sure you can see how your assertion: The question to you as an agnostic is if personally believe there is someone other than you who enforces the moral norms on you. If you are the only enforcer, then morality is useless for you. is mistaken.

No, it is not. Once you start doing something because it is convenient socially, you are in the realm of social norms. I hope you can see that the prisoners dilemma is a external reward/punishment/compliance system. It has absolutely nothing to do with conviction to do what is right just because it is right. The best strategy saves you from prison.

The prisoners dilemma is a simple analytical tool which shows us how humans came to devise moral norms. How do we know what is right? We choose that which will give us a beneficial outcome. Enough beneficial outcomes become our "moral good". Moral good, given enough time to evolve ends up codified in laws and referred to as "social norms".


Christian, you seem to be quite happy in your faith, and I am glad for you. But it seems to me that you are so content in your belief that you honestly can't see how other humans can function without it. I understand that as well. What I think you need to do is open your mind to other possiblities and perceptions. That is if you really do wish to understand others.

Is it possible for you not to be condescending?

Let me tell where I come from. To me, this forum is where I debate ideas. I like debating, it helps develop my skills. Do to the nature of the subjects, they do become personal, but that is not the intention. Ideally, we should just debate the merits of the theories or arguments.

I’m trying to do just that, debate ideas. If you remember, I put on the atheist hat, and the purpose was to show that an atheist can come to theorize this way.

I may be wrong, but that is the point. To understand the merits of the arguments and discard those that are lacking. So far, I feel comfortable about the level of argumentation.

Again, your ability to percieve things as they are comes into question. In all my earlier replies to you I was nothing if not polite. Your assumption that I was being "condescending" is insulting to me because I was completely in earnest when I said I was glad for you. People who find joy in faith are not objects of ridicule to me. I am not an atheist. I am arguing in favor of the atheist position on this issue that you brought up because you are being decidedly unfair to them in your assumptions. Then, when people such as Stimpy point out the holes in your ideas, instead of "discard(ing) those that are lacking" as you claim above, you merely restate them and ignore how they are lacking.

Obviously you believe yourself to be superior to atheists here, and merely use the people on this forum to help you "develop your skills"........a purely selfish pursuit, wouldn't you say? What does that say of your own morals? Shouldn't you be trying to save our souls, or somesuch? Or is this logical argument of yours supposed to lead us to the conclusion that we need Jesus in order to be moral human beings?

-zilla

[chance]

Christian I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either morality is taught or it is inborn in you. You don’t feel bad for doing something because you this internal moral compass, you feel bad because you have been conditioned to feel bad about it. Incorrect assumption and one you keep making. You can feel bad about things without being taught just observing children will convince you of that. As I said before, you are a product of instinct and upbringing it’s the combination that defines your moral outlook not some black or white law.

No matter how you were brought up, someone somewhere can push the right buttons to make you change your moral outlook on the world, no one is immune. We may think we can be like a rock to change but it’s an impossibility.

[Christian]

I'm half way through the responses. Maybe I'll be done by tomorrow. Thanks.

[Christian]

Posted by me:
This model does not work. It’s an utopia. There is overwhelming evidence that people don’t do the right thing when no one is looking (if it is in their best interest not to).
Loki wrote:
Can you provide the evidence that this is true?

History is full of examples of this phenomenon. The time we can clearly see this principle at work is in lawlessness:

http://threehegemons.tripod.com/threehegemonsblog/id15.html

http://www.yespakistan.com/afghancrisis/lawlessness.asp

Pay special attention to these next ones:

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c219.htm

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/02/russia0228.htm

http://allafrica.com/stories/200301240280.html

And this is from the corporate world:
(Pay close attention to premises and assumptions used to explain the phenomena.)

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5227

In the area of microeconomics, the concept of self-interest and utility maximization is central to economic theory.

http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/0106adam.html

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html

The idea that we will act always in our best interest is inherent in microeconomic theory.


Can you offer some evidence where the people who "did the wrong thing when no one was looking" were shown to be "atheists who were taught their morals as children"?

No.

I would think that most of the examples you would bring forward are of *theists* who don't do the right thing when no one is looking.

Not so, there are links about Russia.

The gneeral looting and ransacking of the hospitals in Iraq immediately after the fall of Saddam - gosh, isn't that a theist state? How come this god fearing people were'nt kept in line by the invisible eye that always watches, and judges accordingly?

[atheist hat on]

Because there is no God. And it only demonstrates that morality is useless.

[atheist hat off]

TamiO wrote:
If there is a God, then I cannot understand why he would show compassion in some cases and disregard in others. Does he not feel, like I feel. Doesn't he see the people who suffer at the hands of others and hear their prayers? How can he tune those voices out.

