The God Delusion and Morality

[123sambrose]

What do you mean by moral law? Sounds as make believe as talking snakes in a magic garden. Dawkins actually does explain it very simply. It's a shame you couldn't pick up on it. I guess the whole 'faith' thing gets in the way.

[habdulkh]

The truth is: we know very little about God. I have just published a fictional novel that is sure to surprise most folks and send this message like no other. Visit Amazon and click on Gaud's Trial by Hannah Faye.

[visvaldisX]

I'm an atheist.

Let''s suppose that a god exists and has formulated morals. So what? The christians violate morals constantly and yet insist they are always innocent and being victimized.

Maybe practical moral laws can be formulated and utilized by self-examination - something christians refuse to do.

[pilgrimpater]

The bottom line is that there is not one single act of morality that a Theist adheres to that an Atheist cannot. Of course we have address the question of where each group gets it's morals from. For the Atheist it is easy. We have evolved as social animals (maybe with some trial and error) to adhere by rules that benedit individuals and hence the group. The Theist on the other hand relies on god(s). Unfortunately, no Theist has come up with a specific and unambiguous set of moral laws.

[jsabadojr]

God is the main author of morality because He has all the intelligences in the Universe combine. We came from him and He is our literal heavenly father.

[msizer]

Absolutely morality exists independent of any concept of god. Human moral judgments are made unconciously, while moral justifications are made by concious express principles. Also our emotions create biases to objective moral deliberations. Universal moral beliefs can be justified on the principle that all concious beings wish not to suffer (or wish to flourish), therefore to cause harm to a concious being is universally wrong.

[happyhappy85]

You're talking crap kid. How did god get his moral law? Whatever answer you come up with, that' how we got it.

[cms271828]

What the hell has god got to do with morality?

This is an insane video, can't stand this crap.

[threechamberedpeanut]

reputation systems are necessary if untrustworthy people are to be discouraged, thereby increasing the quality of life of the vast majority.

sympathy should be fostered in children to make a more healthy, better functioning community. yes, you 'ought' to feel bad, because if you don't, you will be condemned as amoral and bad things will happen to you.

Certain situations will be unclear in these terms, but hey, that's life

and thus, morality is summarized in two youtube

[threechamberedpeanut]

Why do you need to have a universal law? you don't need one to be a moral person. You don't need to be told by any code not to rape people. You don't rape people because you would feel bad afterwards. Pretty simple.

morality is a combination of sympathy (which evolved), reputation (you're more successful if people think you're a good person), and a need for a structured society. These things are what oblige you. It's not like there's any rules written into the universe for how we should act.

[MilesVitae]

By the very assertion that is in fact wrong to rape, you are assuming a universal moral law. By the very assumption that we can be considered moral or immoral, good or bad, you assume the existence of a universal, objective standard.

Perhaps you are right and morality, as defined as the system of behavior we generally adhere to, did evolve, etc. But that does not explain that we are obliged by such a system.

[MilesVitae]

You say I don't rape people because I would feel bad afterward. What does this prove? Ought I to, in fact, feel bad? Ought I to feel guilty, to feel that I have in fact done something which is bad? What if I don't feel bad, or I do it anyway? Does my sense that something is wrong, something I should not do or should not have done, actually reflect reality, or is it merely some kind of illusion in my own mind which has no real meaning?

[threechamberedpeanut]

I told you why we 'ought' to be good. Sympathy, reputation, and societal constraints. there's a lot more about morality that we can question, but this about sums it up.

feel bad about something? don't do it.

don't feel bad but others will think less of you for it, and in the future regard you as untrustworthy etc? don't do it

there's a chance you'll go to jail? don't do it

legal systems are built to increase the quality of living for everybody. nothing fancy, their not tapping into any

[threechamberedpeanut]

* 'universal moral law'

[Perrine234]

A true moral law is based on suffering, not what offends a deity or a tiny number of Puritans.

Suffering is objective.

[MilesVitae]

Perhaps - but if you are going to assert that, please explain further the foundations of right and wrong. Why is it wrong to cause suffering and right to aleviate it? Why ought we, morally speaking, and not merely for the sake of of arbitrary ends, avoid causing suffering?

[Perrine234]

It's axiomatic. Morality deals with good and evil, and harm prevention and the maximisation of happiness are essentially all that morality entails.

I've made a video on this, and I've discussed it on the Atheist Experience as well (also on my channel).

[MilesVitae]

Is it in your two videos dealing with morality and the problem of evil? (if not, could you point me to the right videos? I'm off to work at the moment, but I'll check them out later)

[Perrine234]

One of them's the one where I refute KristinaLovesJesus and Matt Slick.

