Why an absence of God ≠ Hell in a hand basket.

This isn't deep philosophy by any means, it is just a response that has been formulating in my head to some recent conversations I have been having with very ordinary and friendly theists.

I've come across a view that stems from the assumed existential state of morality in a universe without God that I am sure some of you are familiar with. It is similar to the typical argument from morality and it goes something like this:

(1) If God does not exist then absolute moral values do not exist
(2) If absolute moral values do not exist then the world will become one big murderous glory-hole
(3) I don't want to be murdered or sodomized!! Do you?!
(4) Glory Jee to Besus! with God in the picture we don't have to!!
God is in the picture!!!!!

Clearly this argument isn't valid, and if there are questions of soundness in regards to William Lane Craig's more sophisticated version, then there are questions of soundness with this one. None the less it is such a commonly followed and seductive string of illogic for so many theists that I thought a response was in order.

The first observation is that if the theist is really imagining a purely material universe, they are not only required to remove God from the equation, but are also required to do away with any notion of Satan. If there is no divinely inspired good in the universe then there is equally and necessarily no divinely inspired evil. The only reason that the theist would characterize human nature in such a way that would make all forms of debauchery, vileness, and debasement the necessary consequent of a universe without God, is if they don't acknowledge that the reason humans are thought to have an overwhelming impulse towards depravity is directly a result of doctrines about evil which say we are born slaves to a sinful nature.

The second observation is that once we have a more appropriate view of the material universe, uninfluenced by God or Satan, one can rightfully say there is no reason that creatures in that universe would have a greater tendency to commit acts of “evil” then they would acts of “good”. And in fact, arguments from biological evolution, and natural selection would show that creatures whose tendency is towards “evil” are not favored by the natural selection process.

So in light of the absence of doctrines that ascribe depravity to mankind, and in light of absence of biological evidence that creatures have a greater propensity towards “evil” than they do “good”, it is safe to say that absence of God ≠ Hell in a hand basket.

Lol...no play in your thread Ace.

Thats to bad because its a good post.

You should have created a new thread titled, "If God does not exist then absolute moral values do not exist". Then we would argue forms of morality. We would name different philosophers, such as Kant. Then it would become a dichotomous debate between regulars. That's why there is no serious interest in this thread.

no

That was a vary helpful post.

That thread already exists. If I wanted to have that conversation, I would simply add my thoughts there.

I acknowledged that it wasn't deep philosophy, but a simple response to an argument of which I am sure many atheists come across regularly, if no one wants to respond to it, that is perfectly acceptable.

Well your thread sucks, because we don't know the secret question to your thread wall.

Well there you go, and spoken like someone who is intimately familiar with the sucking process.

If people really believe that we evolved from lower primates to the highest form of life on this planet, all the while living in groups and packs, eventually creating civilisations, kingdoms and dynasties but it was only when Moses came down from Mount Sinai that we learned that it was morally wrong to kill, rape and steal then they better take a look at themselves.

The monotheistic idea that human beings can only do good through fear of punishment is one of the most disgusting elements of religion imo.

Typical atheist shtick.

Reading atheist propaganda much?

Try studying the evolution of the brain. Most early mindsets like the minds of young children are fear based.

The bible though breaks this mind mold. In it the bible relates God saying "be not afraid 389 times."

So try to get over all the atheist confusion that in its senseless attack on religion overcredits fearmongering to the bible.

It was a state of the human condition and human minds long before any religious texts mentioned the word fear.

Have you ever heard of anxiety disorders? They didn't come from religious texts. They have a physical origin that proceeded the bible by quite a good bit.

Instead of blaming religion for fear all the time give credit to evolution.

Quote:

The experience of fear is affected by historical and cultural influences. For example, in the early 20th century, many Americans feared polio, a disease that cripples the body part it affects, leaving that body part immobilized for the rest of one's life. There are also consistent cross-cultural differences in how people respond to fear. Display rules affect how likely people are to show the facial expression of fear and other emotions.

Although fear is learned, the capacity to fear is part of human nature. Many studies have found that certain fears (e.g. animals, heights) are much more common than others (e.g. flowers, clouds). These fears are also easier to induce in the laboratory. This phenomenon is known as preparedness. Because early humans that were quick to fear dangerous situations were more likely to survive and reproduce, preparedness is theorized to be a genetic effect that is the result of natural selection.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, different fears may be different adaptations that have been useful in our evolutionary past. They may have developed during different time periods. Some fears, such as fear of heights, may be common to all mammals and developed during the mesozoic period. Other fears, such as fear of snakes, may be common to all simians and developed during the cenozoic time period. Still others, such as fear of mice and insects, may be unique to humans and developed during the paleolithic and neolithic time periods (when mice and insects become important carriers of infectious diseases and harmful for crops and stored foods).[7]

Fear is high only if the observed risk and seriousness both are high and is low if one or the other of the seen risk or seriousness is low.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear

Splendour you haven't addressed a single word of the post you're replying to.

I think this argument is actually very simplistic and we all can identify with it.

If morals are objective someone/something must set that standard.

If not....is objective morality illusory?

This thread is good because it discusses why theistic arguments like this are wrong.
I agree with ace's argument, and think yours doesn't add anything.

By taking premise 1 as valid, ace manages to attack premise 2, which doesn't normally get done when considering the more relevant (to atheist's) premise of 1.
Premise 1 if true affects atheists; but its truth is contentious
Premise 2 doesn't affect atheists; as for them it is already proven false by the world they live in. That is why I think it gets a free ride in comparison

This


If you want me to believe that fear is an evolved emotion for our own goodwill then you are preaching to the converted but that has absolutely nothing to do with the my post.

Want another go?

No I'm happy at showing the self contradiction implicit in blaming everything on religion.

No need to go further.