When you say *some cases*, isn’t now the proportion important. And how do you define what is just?


A friend recently told us of how her apartment building was broken into by a gang of men with guns; using force they burst in and plundered through the building trying doors, stealing and threatening. After all was said and done, a lady in the apartment building said "Thank God I was spared" (or something similar to that.)

So I wonder, why did God spare her and not the family down the hall?

Now, why did God spare the billions of homes everyday not broken in to. What is the proportion? Have you ever heard of the concept of *part per million* defects? How about *parts per billion or trillion*?

And if the defects did not exists, how would you know something is perfect? How do you know there is *nothing* if something does not exist?

I watched a documentary on HBO a few weeks back. One man explained he was a prisoner of the Nazi's during the war. He said they pleaded with God during their incarceration. People who prayed vigilantly, his family, his wife. All ignored by God.

I think about all this, and as I said, I don't know. I don't understand the apparent lack of compassion in God.

Until you don’t know the proportion, I think it is premature to conclude that God is not compassionate.

So I ask you again, why would God protect your elderly father and not other elderly fathers?

Because He protects most elderly fathers and He has given me the wisdom to know how my father will be best protected.

There are so many things that go on in the world that it is impossible for me to know everything that happens, let alone a ratio of positive to negative. I would also have a hard time in saying what was good and what was bad, most things are closer to the middle and exist in grey areas.

If it were close to the middle, the world would be a catastrophe? I would venture to say that 99.999999999999% of things that happen in the world daily go right.

I finally arrive at the doctor's office wet and late. So now I have to sit in the waiting room, wet and cold and wait until they can squeeze me in. This is not a good day.

Sitting close to me is a man who is wet from the rain, too. He mentions that it sure is rainy today and the conversation begins. It turns out he is the owner of a prominent business and he has been looking for someone to do his website.

If I hadn't been late, if the car had not had problems, if everything that happened that morning had not happened, I would not have met a most important person in my life.

I like this story.

When my cousin/brother was killed, it was tragic. It felt like a knife in my heart. But he was an organ donor. He ended up giving sight to a blind man, a heart to someone else, a liver, etc. He death helped many many people.

So when you ask me "How many thing go right in the world compared to how many things go wrong? What is the ratio?"
I cannot answer that and I don't think anyone else can either.

But somehow you seem to know that things turn out right.

Would you agree that you have a personal understanding of the Bible?

Yes.

Nice joke too.

How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance ? How do you rationalise the punishing God with the rewarding God?

Explain the specific dissonance? Why would both together be dissonant.

I really thought that you spoke english as a first language You really do very well and I meant no insult or critique. You have done such a good job in this discussion (really everyone has) it's one of the few threads I read and post in the Religion & Philosophy section.

Thanks.

I think we are all very much the same here in this thread. We probably share many commonalities in our personal moral codes, whether we attribute them to the Bible and personal experience or just personal experience. If we weren't more the same than different, the discussion would certainly be more heated.

I think so too.

Would you say that most or all atheists are more different than the same, or more same than different?

How you mean it, I think much more alike.

Stimpson wrote:
There is not overwhelming evidence that people don't do the right thing when nobody is looking.

There is overwhelming evidence that people don't do the right thing when nobody is looking and *it is in their best interest no to.*

On the contrary, it is an easily observed fact that many people do do the right thing, even when it is not in their best interest.

How many is many. And how you can assert this if the system is built around the contrary premise. (that people act in their best interest. I’m referring to economic theory)

Sure, they do not all do so. And sure, nobody always does so. But that is irrelevant. All that is necessary to establish the usefulness of morality is that a significant number of people do the right thing (when nobody is looking), a significant portion of the time.

No, you need a lot more than that. You need to show that the right thing is against their best interest, that it is actually the right thing to do (what is right for me, may be wrong for somebody else) and you need to show how you know this if the premise is *nobody’s looking*. Furthermore, you would have to qualify the term *usefulness* in the same way the legal norms are useless.

To use an extreme example, garbage can be useful, but it is still garbage.

Furthermore, even if you could establish that, from a societal point of view, morality was useless, this would still not support your thesis that, as an atheist, I should abandon my values and morals.

Not your values, just your morals.

Because as I already pointed out, if my values are a source of both pleasure and pain, then simply eliminating those values is not necessarily beneficial to me. And like I said before, you have to take the bad with the good.

To enjoy your values, you don’t need to have internal rules, they can simply be preferences, guidelines, inclinations. Set rules are not required. And if your values change, then set rules would impede your enjoyment of them.

Look at the world around you! It happens all the time! Are you seriously going to try to tell me that nobody ever does the right thing unless they think it is in their best interest to do so?

