It's quite interesting to see an atheist and a theist taking the opposite roles to what I usually see! Well, sort of, Louis' question does hang a bit of a question mark over whether that is really what is happening. Regardless...

For Louis: this idea that morality 'exists' and humans discovered it sounds like reification of the concept. I consider morality to be merely a label for an aspect of human (or perhaps sentient) behaviour. Discard the label for the moment - what does it describe? The interaction between these beings, and how one's behaviour affects another's, etc. If this (or something close) is the case, then how would this concept 'exist' without the beings that exhibit the behaviour?


Perhaps you are just using 'exists' in a way I'm not understanding.

Louis,

I'm also curious about your idea of morality. How do you know what is right from wrong; is it something you know intuitively, since you can't check it with a religious text? And how would you like to teach children about this morality, assuming you would, or even need to?

He probably does it in a similar way religious people do when the answer is not in their text or given to them by God...

I am arguing that without God there cannot be a universal moral standard.

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. What I am doing is presenting the evolutionary model, which you presumably accept, and taking out God from the design. What we are left with is an unguided process which is not based on a moral standard, but instead, produced what we perceive as a moral standard.

life is awesome

explain to me what meaning you would have in a suffering life ending in a painful death

how do we get a universal moral standard with God?

it seems to me that we have millions of different moral standards supposedly from God

So if you can't see the meaning, there is none? No wonder you argue nihilism.

He said he would find meaning in that scenario. I"m asking him what that meaning would be. I think you're reading into my post a little bit.

You're meaning would be "life is awesome?" OK then.

I can console myself that this isn't all there is.

Lack of consensus does not negate a standard.

"One must imagine Sun Tzu happy."

let's suppose for the sake of argument that there is some kind of absolute moral code created by the creator of the universe

how do we find out what it is?

if you're(sic) next response to me isn't an answer to my question (the same one you asked me), don't bother making it

I think the source of the main disagreements in this thread can be summarised as follows:

(1) Some believe that you need a universal or objective standard of morality.
(2) Some believe that you don't need a universal or objective standard of morality.
(3) Some (like myself) believe that it is irrelevant and unimportant whether there is a universal/objective standard of morality, or whether it is entirely subjective (with some common threads inside that subjectivity).

Social science shows us that whether or not you believe in an absolute/objective code of ethics, has no significant bearing on your actual ethical behaviour. The whole discussion on the issue is largely wasteful when considered in conjunction with the available evidence.

What matters, and what's worthy of more discussion instead: the methodology, theory and/or philosophy used to derive agreed-upon moral truths. Whether you start with the assumption of objective morality or the assumption of subjective morality - for deriving such truths - is also irrelevant. It is the quality of the methodology that matters.

I don't understand you. I think it's pretty clear what my meaning would be since I'm a religious person. Do you want me to explain my religion to you?

All you have said is "life is awesome" and you want me to not think you're a nihilist. And you seem to like correcting people's grammar, and bossing people around in general, which makes me not want to take you seriously.

First of all studies can't prove that. At some point we have to rely on our judgement and common sense. Social "science" studies can pretty much be altered to prove what the researcher wants to prove. There's a term for it, I can't remember right now, where one of these tests always leaves room for a different conclusion. There is always a lack of sufficient data to prove the specific conclusion desired.

And even if it shows up on a macro level, it doesn't apply to the micro level. An individual can easily change his behavior based on his beliefs. I do it all the time. To take another example, Gandhi believed in nonviolent resistance. He was heavily influenced by Tolstoy who was influenced by his reading of Jesus. Saying that his belief in this moral law of nonresistance didn't drastically change his own choices which in turn changed the fate of an entire nation is ludicrous.

Please avoid talking about social science findings in future discussions, if possible.

Your lack of understanding on the topic is highly insulting to those (like myself) whose career is based on evidence-based decision-making.

You can't get your point across through censorship.

I'm not trying to insult you; I didn't know that was your career. I'm not saying there's no value in studies. But if you work in that field, you probably know what I'm talking about.

I know that you're erroneously generalizing all social science as 'bad social science' and all social scientists as 'bad scientists'.

Knowing that is enough to know you know little to nothing about social science.

That's not what I'm trying to do.

I took a course in the philosophy of science years ago, and I remember a term for something where a study always leaves room for reinterpretation. That's all I'm saying.

That's not all you're saying:
Firstly, you're saying that no kind of study design can provide sufficient evidence to test the theory about the normative and behavioural roles of: belief in objective morality.

Secondly, you're generalizing all social science and all social scientists as 'bad'; as if good social science never controls for bias. In fact, most good science is based, not on proving something, but on disproving something. Even better science is based on letting the evidence speak for itself.

This is a bit long (over an hour and a half) but given the topic I thought I'd link it. I've only watched about a half an hour, nothing really new but it seems to be covering a lot of ground so far:


Garret Merriam: If there is a God, Anything is Permissible
Dr. Garret Merriam, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern Indiana, is taking the famous line from Dostoevsky, "If there is no God, then anything is permissible," and turning it on its head. He is arguing that if God and all his trappings, as traditionally conceived of by mainstream Christianity, are real, then our traditional moral values are in deep trouble. In short, if we accept that God is real, then we have to abandon our basic moral ideas. Anything would be permissible.

Weren't you the one saying I needed thicker skin? Can you link to the study you were talking about?

I'm not a professor so I'm not an expert in the field, no. But yes, I do not believe a study can conclusively show that people do not alter their behavior based on their beliefs. I have personal first hand knowledge contradicting that, and I trust my own intuition over some study. No offense.

It was never claimed that people do not alter their behaviour based on their beliefs (in general). Some beliefs have a significant influence on your behaviour (e.g., locus of control) and some don't (e.g., belief in absolute/objective morality).

The claim was solely regarding the single belief - in objective/absolute morality.

And yes, you can take a look at the evidence in any study on the effect of religiosity (proxy for belief in absolute morality) on ethical behaviour. Alternatively there are more specific studies on the effects of ethical ideology on ethical behaviour. In neither of those two groups of studies, does belief in objective morality have a significant influence. Here is an example of one, of many.

As for your 'intuition'. If it's worked for you well so far, keep it up. Just try not to dismiss opposing evidence, as if everyone involved in its analysis and interpretation is uniformly incompetent, or biased.

I'm not interested in arguing about how or whether there can be meaning without God. That's not interesting to me at all.

What I want to know is how God adds meaning. I don't think it's reasonable to accuse me of being bossy because I told you to stop dodging. I'm just letting you know if you want to have a discussion with me, you're going to have to do it in good faith.

So despite there being nothing that suggests this world was created, rather than just happened.. you believe anyway??

And yes all my questions are genuine, I'm interested in theists beliefs and reasons for having them.. I'm not going to go abd spend several hours reading a book on your say so though... I asked you