How Do I Answer The "Morality Needs God Question"?

[Kyuuketsuki]

OK,

So I've been listening to Hitchens vs. Turek and I have to say that I love the way Turek argues almost as much as I disagree with him. I actually think I would consider going to see a debate just because Turek was speaking.

One problem that Turek raises (and I think there are a number of questions like this for instance that of sin) and that it is not that atheists lack morality, nor that believers don't do bad things, it's that a moral code (and I think this is where Titan is headed) requires god to be an ultimate arbiter.

Now in my view this is, for an atheist, quite a difficult point to evade not because the atheist is simply rejecting a god and/or its authority (how can I reject what I rationally don't accept exists?) but because the question is essentially loaded in that it presumes there has to be an arbiter ... that arbiter may or may not be a god but the there must be an arbiter of some kind.

The problem (it seems to me) is that the only way to demonstrate this argument to be wrong is to defeat the assumptive premise (that the case for the arbiter is baseless).

I think the fallacy of this form of argument is that it is some kind special pleading but I'm not sure.

Kyu

[Shard]

What's the definiton of 'moral code' being used?  Does it accept moral relativism (i.e. morality can only be judged according the socio-historical context of the time and also can change according the exact situation and circumstances in which it is being applied)?  Or does it imply some kind of 'eternal unchanging morality'?  

After this question has been resolved, the next question is - what's the role of the so-called arbiter?  Exactly what does this arbiter need to do, and how?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Bloody hell ... there's another thing I've learned today!

I'm a nihilist and moral relativist!

Wow!

Kyu

[rlrose328]

I answer that question by saying:

No, it doesn't.

 

[Zarathustra]

Hi All
Although I'm new to this forum, I'm not new to this kind of debate. Especially this topic, since it's an argument often invoked by Christians. (Other religions don't seem to be selfdeluded in the same manner). This is like a red flag to me mainly because I have a masters degree in Philosophy, which makes my knowledge about ethics vastly more comprehensive than any theologian.

So I'd like to give you guys my take on how to deal with this, obviously flawed, assumption. It will be a bit lengthy, but I'll post it here shortly.

Apart from that, I found the chapter concerning this issue in "The God Delusion" quite interesting. Most of the points RD makes are very useful when discussing these issues with a theist.

[Kyuuketsuki]

So I'd like to give you guys my take on how to deal with this, obviously flawed, assumption. It will be a bit lengthy, but I'll post it here shortly.

That's the problem with it (and so many others like it in theist land) ... it is obviously flawed but explaining why takes time and effort.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing your reply

Kyu

[curiosityandthecat]

So I'd like to give you guys my take on how to deal with this, obviously flawed, assumption. It will be a bit lengthy, but I'll post it here shortly.

Thus Zarathustra ... Shall... Spake?

 

[Sophus]

I view it as just an abstract force forged by humans. The arbiter in this universe is simply the observation that there are usually bad consequences for bad actions... (usually). The mind expects this, and it helps to protect us. So it's for those things that people get off too easy on that they think there's no escaping a consequence. But what they don't realize is all the consequences come in this lifetime. All of these different reasons for believing in god can be broken down psychologically.

There is no set moral code but we're programmed with something close: The conscience. With the exception of the sociopath of course.

[myleviathan]

Kyu - I think this is an extremely interesting topic.

You have people, usually theists - who believe that the concept of morality is universal and objective. God is the universal objective judge, and can reward or punish humanity for their deeds. Then there are others, usually atheists (but not always), who believe morality is totally subjective and community specific. In that case is exists simply for the health of a specific community, and nothing more.

The belief that God is the ultimate arbiter is only valid if you believe in god. If you don't believe then it's not hard to imagine how people create their own moral codes. Their view nothing more than an attempt to undermine the moral identity of others who may be non-Christian or non-Muslim or whatever. Christians in particular like the idea of holding a moral monopoly; a moral high ground to assert their perceived righteousness. The only way to maintain this imagined supremacy is to fight tooth and nail that their God exists at the expense of the ideas of others.

[Squid]

Our "morality" is incorrectly viewed by those such as Turek by putting forth an argument that morality is somehow some property which is beyond the material - dare I say, supernatural?  Anyhow, what we term morality in our behaviors is a complex amalgamation of many factors.  The "universal" morals that they often cite has an excellent explanation through (and this one really adds insult to injury for many proponents of some sort of divine moral provider or mediator) evolution.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Kyu - I think this is an extremely interesting topic.

Thank you, thank you, I thank you (takes bow) ... I'll be here all week folks

Our "morality" is incorrectly viewed by those such as Turek by putting forth an argument that morality is somehow some property which is beyond the material - dare I say, supernatural?  Anyhow, what we term morality in our behaviors is a complex amalgamation of many factors.  The "universal" morals that they often cite has an excellent explanation through (and this one really adds insult to injury for many proponents of some sort of divine moral provider or mediator) evolution.

Yes, this is some of the ideas I have been trying to get across to theists like Titan i.e. that you have to justify the idea that morality, conscience and so on are actually the special, unexplainable things they say they are and upon which their question depends for it's logical validity.

Kyu

[Zarathustra]

Sorry for the long pause... life happened and I want to give this issue the proper treatment.  