You are mixing oranges and apples here. When you say someone does the right thing, you mean the right thing for them. In that case, the right thing for them is always in their best interest. If it were not in their best interest, they would not do it. Please read any economic theory that explains utility maximization. Or you can just look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

When you say it is not in your best interest to support more government funding for education because you wont get the benefit of education, you are omitting that you are getting a benefit that it greater than that. You are getting the benefit of feeling very good about your support of that.

Or are you just convinced that all of those people who do are just doing so out of a belief in heaven/hell?

Heaven and hell are not the only reward/punishments there are.

Completely irrelevant. All it takes is for a small portion of the population to be immoral, to necessitate laws.

How can you prove it is only a small portion and not the vast majority?

Or, for a larger portion of the population to occasionally act immorally. This happens. Morality isn't perfect. That is not in dispute. But simply pointing out that it isn't perfect doesn't demonstrate that it is not effective, and thus useful.

No, I’m showing you that every time there is anarchy or lawlessness, the system collapses. Where there is no State, there is chaos. So, then morality appears to work (there is an illusion) because there are social and legal norms.

OK. Now all you have to do is present your evidence. Simply claiming that nobody ever behaves morally when it is not in their best interest to do so, and when they think they can get away with it, isn't going to convince anybody.

Well, the whole capitalist system is based on this premise of self-interest. Entities whether corporations or people will seek to maximize their profit (or benefit). Period.

Remember, you have made the claim here. You are the one trying to convince us poor deluded atheists to reject our values, and become amoral sociopaths. Present your evidence.

No, don’t reject your values, just your morals.

This is a nonsense question. If the action in question is not harmful to society, or anybody else, then by definition, it is not immoral.

Stimpson, it is immoral to have thoughts of dismembering babies? Is it immoral to derive pleasure from thinking of decapitating children?

Of course, your cheating on taxes example is not valid, since cheating on my taxes harms society. Sure, cheating by one dollar doesn't hurt it much, but it doesn't help me much either.

Well, how about the previous examples.

No, what you are doing is perpetuating a false dilemma, by suggesting that either personal responsibility and morals can be relied on completely, with no need whatsoever for laws, or that they are completely ineffective and useless.

No, I’m saying that *all* the formal systems (entities) there are in the world, do not rely on them at all. The reliability comes from external controls.

If you have values, then you will have morals.

This is not true. I can value very much chocolate cake (I love it), carrot cake even more. I don’t have any set rules regarding eating them. Sometimes, I eat them, some times I don’t, and sometimes I might eat a lot of them.

And I can be ethical (because I have values) and be immoral because I’m ethical.

You started this argument by saying that we should condition away the emotional responses we have to events, because these things serve no purpose.

This is false. I did not say this. I said that you should condition away remorse. And you should.

And if the fact that most people value human life means that, in a given period of time, fewer people are murdered than would have been if these people did not value human life (given exactly the same laws, and enforcement methods), then morality is useful. End of story.

How do you know fewer people are killed because we value human life? All history shows that the stronger the State in protecting lives, the fewer die. Why do you think that the stiffest penalties in the penal system are for murder and the like? Why do you think those types of crimes are the most aggressively investigated and prosecuted?

If there is a case where we can point to punishment as a deterrent for action is in the case of murder.

There are more than 1 million (1.4???) abortions in the US yearly. You know how humans rationalize this practice. Why do you think there are so many? Aren’t there any other alternatives that can be used?

Evidence you say. We don’t have to look any further than this website. (a skeptic website, a whole lot of atheists here). Why is it that the rules have been set? Why is it that people can’t use profanity anymore?

Wrong. Society is based on the premise that some people will behave selfishly at least some of the time. That is all it takes to make things like laws and security measures necessary.

No, societies are based on the premise that all people are trying to maximize their benefit. Societies that do not hold this premise collapse (e.g. USSR).

This position is held by Nobel price winners. (in this case the appeal to authority is valid) Read Friedman, and the like.

Here a link on selfishness:

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/self.htm

And from this link:

http://www.crosscurrents.org/frey2.html
Nobel laureate George Stigler who insisted that the concept of self-interest provides a universal explanation of human activity. "Man is eternally a utility-maximizer,'' he wrote, and not just in economic activity but "… in his church, in his scientific work, in short, everywhere.'' Another Nobel laureate, Gary Becker, has elaborated how self-interest could explain the most personal decisions, including marriage, child-bearing, and so on.
This is nonsensical. If you have values, you will have morals.

Not true.

If you value human life, but find yourself in a situation where you could murder somebody for 5 dollars, and get away with it, would you do so, or not?

