Where does atheist morality come from?

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I'd argue that there are plenty of arguments in the Bible against slavery, so if some are cherry-picking parts of it while ignoring the whole then that's on them.

And yet slavery was supported by Bible followers. 

If that book can be used to support and deny slavery, just think what other things it can be used to support or deny, based on the wants of the individual? How can it be a moral guide if that’s possible?

[Night FM]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

And yet slavery was supported by Bible followers. 

If that book can be used to support and deny slavery, just think what other things it can be used to support or deny, based on the wants of the individual? How can it be a moral guide if that’s possible?

Not sure. How can evolution be used to support Nazism and social Darwinism?

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Night FM said:

How can evolution be used to support Nazism and social Darwinism?

Evolution is a mechanism by which genes get selected. It is not being posited as a source of morality (though I did previously provide you with a potential mechanism that morality gets selected for in local contexts). 

Evolution happens. It is true. It is established fact. The Bible is a collection of allegories. You may as well be comparing bananas and staplers. 

6 hours ago, Night FM said:

That's basically a conspiracy theory.

Suggesting that the intent behind rules being propagated by religions is rather often a desire for power and control is most decidedly NOT a conspiracy theory. 

[exchemist]

13 hours ago, Night FM said:

 

There's nothing within Christianity or the Bible that says similar principles can't exist elsewhere. If anything the ubiquitous of them argues in favor of them being universal. Likewise, the Bible says that sin is "common to man", so I'd argue this further substantiates the idea of universal principles of right and wrong behavior.

And while I'm not an expert on Buddhism, whether or not it specifically invokes a God, it more or less argues in favor of ultimate truths about how people should or shouldn't behave.

Right, but there are examples of social groups (e.x. drug cartels) who have little to no respect for these rules, and this type of behavior would be easier to justify by holding a purely materialist worldview. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that "most people don't" commit extremely atrocious crimes, but, in theory, they could justify doing so much easier from a particular worldview.

OK but then I'm not sure what you are now arguing. If you accept there are "universal principles" that Mankind tends to observe regardless of religion then they would also tend to be observed by those, such as Buddhists or atheists, who do not believe in a God or gods.  

To your second point, a drug cartel is not really a "social group".  However there is indeed evidence that religion has a role to play in reducing crime. This 2014 study for instance, showed a significant beneficial effect of religion on youth crime: https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/41333/chapter/352355230?login=false

I quote the 1st para of the Conclusion:

This chapter provides evidence that religious influences are consequential in crime reduction. The vast majority of studies reviewed document the importance of religious influences in protecting youth from harmful outcomes as well as promoting beneficial and prosocial outcomes. The beneficial relationship between religion and crime reduction is not simply a function of religion’s constraining function or what it discourages (e.g., opposing drug use or delinquent behavior) but also a matter of what it encourages (e.g., promoting prosocial behaviors).

 

 

Edited October 12 by exchemist

[MSC]

On 10/10/2024 at 9:02 PM, iNow said:

It doesn’t need to since norms and mores are context / group dependent.

Exactly; secular ethical norms can be derived from biology, physiology and physics. Commonalities within the context of our existence as living beings on a wacky rock hurtling through space that could fly into another rock and end it all at any point. 

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Suggesting that the intent behind rules being propagated by religions is rather often a desire for power and control is most decidedly NOT a conspiracy theory. 

That's literally humans MO in everything they do most of the time so definitely not a conspiracy theory imo. 

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

This chapter provides evidence that religious influences are consequential in crime reduction. The vast majority of studies reviewed document the importance of religious influences in protecting youth from harmful outcomes as well as promoting beneficial and prosocial outcomes. The beneficial relationship between religion and crime reduction is not simply a function of religion’s constraining function or what it discourages (e.g., opposing drug use or delinquent behavior) but also a matter of what it encourages (e.g., promoting prosocial behaviors

Promoting prosocial behaviors, modeling good behavior, protecting from need desperation, educating in a framework for how to think about right and wrong; these are the things at the heart of effective crime reduction strategies. Some prisons have reduced recidivism with philosophy and ethics courses for inmates. 

I wouldn't say it is the religious influences specifically but whether or not those influences contain what I mentioned above, as it isn't hard to find religious influences where none of that happened and youth were taken advantage of and abused instead of helped. Some churches and religious groups do amazing work but others are no better than the gangs themselves. 

[exchemist]

45 minutes ago, MSC said:

Exactly; secular ethical norms can be derived from biology, physiology and physics. Commonalities within the context of our existence as living beings on a wacky rock hurtling through space that could fly into another rock and end it all at any point. 

That's literally humans MO in everything they do most of the time so definitely not a conspiracy theory imo. 

Promoting prosocial behaviors, modeling good behavior, protecting from need desperation, educating in a framework for how to think about right and wrong; these are the things at the heart of effective crime reduction strategies. Some prisons have reduced recidivism with philosophy and ethics courses for inmates. 

I wouldn't say it is the religious influences specifically but whether or not those influences contain what I mentioned above, as it isn't hard to find religious influences where none of that happened and youth were taken advantage of and abused instead of helped. Some churches and religious groups do amazing work but others are no better than the gangs themselves. 

