Faith v Logic in Moral Codes

[MonDie]

There is a difference in these two 'beliefs'. Belief in god, by the usual definitions of god, can have no supporting evidence (personal experience not being evidence of anything but personal experience), while the big bang theory can theoretically be demonstrated to be untrue. The former then, is only amenable to faith, the latter is also open to empirical verification.

 

This might change depending on more subtle definitions of god, but i think most of us a using the Abrahamic model of god.

 

I bolded the statement I am directly responding to. This makes things interesting.

If faith in god's existence falls into the category of "Evidence Does Not Apply," then faith in god is in the same category as faith in moral codes. I don't think anybody here is going to argue that faith in moral codes makes a person broken.

[iNow]

I might, for there are far better reasons to be moral when existing in a social culture such as ours than merely faith alone.

[MonDie]

I might, for there are far better reasons to be moral when existing in a social culture such as ours than merely faith alone.

I think the emotional effect of guilt is the only good replacement for logically indefensible moral codes. I'll try to find some scientific information on emotion and guilt, although I doubt there's much.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[immortal]

Suppose you are in a situation where you can kill somebody with less than a 0.1% chance of being caught, but that person will probably sue you and put you in jail if you don't kill them. Kin selection probably doesn't apply since this person isn't a close relative. What else other than a logically indefensible moral code is going to stop you from killing them? That isn't what you would do, is it? If your answers are "nothing" and "no," then you would act on the basis of a logically indefensible belief. If you would act on the basis of a logically indefensible belief, you should show that the belief is not as broken as any belief in any god, or else you're...

broken.

 

Its a very good point. We try to adopt evolutionary stable strategies while playing the real world games in our interaction with the society. I see no logical reason as to what is going to stop someone from killing them. Religion teaches us that its wrong to kill even when someone is not observing you because there is always the one who is witnessing everyone's acts i.e God but this is not logically defensible. I am not saying that morals cannot exist or originate without religion or the God but evolutionary psychology fails miserably in explaining the origin of real altruistic behaviors in humans. Some suggest that by being truly altuistic it releases neurotransmitters in the brain which induces 'feel good character' in humans and such things might account for true altruism but it still doesn't undermine or overthrow religion or God as the cause of these true altruistic behaviors in humans.

 

Really what is going to stop someone from revealing his hidden animal instincts when society is not watching him or her?

[MonDie]

I didn't see that you responded to the original version of my post. I decided to think about it more before proposing a challenge. I wonder which version of my post got the green mark.

 

I see no logical reason as to what is going to stop someone from killing them. Religion teaches us that its wrong to kill even when someone is not observing you because there is always the one who is witnessing everyone's acts i.e God but this is not logically defensible. I am not saying that morals cannot exist or originate without religion or the God but evolutionary psychology fails miserably in explaining the origin of real altruistic behaviors in humans. Some suggest that by being truly altuistic it releases neurotransmitters in the brain which induces 'feel good character' in humans and such things might account for true altruism but it still doesn't undermine or overthrow religion or God as the cause of these true altruistic behaviors in humans.

 

Really what is going to stop someone from revealing his hidden animal instincts when society is not watching him or her?

There is someone that is always watching what you do. That person is you. You don't need God to be watching you because you are capable of thinking. In addition, it's technically not altruism if they are only acting altruistically to appease an enforcer of some rules, real or imaginary.

 

The real problem arises from what I explained earlier and will explain again. Both belief in god and belief in moral codes lack evidence, but moral codes seem to be exempt from the requirement of evidence. However, if there are some beliefs in gods that are exempt from the requirement of evidence, how can we say that such believers are any less broken than those who believe in moral codes?

I am hoping Prometheus can support my argument by explaining the reasoning behind this statement:

There is a difference in these two 'beliefs'. Belief in god, by the usual definitions of god, can have no supporting evidence (personal experience not being evidence of anything but personal experience)

Edited June 16, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Iggy]

The real problem arises from what I explained earlier and will explain again. Both belief in god and belief in moral codes lack evidence, but moral codes seem to be exempt from the requirement of evidence. However, if there are some beliefs in gods that are exempt from the requirement of evidence, how can we say that such believers are any less broken than those who believe in moral codes?

If a moral code can't be objectively judged by evidence then I wouldn't think it is a moral code. A good health code prevents sickness. A good criminal code controls crime. They can be judged by their effectiveness.

 

Does anarchy benefit society? Does nihilism advance the species? In so far as humanity has an objective ability to judge evidence we can answer questions like these.