No, because it goes against God’s laws and human law.

[atheist hat on]

Besides, the risk is too high Stimpson. Plus, if one is not accustomed to killing people, the trauma of doing so can last a life time. Completely goes against our best interest. And the consequences for doing something like this would be devastating for me in the future.
[atheist hat off]

If you would, then you clearly do not place much value on human life. If you would not, then you have morals.

There is also another contradictory thing about your viewpoint. According to your definition of morality, there is no way not to be immoral. According to you, everyone is generally moral. Or is your position that people generally hold values they disregard? How can one hold a value one disregards?

And in any event, your prior argument that atheists should condition away their emotional responses, contradicts this claim, since the way you do so is by eliminating your values. The only way I am not going to have a negative emotional response when I see another human being suffer, is by no longer valuing human happiness. And as long as I do value human happiness, I am going to act accordingly (morally).

According to you, morality has nothing to do with other people’s happiness, it has everything to do with you living according to your values (which does not necessarily translates to other’s happiness). If a person doesn’t value human happiness, then how can he or she be immoral by disregarding it?

I do not agree with either of these statements. First of all, it is not impossible for me to live according to my values if society does not require it. All that is necessary is that society does not forbid it.

Obviously Stimpson.

And even if it does, I can still attempt to do so illegally. Many people in the past have done exactly that. For example, Germans who illegally sheltered Jews during World War 2. Or Americans who helped slaves escape from the Southern states in the US's past. And so on.

Yes, but none of these activities can be sustained if the system is not changed. If Hitler or the South had succeeded, it would have been impossible to live illegally. What luck that good triumphs over evil.


And second, you have not demonstrated your second point. You have merely repeated the claim over and over again.

I’m presenting lots of arguments and evidence which you seem to minimize or ignore.

Many parts of my own code are not required by society. For example, there are many things I could legally do, which would be to my benefit, but which I won't do because it goes against my values.

You are stating you act against your best interest because it goes against what you value most, that is a contradiction. I hope you can see that.

If I was the sociopath that you seem to think I should be, I wouldn't be working as a scientist for $40,000 a year. I would have started my own pseudo-scientific religion, and would probably be a millionaire by now.

Well, seems to me, that (according to your own definition of morality) you are being immoral by making less money than you could.

Wouldn’t you agree that with more money at your disposal, you could pursue more of the things you value (helping others, education, legitimate research, etc.)?

So being able to and not doing it, isn’t that immoral in your book?

I am not familiar with those studies. But what constitutes "most"? And what were the mitigating circumstances? For example, how many of those people chose not to get involved out of fear of negative consequences, such as being robbed, or blamed for the assault?

Whatever the circumstances, Stimpson, the point is they acted according to their best interest. You would say, according to their values. But can you understand that that second phrase is misleading?

Implicit in *my best interest* is the circumstances that make it so. It is not a set point. Consider that sometimes killing someone can be in someone’s best interest.

You don’t value human life the same. If you did, you would not have been in favor of the war in Iraq. Or am I missing something here?

In any event, if even a significant minority of the people chose option number 2, then that establishes that morality is useful.

Why would it? Secular morality is a set of rules that can’t be verified. All we know for sure, is that the people who chose #2 did so out their best interest.

And what do these studies say about the effectiveness of the heaven/hell promise/threat? Given that it is almost certain that most of the subjects were Christian, apparently it either isn't much of an incentive, or they don't think they are really going to be punished or rewarded for their actions.

But, we don’t know the consequences of their actions. They broke the code and the consequences are not heaven or hell, they are future ones on earth.

That is not my premise. My premise is that moral people will do the right thing. Not all people are moral, and not all people agree with what the right thing to do is.

That is not your premise at all. Your premise is that people will act according to their values. And what is the right thing to do? You are introducing an external element (an objective standard) Who sets the standard? How do you know your values will lead you to do the right thing?

The use is that I have still helped those few people. Even if the effect is slight, the World is still a better place for my having been here. That is reason enough. And of course, I am not the only one.

This is not necessarily true. Your effect must be of a particular size to make any difference. We do use the term negligible for some reason.

Huh? What does your irrational belief that God is going to protect your father from being mugged, when He clearly doesn't protect other innocent people from such harm, have to do with morality?

It has all to do. We follow these principles because God dispenses justice based on following them. (like protecting our elderly parents)

My proof is that I, personally, have benefited from other people helping me, even though they were not required to, and even though it was not in their best interest to do so. And I know many other people who have as well. In many of those cases I was the one doing the helping.

You are attributing benefits to morality that do not necessarily apply. If people associate great pleasure to helping others, that doesn’t mean they are moral.