Oh indeed. I suspect the point here is that religion offers a way to appeal to the better nature of these youths, guiding them towards prosocial attitudes and behaviour, in a way they probably find fairly natural and acceptable, culturally.

Some people think religious teaching is all about forbidding things and retribution, but of course it isn't at all like that really. 

 

 

[dimreepr]

52 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Oh indeed. I suspect the point here is that religion offers a way to appeal to the better nature of these youths, guiding them towards prosocial attitudes and behaviour, in a way they probably find fairly natural and acceptable, culturally.

Some people think religious teaching is all about forbidding things and retribution, but of course it isn't at all like that really. 

 

 

Indeed +1

But we also have to acknowledge that morality is a subset of ethics and we have to accept that nihilism, without a god type brake, can eat into a reasonable societal law...

[LuckyR]

The idea that an Iron Age text contains valuable wisdom that isn't common knowledge in the Modern era, is sentimentality masquerading as logic. One can point to prohibitions on murder in said text, but it's not required. What about not eating pork? Is that important? Not shaving your beard? Important?

 

Would anyone currently use Iron Age medical practices? Or Iron Age marital advice?

[iNow]

5 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Would anyone currently use Iron Age medical practices? Or Iron Age marital advice?

I wouldn’t even use Iron Age iron. Our smelting and forging processes are far superior today. 

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, LuckyR said:

The idea that an Iron Age text contains valuable wisdom that isn't common knowledge in the Modern era, is sentimentality masquerading as logic. One can point to prohibitions on murder in said text, but it's not required. What about not eating pork? Is that important? Not shaving your beard? Important?

 

Would anyone currently use Iron Age medical practices? Or Iron Age marital advice?

Well I suppose the Roman Empire at the time of Christ could be said to be an Iron Age civilisation, but I think the term is generally restricted to pre-history, i.e. before there were written records. 

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, LuckyR said:

The idea that an Iron Age text contains valuable wisdom that isn't common knowledge in the Modern era, is sentimentality masquerading as logic. One can point to prohibitions on murder in said text, but it's not required. What about not eating pork? Is that important? Not shaving your beard? Important?

Two things can be true at once...

[LuckyR]

9 hours ago, exchemist said:

Well I suppose the Roman Empire at the time of Christ could be said to be an Iron Age civilisation, but I think the term is generally restricted to pre-history, i.e. before there were written records. 

Well the Old Testament is generally felt to have been written from about 1200 BCE to 165 BCE, which is during the Iron Age (1200 BCE to 539 BCE). 

10 hours ago, iNow said:

I wouldn’t even use Iron Age iron. Our smelting and forging processes are far superior today. 

Exactly. 

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Well the Old Testament is generally felt to have been written from about 1200 BCE to 165 BCE, which is during the Iron Age (1200 BCE to 539 BCE). 

 

But Christians are not Jews. Christianity is defined by the New Testament, put together between 50 and 100AD or thereabouts.  

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Well the Old Testament is generally felt to have been written from about 1200 BCE to 165 BCE, which is during the Iron Age (1200 BCE to 539 BCE). 

Exactly. 

What makes you think that we're smarter than them?

We haven't evolved a greater intelligence, all we've done is evolve our understanding, based on their's; don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... 😉

[J.C.MacSwell]

I'm not sure we are any more "moral" than many of the ancients that developed our religions. We just have more information to point at where they erred in some of their assumptions in the narratives they used to get their ideas across.

I suspect most had a moral compass prior to the establishment of any current religion...and I suspect most bent it a bit when it suited them...

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not sure we are any more "moral" than many of the ancients that developed our religions. We just have more information to point at where they erred in some of their assumptions in the narratives they used to get their ideas across.

I suspect most had a moral compass prior to the establishment of any current religion...and I suspect most bent it a bit when it suited them...

Indeed, when all things are considered and both sides of the equation are cancelled out, what remains are the politics...

[LuckyR]

On 10/14/2024 at 5:19 AM, dimreepr said:

What makes you think that we're smarter than them?

We haven't evolved a greater intelligence, all we've done is evolve our understanding, based on their's; don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... 😉

Humans aren't inherently "smarter", but we're currently way more experienced, with a knowledge base orders of magnitude greater in size.

Edited October 16 by LuckyR

[Sensei]

I learned that thousands of priests in Russia, thousands of imams in Muslim states and thousands of rabbis in Israel pray for the victory of their own country and the death of people from the opposite side. They pray for prosperity for their country, and everything bad for their opponents.  Where is their "morality"? Where is their "religiosity"?

 

ps. If everything is fine in neighboring countries, it's also better in your country because you don't have immigrants and/or expatriates in the country in a large quantity. So in order to solve the "immigrant problem" you don't "build a wall" you just build them factories etc. etc. and employ them in them while they are still in their home country..

Edited October 16 by Sensei

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Humans aren't inherently "smarter", but we're currently way more experienced, with a knowledge base orders of magnitude greater in size.

Who is this 'we' of which you speak?