[MonDie]

If a moral code can't be objectively judged by evidence then I wouldn't think it is a moral code. A good health code prevents sickness. A good criminal code controls crime. They can be judged by their effectiveness.

 

Does anarchy benefit society? Does nihilism advance the species? In so far as humanity has an objective ability to judge evidence we can answer questions like these.

 

Moral codes perform functions, and facts tell us how to make moral codes perform better. These moral codes are upheld by people who need to interact, but cannot successfully interact without rules. However, most people say that we should follow the moral code even when we don't benefit from doing so. How could someone do that unless they are guided by a belief in the innate value of the moral code?

 

EDIT: I think I spotted a flaw in my argument.

EDIT: Maybe the difference lies in value judgments having nothing to do with what is real. It wasn't until I articulated that last sentence that I realized I was talking about a value judgment concerning what is known to be, not a judgment about what is.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

Why are we talking about morals again in this thread? We've already had to split that discussion off, twice I think.

[Iggy]

However, most people say that we should follow the moral code even when we don't benefit from doing so. How could someone do that unless they are guided by a belief in the innate value of the moral code?

 

EDIT: Maybe the difference lies in value judgments having nothing to do with what is real. It wasn't until I articulated that last sentence that I realized I was talking about a value judgment concerning what is known to be, not a judgment about what is.

I'm kind of guessing at what you're trying to communicate.

 

I think you're saying that moral value judgments have nothing to do with what is real in the same way that god's existence or inexistence has nothing to do with what is real... and, as you said before, people are therefore equally broken for believing either.

 

I would just reference my last post. Value judgements about morality have everything to do with what is real. Good value judgements in the domain of morality are supported by empiricism.

 

Considering iNow's very valid concern I wouldn't add any more than that.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Iggy

[MonDie]

My first EDIT to my last post was a concession of a fatal flaw in my argument, which I've now clarified in that post.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Iggy]

In that case my shot at your meaning couldn't have been wider of the mark. Withdrawn.

[MonDie]

I think you will see my refutation's relation to the the main topic once I explain it more clearly.

The claim, "Murder is bad," is not a claim about objective reality, it's just an evaluation of something that's objectively real. The claim, "God is real," is a claim about objectively reality. That's why they're different kinds of beliefs. We might categorize one as a "value claim" and the other as a "reality claim." Therefore, claiming "Murder is bad" doesn't necessarily make someone as broken as someone claiming "God is real."

Edited June 17, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[immortal]

I think you will see my refutation's relation to the the main topic once I explain it more clearly.

The claim, "Murder is bad," is not a claim about objective reality, it's just an evaluation of something that's objectively real. The claim, "God is real," is a claim about objectively reality. That's why they're different kinds of beliefs. We might categorize one as a "value claim" and the other as a "reality claim." Therefore, claiming "Murder is bad" doesn't necessarily make someone as broken as someone claiming "God is real."

 

 

If you stop murdering people based on your logically indefensible belief that Murder is bad then how is this different from people practicing a religion based on their logically indefensible belief that God may exist. So people who practice religion to evaluate the existence of God are not as broken as people who claim God is real without knowing he exists or not?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

This thread is a branch from People who Believe in religion are broken. The message that Mondays Assignment was replying to, the quote of which starts this thread, can be found here.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65651-people-who-believe-in-god-are-broken/page__view__findpost__p__684557

[Iggy]

If you stop murdering people based on your logically indefensible belief that Murder is bad then how is this different from people practicing a religion based on their logically indefensible belief that God may exist. So people who practice religion to evaluate the existence of God are not as broken as people who claim God is real without knowing he exists or not?

The problem is that "murder is bad" is an incomplete thought. At the very least, "bad" needs defined in the context of the quote. "Murder is bad for humanity and therefore humans shouldn't do it" is closer to a complete ethical position. The revised and complete statement isn't logically indefensible. It can be defended with a wealth of knowledge and empirical findings. God's existence can't be defended with anything like that. It is apples and oranges.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Iggy

[MonDie]

If you stop murdering people based on your logically indefensible belief that Murder is bad then how is this different from people practicing a religion based on their logically indefensible belief that God may exist. So people who practice religion to evaluate the existence of God are not as broken as people who claim God is real without knowing he exists or not?

The claims are different because "Is murder good or bad?" does not have a correct answer. "Is God real or fake?" does have a correct answer even if that answer is beyond what we can know.

Imagine two people watching a nature program on the television. One person might say, "This program is bad because it isn't entertaining." The other person says, "This program is good because it's informative." The questions of whether the program is entertaining or informative might have right or wrong answers, but the question of whether the program is good or bad does not have a right or wrong answer because the criteria for goodness or badness is subjective.