I know what you are going to say, that they feel pleasure of helping others demonstrates that they valued helping others, thus that is moral because they are acting according to their values. What if the valued sticking it to everybody. Would they be moral then if the did indeed started sticking it to everybody?


[atheist hat extremely on]

And you says immorality does not contribute to society. Being immoral many times contributes much more than being moral.

[atheist hat off]

And if anybody at all benefits from morality in such a way, then that proves it is useful. The only question then is how useful?

This is faulty logic. People benefit all time by tragic incidents, that does not mean they are necessary.

And your statement that the evidence shows that morality is irrelevant to society is simply false. At best, you could try to claim that the benefit of morality is negligible. And you certainly have not done that.

I’m stating that morality is unnecessary or useless. That from morality you can derive benefits does not disprove it is necessary or useful. As I stated before and excuse the comparison, we can find trash useful, that says more about us than trash. Trash is still trash.

Sorry, no can do. The definition of morality is not consistent with it being impossible for something to be both a moral rule, and a legal requirement.

But don’t you see that the distinction becomes irrelevant. Whether you follow the rule because of your value or you follow them because of the law, you are obligated to follow it.

And is it impossible for you to see that an ethical rule can be immoral, or that an immoral act can be the right thing to do?

The fact that there are situations where laws can be circumvented, renders this argument ridiculous.

Not circumvented, broken. If you break the law it is totally different than if you break a moral law. It is irrelevant if you believe something legal is immoral if you get caught and punished for it.

And even if it were possible to enforce laws with 100% effectiveness, the fact remains that many laws start as moral rules, and then become laws when people who hold those morals demand that it do so.

No, for atheists, they start with social norms. Remember evolution. Animals have social norms, moral norms come with higher cognitive thinking.

On the contrary, this is an example of morality being vital to the big picture, because the only way the rule is ever going to transcend people's personal codes, is if they act on those values, and actively seek to change the laws. Without morality, there would be no reason to change the laws.

Without values there would be no reason to change the laws. In other words, if it wasn’t for the best interest the people involved, the laws would not change.

The people who make the laws are not going to benefit from increased spending on education. The only way it is going to happen is if people who are not going to benefit from it, and who are not required to do it, nevertheless actively work towards changing the laws. That is morality at work.

The people who make the laws are interested in getting reelected, they will do whatever is necessary for that end. People who go to vote (very few indeed) do so because they are interested in the issues at hand. That is the system at work.

The rules come from the values. Like I said before, if you value something, you will behave accordingly.

When I act according to my values, that is not necessarily morality. I can value eating dinner every night. If I skip a dinner, it does not mean I’m being immoral.

That is exactly my point. You impose rules of behavior on yourself due to your values (your love for your children). Your adherence to those rules benefits society. I rest my case.

I don’t impose rules on myself to love my children. My wife would kill me if she thought I love her because I have set rules for myself to love her. You are confusing terms here. My strong inclinations for something and my subsequent natural actions (as an effect of my strong inclinations [what I value]) are not rules (maybe there are some natural principles involved, but that is not morality)

It is absurd to say I love my children because I’m moral as it would be absurd to say my love for chocolate is a moral act.

That is self-contradictory. If you are only following the rules because some dictator is enforcing them, then they are just another set of laws you have to follow because somebody will punish you if you don't. It is, in effect, just another legal norm.

Remember. It is you who adheres to the definition that morality is *living according to your values*. To me morality is following God’s code. And just like a legal code, it is objective. I’m either doing a legal act or not.

Listen to what I’m saying, a standard is only useful if it is set at a fixed point.

Morals are only relevant to values. Morals are the rules you follow because you personally feel it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether somebody else is going to enforce those rules or not.

The problem with your definition is that you can never be immoral. You can always change what you value or what you think is the right thing to do. This is why I say your standard is unnecessary, is the same as having no standard at all.

And no, I’m not arguing that it is non-existent. Yes, you have moral rules, I’m sure. They exist. But, they don’t serve the purpose of norm systems. Norms are normative. Standards show where we are with respect to it. When you say you are being moral, your standard is your values, but your values are movable.

And that is morality. If you are doing something because it is consistent with your values, then that is morality.

Evidently not, Stimpson. If someone values killing people and does, he is not moral.

If you are doing something because you are compelled to by an external agency, then that is compliance.

I don’t agree. I say morality is simply following the standard. Rules are standard. Either I’m overweight or not. If the particular % of body fat is there, then I am. If I break the moral code, then I am immoral. For it to have any meaning, it has to be external.

And please, I keep repeating myself because I believe I’m showing self-evident reasoning.

The only way to eliminate morality is to eliminate values. As long as people have values, they will have morals. It's that simple.