I have a smartphone and google is my friend, but I've no idea how it 'all' work's, I'm not part of the 'we' that created it; it's just part of the culture that I've grown up in.

How does this knowledge base, increase our awareness of morality?  

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

I learned that thousands of priests in Russia, thousands of imams in Muslim states and thousands of rabbis in Israel pray for the victory of their own country and the death of people from the opposite side. They pray for prosperity for their country, and everything bad for their opponents.  Where is their "morality"? Where is their "religiosity"?

 

ps. If everything is fine in neighboring countries, it's also better in your country because you don't have immigrants and/or expatriates in the country in a large quantity. So in order to solve the "immigrant problem" you don't "build a wall" you just build them factories etc. etc. and employ them in them while they are still in their home country..

You're conflating human nature with a particular culture, that's just politics.

The problem with politics is, it can only improve at the speed of our slowest member... 

[Night FM]

On 10/11/2024 at 10:59 PM, iNow said:

Evolution is a mechanism by which genes get selected. It is not being posited as a source of morality (though I did previously provide you with a potential mechanism that morality gets selected for in local contexts). 

Evolution happens. It is true. It is established fact. The Bible is a collection of allegories. You may as well be comparing bananas and staplers. 

Suggesting that the intent behind rules being propagated by religions is rather often a desire for power and control is most decidedly NOT a conspiracy theory. 

Then that would be no different than with any legal system. And if you told me that the reason that laws exist against murder is due to a secret cabal desiring power and control, rather than the observable harm that murder causes, I would think that's absurd.

The reality is that systems of social control exist in day-to-day life, whether they come from a "religion" or from secular laws and institutions, and I see no practical difference beyond what the laws and rules themselves might be. (I would agree that a law requiring people to attend Catholic mass would be different than a law against murder).

Edited October 19 by Night FM

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Then that would be no different than with any legal system. And if you told me that the reason that laws exist against murder is due to a secret cabal desiring power and control, rather than the observable harm that murder causes, I would think that's absurd.

Nobody has said that, so this is moot. 

48 minutes ago, Night FM said:

The reality is that systems of social control exist in day-to-day life, whether they come from a "religion" or from secular laws and institutions, and I see no practical difference beyond what the laws and rules themselves might be. (I would agree that a law requiring people to attend Catholic mass would be different than a law against murder).

Focusing on murder, or any other generally recognized harmful behavior, misses the point (and you’re the only one bringing it up). Outlawing/forbidding such actions lends legitimacy to the power structure. It’s other behaviors you need to focus on - ones without a secular purpose, or aren’t for the general good. If you can’t identify them, perhaps you should ask, rather than being obtuse.

The claim that there is a desire for power and control does not mean that every single rule is furthering that goal. 

[KJW]

Only a few minutes ago, I came across this YouTube video titled:

Are Atheists more Moral than Religious People? Here are the Facts | Phil Zuckerman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiCqJ_rF384

The conclusion is quite stark: over several issues, secular people are consistently more moral than religious people. An interesting example is animal rights. Because of a belief in evolution, secular people tend to regard humans as connected to other species, whereas religious people tend to regard humans as disconnected from other species and are therefore less likely to support animal rights.

The video also said that democracy is a secular concept, and that the notion of democracy does not exist in any religion or religious text.

 

Edited October 19 by KJW

[Peterkin]

On 10/10/2024 at 9:14 PM, Night FM said:

No, I made it pretty simple. A person could create a law against eating chocolate ice cream just as they could create a law against murder.

Only if that person were a dictator. That's personal whim. When a society makes laws, there has to be broad consensus, at least among the top three tiers. Otherwise the law cannot be enforced.

Of course, priesthoods can also make up laws - usually against things people can't help, so they'll always be guilty of something, and keep buying the indulgences, or equivalent in penance.  They've certainly made up enough rules the breaking of which expressly demands a death penalty - like stoning; that's a religious crowd-pleaser.

 

On 10/11/2024 at 5:48 PM, Night FM said:

I'd argue that there are plenty of arguments in the Bible against slavery, so if some are cherry-picking parts of it while ignoring the whole then that's on them.

Please cite three of them. If I recall correctly, even Paul, who came along later and got appended to the NT, had no objection to slavery, which was common practice in Rome. While you're at it, show where the Bible forbids rape, incest, pandering and genocide.

Edited October 19 by Peterkin

[iNow]

12 hours ago, Night FM said:

I see no practical difference beyond what the laws and rules themselves might be

Thankfully you’re personal incredulity has no relevance here.

[LuckyR]

On 10/16/2024 at 4:51 AM, dimreepr said:

Who is this 'we' of which you speak?

I have a smartphone and google is my friend, but I've no idea how it 'all' work's, I'm not part of the 'we' that created it; it's just part of the culture that I've grown up in.

How does this knowledge base, increase our awareness of morality?  

You're conflating human nature with a particular culture, that's just politics.

The problem with politics is, it can only improve at the speed of our slowest member... 

Who is the "we"? Well it could be you, do you believe in bacteria? Do you think lightning is caused by angry gods? 

 

Do you believe that prisoners of war should be executed? I think you're probably morally superior.