Then there's "Me on The Atheist Experience."

[MilesVitae]

Okay, thanks. I'll check them out.

[crewalpha]

"maximisation of happiness"

For whom? It would make me supremely happy to castrate you, and then feed you your own genitals before slicing your head from your neck, but would it make *you* happy? What of genocide? I assume you are opposed to it. But is it substantiated? If it doesn't hurt your happiness, who cares? And why should it hurt your happiness? In fact, it should affect it positively since more resources are theoretically available for your consumption.

[Eskimolz]

I think the only reason the moral argument exists is because humans made up super natural beings. This would not even be a issue if our ancestors didn't believe in Sun gods

[MilesVitae]

So - are you agreeing that there is, in fact, no moral law? Or are you addressing the argument for God's existence from morality? Your post is somewhat unclear.

[divineson05]

It's funny Dawkins writes the God Delusion and then you have people post videos like this giving perfect examples of the very delusion he talks about and even names his book after. It's truely mind blowing how people are unwilling to accept the true nature of the world.

[MilesVitae]

Can you point to where in my video I've done this?

I did not argue at all for the existence of God, let alone for any particular religion. I simply argued that, if there is no God, then any atheist who asserts the existence of a moral law is, shall we say, holding to a delusion.

[divineson05]

moral law is based off of the need for survival and the need to reduce harm in the world. It's based off of instinct, history, social experiences.

[ZerqTM]

I dont see whats hard to understand here...

Frankly i think i would rather trust society at large to dicrate morals then the god of the old testament....

He lets of people for genocide commits it himself and impregnates other mens wifes..

also the world changes... the bible does not...

Iron age morals are not allways applicable to modern day society....

like executions and slavery...

[ZerqTM]

Moraity is an evolved survival strategy for social interaction.

Its that simple!

If people go around bushering people society falls apart.

If people sleep around and dont take there parental responsabilaty society falls apart

If people steal from each other to much society falls apart.

No culture what so ever has a 100% ban on murder because that does not help society either...

Some chaos tends to be benefical as long as its keept to a minimum.

(How else could we have drama and fiction?)

[MilesVitae]

You have more or less merely repeated the position taken by Dawkins and addressed by me in my video. I understand the argument - my objection is that it does not explain why we ought to behave in such ways - why we are obliged to perform or avoid certain behavior, or how obligation can even exist. It merely theorizes as to why we do, in fact, engage in such behavior.

you might say "because we ought to behave in a way beneficial society," but then you are still left with the same problem.

[mindprism]

-- my objection is that it does not explain why we ought to behave in such ways

The machine is always right, it has been honed by millions of years of evolution towards the best 'diplomatic' balance to optimize its reproduction.

We are not individuals, we are individuals AMONGST individuals.

This is why 'crime' for the most part, does not 'pay'.

Much like gambling, the odds favor the house. That is why we 'should' (be moral), you see?

It pays.

[mindprism]

-- why we are obliged to perform or avoid certain behavior, or how obligation can even exist

The only thing you can do to a free man is kill him.

Your not obliged to do anything. I cannot even imagine what you really mean by that term in this context.

I guess, if you want others to treat you like a human being (as opposed to a monster) -- your obliged to act like one.

Boiling it down, your 'obligation' is to your genes. Immoral behavior reduces your reproductive potential.

[Shazoolo]

Interesting contribution to the debate. Off to check your other vids out. Have you/are you - any more critiques of Dawkins?

[MilesVitae]

At the moment this is my only video regarding Dawkins (or atheism in general, for that matter). I will , however, probably post more in the future.

[gtg309v]

Morality is a social contract between PEOPLe. Nothing to do with a god.

[MilesVitae]

Which is to say it is not morality as commonly understood - it is not a universally binding moral law, merely an agreement between people - and, as such, there is no actual obligation to hold to that contract.

[gtg309v]

Some moral codes ARE considered universal because they extend through (practically) all cultures, meaning all cultures have adopted the same social contracts which are universally beneficial in societies... And yes, there is no obligation for you to hold the contract. However, if you do not hold to the contract in circumstances such as murder, rape, etc, then there is no obligation for society to not come after you because the contract is no longer withstanding once you have broken it.

[MilesVitae]

That's not what I mean by universal. Theoretically, such universal standards could be, somewhere, not held by a society. I am talking about something which morally binds all human persons as such.

[MilesVitae]

As to society coming after you - there was, apparently, no obligation for society to not do so in the first place. It's not as though by committing murder you have actually done something wrong or society, now, has a right to punish you. You simply happen to have broken an agreement, which is merely that, an agreement, not a universal moral law, and the practical result of this will probably be that society will come after you. If I don't want that result, I shouldn't violate the agreement...