 

The problem is that "murder is bad" is an incomplete thought. At the very least, "bad" needs defined in the context of the quote. "Murder is bad for humanity and therefore humans shouldn't do it" is closer to a complete ethical position. The revised and complete statement isn't logically indefensible. It can be defended with a wealth of knowledge and empirical findings. God's existence can't be defended with anything like that. It is apples and oranges.

 

I agree that "bad" needs to be defined, but anybody can define "bad" however they want to. If someone believes, "It is good for humanity to thrive," then your argument for the badness of murder will be valid to them. If someone thinks, "It is good to kill people because the human race should go extinct (i.e. humanity thriving is bad)," then your argument for the badness of murder won't apply to them. Of course, you could argue that they shouldn't think the human race should go extinct, but you would need to rely on another one of their beliefs. For example, "You don't take your own life because you make people smile and think people smiling is good. Therefore, how can you think the human race should go extinct if it means that no more people will smile?" Ultimately, value judgments lay the foundations for all ethical arguments, and value judgments are subjective.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[immortal]

The problem is that "murder is bad" is an incomplete thought. At the very least, "bad" needs defined in the context of the quote. "Murder is bad for humanity and therefore humans shouldn't do it" is closer to a complete ethical position. The revised and complete statement isn't logically indefensible. It can be defended with a wealth of knowledge and empirical findings. God's existence can't be defended with anything like that. It is apples and oranges.

 

How can you objectively conclude what's bad and what's good at the individual level, we are talking about individual people here right. The canadian psycho killer who was recently caught in Berlin had sent his boyfriend's body pieces to the prime minister of Canada, his conscience says that it is great to practice cannibalism and openly stated that next time its not going to be animals and I'm sure there are other psycho killers who think that cannibalism is good. Now there are a few people who think that killing is right and the majority of other people who think that killing is wrong. We put the former people in jails because its just normally not accepted by the society.

 

So what's good and what's bad are abstract concepts and these abstract concepts determine our motives which doesn't have any basis in reality, there is no such thing as true goodness and true badness in reality. Even God is an abstract concept or an idea which we derive it from the scriptures and affects our motives i.e leads to the practice of religion. So why belief in the moral codes is not considered as broken and a belief that God may exist is considered broken?

[Iggy]

How can you objectively conclude what's bad and what's good at the individual level,

I didn't conclude that anything which benefits or harms one individual does so for another. That which is positive for one person may be negative for another. I wouldn’t make a generalization like you want to attribute.

 

we are talking about individual people here right.

No. If you think something is good and it involves absolutely no other people then by all means go right ahead. I don't see any objective problem with that. The moral judgments I've been talking about would have to involve at least two people -- and that is why ethical codes are needed and get involved. It is a form of arbitration among and between people.

 

The canadian psycho killer who was recently caught in Berlin had sent his boyfriend's body pieces to the prime minister of Canada, his conscience says that it is great to practice cannibalism and openly stated that next time its not going to be animals and I'm sure there are other psycho killers who think that cannibalism is good. Now there are a few people who think that killing is right and the majority of other people who think that killing is wrong. We put the former people in jails because its just normally not accepted by the society.

Society imprisons people of this sort not only because a majority find it disgusting and 'wrong', but because the practice harms society. My last post had meaning. "murder is bad" is an incomplete thought. "Murder is bad for humanity and therefore humans shouldn't do it" can be evaluated objectively.

 

So what's good and what's bad are abstract concepts and these abstract concepts determine our motives which doesn't have any basis in reality, there is no such thing as true goodness and true badness in reality.

Tall and short are abstract concepts. "What is tall?" really isn't a meaningful question. You need to give it more. It is abstract only because it is an incomplete idea.

 

So why belief in the moral codes is not considered as broken and a belief that God may exist is considered broken?

I never said, and I'm pretty sure nobody else said, belief that God may exist is broken.

 

Try rephrasing your question:

 

Why is belief in the health code not considered broken and belief that God exists considered broken?

 

Or... try considering it from this perspective: why does the government have the right to implement health code but not implement belief in God? Without appealing to the supreme court I think the answer should be pretty obvious and I think I've answered it already.

 

It seems like you're really stretching with this. You're demoting the value of morality in order to put it on an equal footing with God and that, in and of itself, should tell you something.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

If someone believes, "It is good for humanity to thrive," then your argument for the badness of murder will be valid to them. If someone thinks, "It is good to kill people because the human race should go extinct (i.e. humanity thriving is bad)," then your argument for the badness of murder won't apply to them.

