"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[David E]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

There are plenty philosophers who deduce what is a priori good, without evoking God. I don't think Buddhism requires a God, but suggests as good the absence of suffering. I think one can understand suffering and it's aleviation as a basis for morality that transcends the concept of God.

Yes, I specifically mentioned Buddhism as an example of a value system that produces good results in modern times. But it is a religion. That’s one of the reasons I referred several times to “non-religious” (as opposed to "athiest") folk in my original post.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Of course, as a rational hedonist, I'd also say that ultimately what feels good is the basis for most morality anyway - it's just easier to justify when you say you were only following (divine) orders (like killing the godless infidels)

That may be hedonistic, but its certainly not rational: I was talking about what is good and you wrote "what feels good" as being the basis for most morality. Big difference; they are almost always the opposite! Examples: 1) Tagging feels good, but is not good. 2) Stealing something when no one is looking feels good and is easier than working for it but is not good. (In fact, many thieves steel not for gain, but because it does feel good to them.) 3) Heroin feels good, but is not good.

Morality is about doing the right thing which is usually the harder choice. As far as your comment about killing infidels, I don't think anyone can say the suicide bomber is motivated by it it feeling good, in fact it feels quite bad, but in his mind it is doing good.

I see a few comments from others too who maybe got confused by what I wrote: I didn’t say “what feels good”, I wrote that I fear “what each person feels is good”, which the suicide bomber is an example of.

[David E]

Without that, we are back to whatever each person feels is good.

Originally Posted by Alex

Yes, we are. And there's nothing wrong with that.

You don't think there's anything wrong with murder as long as the murderer feels he is doing good? I don't know if you read my original post, but I gave 3 examples of this (Mao, Jim Jones, suicide bombers).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by David E

You don't think there's anything wrong with murder as long as the murderer feels he is doing good? I don't know if you read my original post, but I gave 3 examples of this (Mao, Jim Jones, suicide bombers).

You're confusing atheism (or non-religiousness or whatever) with anarchy.

Yes, he does think there's something wrong with murder. And so do most people, regardless of the existence of god. It doesn't require a belief in god to come to the conclusion that acceptance of murder is a bad thing.

What he doesn't think there's anything wrong with is leaving it up to a reasonable social dialog to determine what is and isn't acceptable rather than relying on some external source of morality.

[lizziebith]

Originally Posted by David E

In fact, many thieves steel [sic] not for gain, but because it does feel good to them.

PPOR

[Ghoulish Delight]

Though I should add that € I'm sure will make a convincing argument for anarchy also.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by David E

Without that, we are back to whatever each person feels is good.

No we're not. Or rather, of course we are but that has little to do with morality at the societal level. And societal morality has little to do with morality at the individual level.

You don't think there's anything wrong with murder as long as the murderer feels he is doing good? I don't know if you read my original post, but I gave 3 examples of this (Mao, Jim Jones, suicide bombers).

Of course I think there is something wrong with it, but my thinking that does not make it objectively wrong (and it obviously has no influence on the personal morality of the murderer; we'll ignore the fact that most murderers consider what they do immoral even if they derive some pleasure or other benefit from it).

The definition of murder is surprisingly fluid over time and place. The social contract can exist in the absence of an absolute universal morality. In my opinion, it does.

As I said earlier, religion did not create morality, it just claimed credit for it and generally just claims credit for whichever morality is in current vogue (or maybe current vogue minue 30 years).

Also, of your three examples, I don't really have a problem with Jim Jones. Well, I have a problem with the congressional assassination but not really with the mass suicide part. Death is a perfectly acceptable choice, and if others are willing to join you in it then I'm ok with that.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by David E

That may be hedonistic, but its certainly not rational: I was talking about what is good and you wrote "what feels good" as being the basis for most morality. Big difference; they are almost always the opposite! Examples: 1) Tagging feels good, but is not good. 2) Stealing something when no one is looking feels good and is easier than working for it but is not good. (In fact, many thieves steel not for gain, but because it does feel good to them.) 3) Heroin feels good, but is not good.

Things are not done in a vacuum. There are consequences for doing things. Tagging, for instance - If you damage my property, I might kick your ass, or call the law and have them kick your ass. I like having property, as it makes me feel good, and has nothing to do with the existence of a God. If you make me feel ungood by messing with it, I will make you feel ungood too, thereby making tagging NOT feel good to you. Societal pressures are just as valid as internal pressures. This works again for stealing.

As for heroin, well, there are plenty of ex-addicts who will tell you that heroin is not good, that they do not want to be the people they become when they are on it.

Here is a nice god-independent lesson I learned as a kid. Butterscotch candy made me happy. One Halloween, it seemed every other house was giving it out. When I got home, I took all the butterscotch and put it in a big pile, and then ate one after the other after the other. Needless to say, after 15 or so I felt ill. It took me a few years to look at butterscotch again, and now I can eat it - but only ONE in a sitting. One butterscotch feels good.

I see a few comments from others too who maybe got confused by what I wrote: I didn’t say “what feels good”, I wrote that I fear “what each person feels is good”, which the suicide bomber is an example of.