[MilesVitae]

The probable results of my violating the contract merely provide a motivation for me not to do so. But, if I am willing to risk the actions of society, if I don't care about such actions, or if I can get away with violating the contract, there is no reason for me not to do so.

[MilesVitae]

The problem I have with this theory is that it seems to pretend to be an actual theory of morality - keeping all the usual terms like morality, right and wrong, duty, etc. - without actually being one. It speaks of morality, without actually meaning morality.

[gtg309v]

How does it not mean morality? I just told you that's what morality IS...

Saying that morals come from a god who will punish you doesn't make the use of the words right and wrong more meaningful. There is no difference between saying you broke an agreement or saying you broke a universal moral law. What is your motivation for not breakinig a "universal moral law"? The same motivation for not breaking an agreement. You want to avoid having an all powerful god come after you to punish you.

[gtg309v]

But if you think you can get away with breaking a "universal moral law" without any consequence, then there is no reason for you not to do so. Hence, we have millions of Christians who say they believe in the resurrection of Jesus which they believe forgives them of sins and punishment, and so they mostly go about their lives how they see fit without actually following the teachings of Jesus because they have no reason not to if they are forgiven anyway.

[MilesVitae]

(note that I never pushed Christianity per se) Unfortunately, there are Christians with such an attitude, but I must point out that this is not an accurate description of all Christian belief. There are those with a once-saved-always-saved dogma, and they would, I'd think, be particularly prone to the attitude you describe. However, Catholicism and a great many Protestants reject such behavior.

[MilesVitae]

They would assert that conversion demands that we avoid moral behavior, not that it is ultimately irrelevent wheher we engage in it. Such behavior remains wrong and forgiveness is only received if we in fact repent - commit ourselves to no longer sinning.

Furthermore, it is not as though punishment is the only reason for them to avoid evil. The fact that these things are, in fact, evil and contrary to duty, and that they violate justice towards and love for God are reasons.

[gtg309v]

Just because you Christians claim to repent and say "we commit ourselves to no longer sinning" doesn't mean Christians honor that commitment. In fact, I have never heard a Christian claim that they have been without sin since the first time they repented and asked Jesus for forgiveness and to be saved. This fact alone shows that Christians themselves believe that they are incapable of being totally without sin, and as such they could not possibly honor a commitment to no longer sinning.

[MilesVitae]

I did not assert Christians believe they never sin. My point was that Christian belief rejects the attitude that sin is permissible because "we have been saved," "we can be forgiven," etc.

[MilesVitae]

I never tried to justify the moral law as such by reference to any punitive action on the part of God.

My point is that, if there is an actual moral law, it must, as such, be something we are in fact obligated to obey (as opposed to a list of rules which it is merely practical to adhere to in a given society). There may be difficulties in explaining such a moral law given the existence of God, but I think it is impossible given a material, Godless world.

[gtg309v]

In what sense could one be obligated to obey a moral law if there were no punishment? If a person did not want to obey that "law", and they believed they would not be punished, then there would simply be nothing stopping him/her. If one does not care that something is called "evil" by a god, and one does not feel a duty to obey god's "moral law", and one does not love this god, then one would have no reason not to disobey this "moral law".

[MilesVitae]

How would one be any more obligated if there WERE the threat of punishment?

What you are saying is that I do not in fact have any duty not to kill innocent people, steal from starving children, or rape whomever I wish. There is nothing really bad about these - someone who performs them is not a bad person.

If society happens to not want such behavior, it may coerce its members into not performing them. But coercion does not imply obligation. To use a cliched phrase, might does not make right..

[MilesVitae]

So, we are, in fact left with the exact conclusion I argued must be drawn from materialistic atheism - namely, that there is no right and wrong. Humans may have biological tendencies towards certain behaviors, or societies may decide to set up a list of rules - but ultimately, all actions are as good as any other.

[MilesVitae]

As regards God and morality, I do not claim to be able to explain fully the foundation of moral law Theistically. Ethics is an area of philosophy that deeply interests me, particularly because I find such difficulties in the idea of right and wrong, and I am still studying it and trying to understands it basis.

[MilesVitae]

There are difficulties explaining morality given the existence of God - but I believe there are far more difficulties without God, the universal author of human nature.

Regardless, my original point still stands: the atheists like Dawkins cannot explain moral goodness, as much as they may try to or pretend to.

[fsxmantra]

What has god got to do with morality anyway? Morality evolved.

[anetchi]

You definitely don't need god/religion to be a good moral person.. if you think that you must be deluted.

travel and get an education..

[MilesVitae]

Actually, I did not say I believed that (and I deliberately drew attention to that fact).