I didn't say "murder is bad". I said "Murder is bad for humanity and therefore humans shouldn't do it". My point was that "murder is bad" is an incomplete idea.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Iggy

[immortal]

I never said, and I'm pretty sure nobody else said, belief that God may exist is broken.

 

Try rephrasing your question:

 

Why is belief in the health code not considered broken and belief that God exists considered broken?

 

Or... try considering it from this perspective: why does the government have the right to implement health code but not implement belief in God? Without appealing to the supreme court I think the answer should be pretty obvious and I think I've answered it already.

 

It seems like you're really stretching with this. You're demoting the value of morality in order to put it on an equal footing with God and that, in and of itself, should tell you something.

 

Even the government and the supreme court interfere with religious issues, sometimes the whole scripture or the book is taken to the court and its interpretations are argued and a law is passed whether to ban the book from the country or not. Therefore whether it is the moral codes or the concept of Gods both affect our practical commitment and our way of life. Practice of religion without a firm belief in the existence of god is not broken, IMO.

[MonDie]

So what's good and what's bad are abstract concepts and these abstract concepts determine our motives which doesn't have any basis in reality, there is no such thing as true goodness and true badness in reality. Even God is an abstract concept or an idea which we derive it from the scriptures and affects our motives i.e leads to the practice of religion. So why belief in the moral codes is not considered as broken and a belief that God may exist is considered broken?

"there is no such thing as true goodness and true badness in reality."

You said it, not me. Judgments about what is good or bad aren't judgments about the nature of reality, so they cannot be right or wrong. Because there is no right or wrong answer, the good vs bad believers aren't broken.

On the other hand, God either does exist or doesn't exist, so one answer is wrong and the other is right.

 

EDIT: Think about it this way. An apple can taste good or bad to different people because the taste of the apple isn't actually part of the apple, it's part of the consumer's brain. As long as we accept that the taste is part of our brain and not objectively real, we aren't broken. However, that doesn't mean we are broken if we eat an apple because we think it tastes good.

I have to stop typing now because of holiday matters!

Edited June 17, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[MonDie]

My previous post was somewhat incorrect because formal science claims are not about the nature of reality, but they are still verifiable. However, I think the values underlying all morals are subjective.

 

As for Iggy, I think he should try to prove that a moral belief is objectively correct because I haven't been able to do it.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

Are you familiar with the work Sam Harris and others have been doing on morality?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/47089-can-science-answer-moral-questions/

[MonDie]

I had not. I found this longer video of Sam Harris speaking, so I think I'll watch this one because your post on that thread said he has more details.

I'm not going to lie, the 23 minute TED speech seemed to be mostly hot air.

 

 

[iNow]

That was a very high-level summary of a larger work he did in his book, "The Moral Landscape."

[Prometheus]

There is someone that is always watching what you do. That person is you. You don't need God to be watching you because you are capable of thinking. In addition, it's technically not altruism if they are only acting altruistically to appease an enforcer of some rules, real or imaginary.

 

The real problem arises from what I explained earlier and will explain again. Both belief in god and belief in moral codes lack evidence, but moral codes seem to be exempt from the requirement of evidence. However, if there are some beliefs in gods that are exempt from the requirement of evidence, how can we say that such believers are any less broken than those who believe in moral codes?

I am hoping Prometheus can support my argument by explaining the reasoning behind this statement:

 

I think you've answered this question for yourself?

 

I would only add that not only is belief in morals quite unlike belief in god, it is the very pinnacle of humanity, our crowning achievement. A man who wouldn't kill me lest his god watches him is but a shadow compared to the man who would not kill me because he watches himself.

 

The serpent was our friend as he tempted Eve.

 

 

If a moral code can't be objectively judged by evidence then I wouldn't think it is a moral code. A good health code prevents sickness. A good criminal code controls crime. They can be judged by their effectiveness.

 

Does anarchy benefit society? Does nihilism advance the species? In so far as humanity has an objective ability to judge evidence we can answer questions like these.

 

Never really understood this argument. So if god made morals, what makes them necessarily right, compared to man made morals? They were both made.

 

Regardless, based on my readings of holy texts, man's moral are far superior to god's.

 

 

How to avoid the worst possible harm for everyone.

 

This is from from Sam Harris, and seems to be the launchpad for his arguments. I generally agree with Sam Harris, but i haven't gone through the talks in detail yet. However, even the above statement is a value judgement with no objective root. That in no way lessens its value, and from this premise a good system of morality could be devised. If we accept this premise we have something by which we can 'objectively' measure our, and others', behaviour.