Kyu[/quote]

Yup! It's mindboggingly annoying!!!
 
The assumption that ethics is in any way based in religion, is equivalent to the creationist idea that you can explain nature with the bible.

The point is: "God-did-it" or "god" neither qualifies as an explanation NOR a foundation for anything.
But this issue - as you pointed out Kyu - takes a lot more time to adress. The difference between the two is - obviously - that while creationism is easily refutable with even a pretty basic understanding of empirical science, it is much harder to do this with ethics, since it's not (yet) considered an exact science.

The notion that morality is based in religion is unfortunately deeply embedded in our way of life in the western world. It is important to notice, that this also the real reason for christians thinking that atheists are immoral. And it is why it's almost impossible to explain a theist, why the assumption is flawed. It's as hard as explain why atheism is not a belief. The reason for all of this, is a historical one:

Ethics as a field, was thoroughly investigated and described by the Greeks about 500 years B.C. ! This was done - as all good science is - without even considering the god issue. Especially Aristotle reached a very high and precise understanding of how ethics work. His description is called the ethics of virtue.(Now this should ring a bell.)
Aristotle described the good human being as possesing 4 virtues, (Temperance, wisdom, courage, justice) and the ability to balance them. The key to balancing them correctly is what we now denominate "the golden rule".
I repeat it just to make sure: The golden rule was explicitly formulated 500 years before Jesus "invented" it, as some people claim!!!

But what's more: The christian church later (I think it was somewhere in the 400's A.C) stole the whole area of morality. Partially by taking it upon themselves to teach people ethics. Which adds to the common sense agreement that ethics "belongs" in church. (Why not get ethics-education OUT of the churches and into the schools.... Most preachers understanding of the subject doesn't go beyond common sense ethics anyway.)
But more importantly: They took Aristotles description and - without EVER going through the same scientific process as Aristotle - they just TADAAAAAAA  :shock:

It should also be obvious why this is bullshit.
In the field of ethics an unsubstantiated claim, is as worthless as in empirical science. But condotioning through repetition is a powerful tool, and this "thruth" has been repeated by organised christianity for 1600 years!

But the initial question was "How to answer the question"

So while the above is the correct answer, it hardly works in a debate with a theist, which I'm sure was what you asked for.
 As we all know all too well: Evidence from the real world is adamantly disregarded when conflicting with a theists ontology. That's why the above doesn't work, and that's why appealing to history and the atrocities comitted in the name of god doesn't work. (Even their most common counterargument, i.e. "atheist wars/leaders" is flawed. No one ever did anything "in the name of atheism". And besides that: Milosovic, Stalin and Hitler were all very religious. This is a substantiated, but again disregarded fact.)

What - on the other hand - actually does work, is the dialectic approach. (Commonly known as the way, which Socrates asks questions... thereby guiding the person in error to understanding just that his view is rationally flawed.)
It is a simple - yet extremely effective - way of helping them reach a basic understanding of the nature of ethics.

The approach is this:
1) Just accept their assumption, that morality needs god. And that moral is objective.
2) If it is based in god, there must be a way he let's us know what is (objectively) moral and what is immoral
3) (Based on the answer for 2 inevitabely ending on "the bible") How does the bible - in any way - work as an ethical guide? (Excellent literature on this subject if you're not at home in the bible yourself, is "Why I'm not a christian" by B. Russell) (Of course it doesn't at all!!! Which is why the morality needs god assumption is so absurd.) It is simply contradictory and not operational.
4) If the theist eventuelly concedes that it doesn't, but maintains his position anyway, it should be pretty simple to ask the right questons in order for him to dismantle the notion that there's a logically necessary connection between "god" and ethics.
5) Sit back an let him stew for a while  

This actually works, if you're in a face to face conversation IRL. The whole trick here is to master the dialectic approach. Although there are several books on the subject, I think the best way to learn this is simply to read Plato.

I have yet to find an approach that works equally well on the web. I've had a 100% successrate on this IRL, but only a couple of "converts" on forums like this. I guess it's harderr to be dialectic here, unless you're chatting.

Hope this can be of use to those of you, that has failed on the naturalist/historical"statistical approach.

[Zarathustra]

So I'd like to give you guys my take on how to deal with this, obviously flawed, assumption. It will be a bit lengthy, but I'll post it here shortly.

Thus Zarathustra ... Shall... Spake?

 

[brekfustuvluzerz]

do lions and tigers and bears have morals? the short answer in no, if by morals you mean the proper way to treat another animal, i.e. not killing them. so why should we have morals? well we dont have to other that the problem of existing in a society as a social being. in other words, we evolved a sense of morality because its easier. and think about it, one of the things that makes our species so special is our ability to learn collectively. to share our experiences with each other, to warn, to teach. this may be why we are a successful species. other animals have their instinct only, we have that and more. we can adapt so quickly because when someone discovers fire, they can explain to us (even if by grunting) not to touch it. the thing that is odd, is how christians tote morality around as their devise, but their god does the most immoral things. they justify it, of course, because he is beyond our understanding and blah blah blah, but i would suggest to them that if they get morality from their god, to follow his example and kill, discriminate, hate, be angry and show wrath. he'll be ok with it, it was all his idea anyway,