This is not true. I have given you examples (specific examples) why this is not true.

I can have many values and eliminate morality.

I will give you more. A lawyer must value the system and respect its rules of procedure and must put them above his morality.

How else could a lawyer be able to defend a serial killer or a child molester.

What was your original point again? Do you agree that atheists are going to have values? If so, then do you agree that this necessarily implies that atheists are going to have moral codes of conduct, and that the only way to eliminate those morals would be to eliminate the associated values?

You are technically wrong here. I can site many examples of values that don’t translate to morality.

Rikzilla wrote:
Or an even better example; Catholic priests who sexually abused altar boys! They, above most other Christians, should have known best that the divine eye was on them! Yet still they sated their base desires under the gaze of, and sometimes in the house of, their Lord!

It makes one wonder if they truly believe someone is watching and will dispense justice. It does not say anything about the existence of God. It can only suggest what these people believe. To me, even though they are legally protected (the priests), they will suffer God’s punishment.

Christian, by your logic we should be able to look into the demographics of the incarcerated, and find a preponderance of atheists. Instead most studies that I have heard of show the precise opposite.

We should not be able to look anywhere because the atheist population is infinitesimal. Statistically speaking, the atheist population would be of no use for these types of demographic studies.

And consider that in the population of people who say they believe in a God of justice, those who don’t really believe it.

You say I've misrepresented your POV,...then you restate almost exactly the second part of what I said!? This goes to the heart of why it's so hard to debate you, your misperceptions are disturbing to the flow of debate, and end up becoming the thing that gets debated!

Yes, because your wording is misleading. When you use the word incapable you are implying by definition capacity. What you are trying to attribute to my argument is that I’m saying that atheists should not have the capacity to feel remorse. This is *totally* different from saying that atheists should get rid of that unnecessary feeling. If you can’t see the difference, I’m sorry.

I think you statement is unfair. I’m doing most of the talking and most importantly, I’m the one with the burden of proof. I think the topic is complex and this is why it is hard to get points across.

Okay...the Taoists would tell you that the "Tao" is within you. That in order to know "God", one must look within. By your logic Taoists should also eliminate remorse. Taoism has been around for 600 years prior to the birth of Christ...you'd think that by now they'd have adopted your logic and become a remorseless bunch of folks eh?

No, absolutely not. To Taoist remorse can be a step to find *the way* (an external force). And this idea of the internal compass is not exclusive to Taoists. The Romans considered that divine reason was planted in the conscience of humans. That by looking within, we could find this script.

Another thing, what perchance is an "external" God??

God : A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. -----(dictionary.com)

Is not "God" limitless? If you believe God to be limitless, then please show me the place where God is not. If there is no place that God "is not" then there is no such thing as an "external" God.

Clearly, your definition of limitless is different from the one I understand. In your interpretation, I am God. This clearly is not what I would understand as limitless.

Oh? Look Christian, we have morals,...we make laws,....laws are an extension of our morals, not the other way around. Our morals inform the law.

I will show you specifically why your view is wrong.

How do we arrive at ethical norms? Are ethical norms the same as moral norms? If not, do we create legal norms from ethical norms?

If you can answer those, then you we see why laws are not necessarily an extension of moral laws.

The prisoners dilemma is a simple analytical tool which shows us how humans came to devise moral norms. How do we know what is right? We choose that which will give us a beneficial outcome. Enough beneficial outcomes become our "moral good". Moral good, given enough time to evolve ends up codified in laws and referred to as "social norms".

No, the prisoner’s dilemma is an analytical tool that shows how people maximize their utility. It is primarily used to show economic principles at work. The same ones I’m using to support my position. Here:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PrisonersDilemma.html

Again, your ability to percieve things as they are comes into question. In all my earlier replies to you I was nothing if not polite. Your assumption that I was being "condescending" is insulting to me because I was completely in earnest when I said I was glad for you.

This is the definition I have of condescending:

dictionary.com
To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.

And this one of patronizing:

Webster’s:
To be kind or helpful to, but in a haughty or snobbish way, as if dealing with an inferior

So when you tell me in a very nice way to open my mind to other possibilities and perceptions, if I really wish to understand others, I take that as condescension.

But, if that was not your intent, I apologize for the misinterpretation.

People who find joy in faith are not objects of ridicule to me. I am not an atheist. I am arguing in favor of the atheist position on this issue that you brought up because you are being decidedly unfair to them in your assumptions.

Again I ask you, what are the unfair assumptions? I have responded to your allegation that I’m being unfair, but if I am, please let me see where.