The suicide bomber is also a good example why learning what is right and wrong from religion isn't more intelligent than learning right and wrong from life experience and preservationist instinct.

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

You're confusing atheism (or non-religiousness or whatever) with anarchy.

From this comment and others, I think you and other folks are equating atheism and non-religiousness. They are different. For example, many practicing Jews don't believe in God but want to preserve their traditions and pass their value system to the next generation. This is what I have been advocating; not necessarily belief in God ( my reference to the Voltaire quote acknowledges that God may be man-made), but the acknowledgement that our moral frame of reference comes out of a system of thought derived from religion.

I am not sure why you bring up anarchy, none of my examples are anarchists. All of them are motivated by the belief in pretty structured ideological systems (Maoist Communism, Jones Cult, Sharia Law). But since you bring it up, I guess one could add anarchists as another example of what is worrisome to me, that is people who think they are doing what's right and good, but are not, and justify it as their personal morality. (The anarchist would probably have some notion that people should be free from government oppression, etc.)

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Yes, he does think there's something wrong with murder. And so do most people, regardless of the existence of god. It doesn't require a belief in god to come to the conclusion that acceptance of murder is a bad thing.

What I am saying is that our definition of murder comes from a Judeo-Christian value system. The ancient Greeks and the Nazis both systematically killed or euthanized deformed, retarded, or incapacitated people, but they didn't think of it as murder; in fact, it was very rational in terms of the efficient use of resources and functioning of the society as a whole.

So, now from our present day perspective, can you tell me why murdering somebody is wrong? Putting God aside, as that can't be proven or disproven, the scientific facts we know are that we humans are a biological machine that runs on electricity and our emotions are based on chemicals like endorphins, dopamine, and hormones. Humans are easy to make; so easy that there is probably getting to be too many for the amount of resources available. So, what is wrong with eliminating some?
Just because it causes suffering? That doesn’t make something wrong, lots of things cause suffering that are morally neutral.

I would really like an answer, because the only one I know of is a religious one that says that every human has a supernatural component that gives it transcendent worth, a worth that is beyond that of an animal or a rock. But it’s not rational or scientific.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

What he doesn't think there's anything wrong with is leaving it up to a reasonable social dialog to determine what is and isn't acceptable rather than relying on some external source of morality.

Our reasonable social dialog (which I am advocating) seems reasonable to you and I because we grew up with a common value system, (which is external). The Greeks and Nazis participated in a dialog that was reasonable to them too, but came up with a very different system.

[Alex]

And that's fine. I have no expectation that the social contract reached by any individual society will be the one I prefer. And our current definition of murder is not entirely that of judeo-christian tradition. For example, by many traditions abortion (as we're so loudly reminded) is murder, euthanasia (as practiced in some European countries and Oregon) is murder.

Personally, I agree that the former is not and that the latter is. Society will or will not come to match my views.

Whether you like the fluidity of morality does not change the fact that it is fluid. When enough people feel the same way and change an aspect of societal morality, religion is pretty much helpless to stop it (this is why divorce is now legal in Ireland).

As for why, without referencing god, I think murder is wrong:

I place almost no inherent value on your individual life. This is true. If we learned later today that you were dead all it would be is an interesting factoid.

But I care if you were murdered for the same reason I don't really care if 600 villagers in Africa die but do care if they all die of ebola: I don't want it to happen to me. So I'd really appreciate it if society rallied round to make sure the ebola epidemic did not spread.

This is because I very much do place an inherent value on my life. I'd really prefer it not end until I choose that it does. So, by society gathering round to condemn killing people like me, to the extent that this pressure prevents me specifically from being killed I am in favor. Selfishness is why murder is bad; if I were guaranteed to be exempted from any murdering, my opposition to it would fall precipitously (but not completely since there are other lives that I hold in some value). Continuing this to other conclusion is why drunk driving is bad (you driving drunk could hurt me) but Jim Jones convincing hundreds to kill themselves is not (if Jim Jones successfully convinces me then see the second sentence of this paragraph).

And yes, there are people who want to continue their religious culture even in the absence of god. I just think they're even more irrational than the people who actually believe the god is there and therefore think they're doing what he commanded. Avoiding bacon-wrapped asparagus because your deluded (as you now think they were if you don't believe their god exists) ancestors did is just silly*.




*And yes, for whomever might feel inclined to bring it up, I do engage in a very similar form of silliness myself. Being silly doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but it doesn't make it less silly.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by David E

What I am saying is that our definition of murder comes from a Judeo-Christian value system. The ancient Greeks and the Nazis both systematically killed or euthanized deformed, retarded, or incapacitated people, but they didn't think of it as murder; in fact, it was very rational in terms of the efficient use of resources and functioning of the society as a whole.

And Jews stoned people to death for touching a woman while she was on her period. And Christians tortured and slaughtered people because they believed a little bit differently than they did. And they didn't consider that murder. So, as Alex says, our current Judeo/Christian definition of what is right has changed to catch up to the societal definition, not the other way around. People are perfectly capable of forming and refining the social contract without religion. If anything, the inclusion of religion in the discourse slows the process down as it's a force that resists what may be necessary change.