Then, when people such as Stimpy point out the holes in your ideas, instead of "discard(ing) those that are lacking" as you claim above, you merely restate them and ignore how they are lacking.

No, I’m making rebuttals. And he, in turn, answers them. If I kept repeating myself and not bringing different points and arguments to the discussion, this thread would not be this long and the responses would not be as lengthy. (from both sides)

Obviously you believe yourself to be superior to atheists here, and merely use the people on this forum to help you "develop your skills"........a purely selfish pursuit, wouldn't you say?

There is nothing wrong (at least in my book) to point out a logical flaw or a wrong idea. There is nothing wrong with saying I’m right you are wrong in this idea and here is why.

I would not only say it is an absolutely selfish pursuit but I would add that that is what makes a forum work. Imagine how boring this place would be if Stimpson spent the time he does in here in trying to make government spend more on education. [terrible lousy joke]

Anyway, why would you conclude from my selfishness that I feel superior?

What does that say of your own morals? Shouldn't you be trying to save our souls, or somesuch?

No, I should not. There is nothing I could say to you that would convince you. Yes, what does that say about my morals?

Or is this logical argument of yours supposed to lead us to the conclusion that we need Jesus in order to be moral human beings?

If you make the connection, I think it is not a bad one.

Chance wrote:
Incorrect assumption and one you keep making. You can feel bad about things without being taught just observing children will convince you of that.

Because I observe children all the time, I can conclude that this stuff is learned. If you really want to convince yourself, ask any kindergarten teacher. Or you can read any book on the subject of imparting principles on children. Or, you can have children and find out. (if you don’t already have some)

No matter how you were brought up, someone somewhere can push the right buttons to make you change your moral outlook on the world, no one is immune. We may think we can be like a rock to change but it’s an impossibility.

You would be supporting my case. The only way to prevent this button pushing is by having external bilateral norms.

[chance]

Christian Chance wrote: Incorrect assumption and one you keep making. You can feel bad about things without being taught just observing children will convince you of that.

Christian replied: Because I observe children all the time, I can conclude that this stuff is learned. If you really want to convince yourself, ask any kindergarten teacher. Or you can read any book on the subject of imparting principles on children. Or, you can have children and find out. (if you don’t already have some)
3 children (now all grown).
You have concluded incorrectly, or failed to understand what you are seeing. There is a point in a child’s life (about 4 if memory serves) where they are able to empathise and it is at this point they realise that lying is a possibility, which they soon put into practice. Note that they do not have to be taught this. They are however taught that lying is not something to aspire too. As they mature they soon realise that lying can produce unfavourable repercussions (this can be experience or taught) thus leading to remorse. Note the complex mix of instinctive behaviour and learned behaviour.

and

Chance wrote No matter how you were brought up, someone somewhere can push the right buttons to make you change your moral outlook on the world, no one is immune. We may think we can be like a rock to change but it’s an impossibility.

Christian replied :You would be supporting my case. The only way to prevent this button pushing is by having external bilateral norms So if a saint has his buttons pushed and becomes corrupt supports your case how? The most steadfast are not immune, some belief systems (or world view) may afford some protection but it’s not infallible. Explain how my statement supports your case. Better yet provide some hypothetical examples.

[Loki]

Christian,

Thanks for the links, but I think we are talking about different concepts here.

(Stimpy wrote) : We teach our children values (and directly or indirectly, the rules that uphold them [morality]). By doing this, we contribute to the welfare of society as a whole because, even when no one is looking, they will act accordingly. Even if there are no external rewards or punishments, they will act morally because acting in accordance to their values, will be internally satisfactory (they will derive pleasure). Doing the right thing (acting according to one’s values) is a source of pleasure and satisfaction.

(Christian wrote) : This model does not work. It’s an utopia. There is overwhelming evidence that people don’t do the right thing when no one is looking (if it is in their best interest not to).

You seem to be saying (via the links) that it's cleary true that all people, in the absence of some strong external framework, will apply the principle "what's good for me is right, and to hell with the rest of you".

What I am saying (building on what I think Stimpy was saying) is that *if* a person is raised with an external framework that teaches the necessity for morals, and the rewards that come from such behaviour, then these people will be moral more often than not.

I'd suggest that your links fail to establish your case on 5 different grounds :

1. There is little or non discussion of the "moral upbringing" of the people in each of these situations. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions about "how effective" various moral systems might be. Unless you are trying to say "see - every case I find is the same outcome. Therefor we can tentatively conclude the 'moral input' is irrelevant".

2. The links do not so in any way that the overwhelming majority of people behave poorly. If anything, in each case it seems to showing that a small number of people engaged in immoral behaviour can have a large effect on the majority of people. Witness the worldwide results of the actions of 19 men on September 11.


3. The links do not show that, even amongst the "lawless", that morality has collapsed totally - simply that some behaviours have become 'acceptable' to those committing them. A dealer may have little trouble selling drugs, yet still find it morally reprehensible to assualt his own daughter.

4. SHort term versus - long term outcomes. Even if someone acts immorally, they may seek at some stage in the future to 'make amends', because they know they acted incorrectly. The links say nothing about any tendency for people to seek to correct an error.

5. The links you have chosen seem to be examples of "extreme" environments in which people suddenly find themselves.

In particular, the lack of suitable law enforcement seems a common theme.

Is this your point, then? That if we take a 'normal/moral' person and place them into a dog-eat-dog situation then they start behaving like ... well, a dog? See #2 above - I'm not prepared to concede this point on the evidence you've presented so far.

Some? Yes.

All? No.

Yet even if I agree with this point, it's not really what is being presented to you. What is being proposed is "how and why would a normal/moral person behave in a well constructed society?". If you want to discuss "how people behave in situations where society is in turmoil?" then I suggest we better start another thread.

Now, from your links ...
...as once stringent Maoist discipline has withered, and often been replaced by an economic free-for-all that is devoid of public cohesion or shared ideals.
The first link clearly lays the blame for the breakdown in behaviour on a lost of social cohesion.

Violence, riot, and terrorism have become a part of South Asian landscape in the recent past. Some of these acts of violence are rooted in sectarian conflicts, such as the Sunni-Shia fights. Literally thousands of lives have been wasted in such trivial 'causes' in Pakistan.
The second lays the blame for much of the violence on religious in-fighting.

While I agree that lawlessness in Russia goes to the heart of that country's problems. I do not think blaming it all on the true nature of communism, or abstractions like a denial of universal morality, account for the depth of the lawlessness pervading contemporary Russian society.
...
is well-established that the notion of reciprocal obligation was much less developed in Russia under the Czars than in the West. Consequently, common law (and the cultural norms that flow out of it, like respect for the individual or property rights and, ultimately, the moral ideal of representative government) never really evolved in the Russian culture.

To be sure, Communism extended and deepened the arbitrary character of Russian "law," and many observers, like the Mr. Satter, are now blaming the current lawlessness in Russia on the amoral legacy of communism. But this view, while partially true, vastly oversimplifies and misses the extent to which a culture is synthesized out of a much richer variety of historical threads.
This link lists'amorally' as a factor in lawlessness, but places it within a larger pciture of a society in which such concerns were not part of the fabric.

The current climate of lawlessness in Chechnya, Andersen said, follows from a long-standing failure by Russian authorities to bring abusive forces to justice.
The lawlessness exists because the law is not working. Okay!

Royce called on all concerned parties in the Zimbabwean conflict to deal decisively with President Mugabe.

"Within all civil society, even within the party in power and opposition parties, there is going to be the realisation that Mugabe needs to go and the rule of law needs to return,"
A small ruling elite has usruped the rule of law for their own purposes. This in no way suggests that the vast majority of Zimbabweans have become immoral.

...one explanation we’re not likely to hear is this: Enron happened because America’s two-party duopoly has fostered a culture of impunity in business and politics, rather than a culture of accountability.
Enron happened because the culture of the ruling elite encouraged it.

The idea that we will act always in our best interest is inherent in microeconomic theory.
Despite the fact that you want to use a theory of economics as if it was a fact, even if we assume this to be true, it isn't the full story. From the economic link...

"Smith argues that the individual's pursuit of self-interest would lead to an outcome beneficial to all, whereas Marx argued that the pursuit of self-interest would lead to anarchy, crisis, and the dissolution of the private property-based system itself. . . . Smith spoke of the invisible hand guiding individual, self-interested agents to perform those actions that would be, despite their lack of concern for such an outcome, socially optimal;
"beneficial to all". Smith claims that acting in your own economic self interest is also acting in a way that is beneficial to all. This is disputed by other economists ( gather), but if true it simply shows again that the individual's benefit and societies benefit are linked.

(loki wrote) : Can you offer some evidence where the people who "did the wrong thing when no one was looking" were shown to be " atheists who were taught their morals as children"?

(christian wrote) : No.
Okay, so you have no *direct* evidence.

)loki wrote) : The general looting and ransacking of the hospitals in Iraq immediately after the fall of Saddam - gosh, isn't that a theist state? How come this god fearing people were'nt kept in line by the invisible eye that always watches, and judges accordingly?

(christian wrote) :
[atheist hat on]

Because there is no God. And it only demonstrates that morality is useless.

[atheist hat off]
Okay, now try answering with your theist hat on.