Is religion required for morality and for people to behave morally?

[Jichard]

I don't see it as a false dichotomy. I simply don't understand that in a world view that holds to the universe being an accident of nature and that we are all just DNA and electrical impulses in the brain, how that can account for moral truths?

First, whther the universe is an accident of nature is irrelevant to whether there are moral truths, since moral properties don't need to supervene on a universe made with a purpose.


Second, you're distorting naturalism. Naturalists are not committed to thinking that "we are all just DNA and electrical impulses in the brain". Human have properties other than genetic properties and electrochemical properties. We have other biological, psychological properties, and on so on. These supervene on other properties we have, as I discussed elsewhere. So what you wrote is as strange as saying I just don't see how that could be a car; it's just a bunch of metal, and rubber, and stuff. Anyway, moral properties can supervene on some of those properties, such as the psychological properties discussed in virtue ethics.

It's like I'm hearing "It's wrong to kill because it's wrong to kill!"

Not at all what's being said. For example, that's not what is said by virtue ethics, welfare utilitarianism, or Kantian deontology.

In the animal kingdom, a dominate male gorilla will kill off all rivals. That's just the way it is. Is that immoral? If not why not?

No, it's not wrong, since male gorilla's aren't morally responsible for what they do. They are not cognitively sophisticated enough to understand the morality of their actions. It's the same reason why a baby doesn't do something morally wrong when it spits up in its Mom's face. This should be obvious. No appeal to God required.

Where do we humans, just a higher form in the animal kingdom, get this idea of a moral right and wrong and we act as if it's etched in stone somewhere.

From the same place we get ideas of cats, planets, etc., ideas that are lacked by many other non-human organisms. It's combination of:

1. discussions with other humans and learning from them
2. looking at our natural world to identify similarities and differences between things
3. a process of biological evolution that results in the vast majority of us being able to identify similarities and differences under a wide range of environments.

And no, "moral right and wrong" don't need to be etched in stone anywhere, anymore than astronomical or biological truths need to be etched in stone somewhere for us to figure them out.

Unless there is a Supreme Being, I can see no reason to accept anyone's moral POV but my own.

That's a claim for which you have no support. I don't need a Supreme Being to accept scientific truths, mathematical truths, etc., even if I did not come up with them and even if they come from a POV I don't currently share. I accept them because I think they are true, not because some Supreme Being says so. Same for moral truths. I don't know why you think otherwise.

Also, whether you think you have "reason to accept anyone's moral POV but my own" is irrelevant to whether or not that persons' moral beliefs, moral statements, etc. are objectively true. For example, it's objectively true that evolution happens, even if some creationists think that see no reason to accept anyone's [scientific] POV but their own, especially a scientific view on which evolution happens.

[Jichard]

But those are theories and why should I care?

Whether you care is irrelevant to whether those theories are true, justified, etc. just like whether a creationist cares about evolutionary theory is irrelevant to whether evolutionary theory is true, justified, etc. So your question was an irrelevant red herring.

What makes them true?

They are true if they provide an accurate account of moral properties and what other properties moral properties supervene upon, just as scientific theories are true insofar as they provide an accurate account of the aspect of the natural world which they describe. No one (certainly not a deity) needs to make them true or decide they are true, in order for them to be true.

[Jichard]

I know there are theories but that doesn't mean they are true.

If you know there are theories, then you should please drop your false dichotomy where you claim that the only options are God or individual/cultural subjectivism. To do otherwise is to pretend that there are less options that there actually are.

On what basis should anyone accept any of them?

Insofar as they provide an accurate account of moral properties and the other properties moral properties supervene upon. There are various arguments for thinking that welfare utilirianism and virtue ethics do this, as I've discussed elswhere:

"To which the objectivist has the same sort of response one would have in science, epistemology, etc.: because that's the answer one would come to after examination of the actions that most plausibly seem to count as wrong.

It'd be like if someone said "why is the Earth a planet?" You could list a whole bunch of features (F1, F2, F3, ....) in virtue of which Earth is a planet . And someone could then respond, "Why does F1, F2, F3... make something a planet?" And the answer is: because that's the answer one would come to after examination of the objects that most plausibly seem to count as planets (which is just another way of saying: doing science to figure out the features are had in common by objects that seem most likely to count as planets).

Similarly It'd be like if someone said "why is that belief justified" You could list a whole bunch of features (E1, E2, E3, ....) in virtue of which that belief is justified. And someone could then respond, "Why does E1, E2, E3...? make something justified"? And the answer is: because that's the answer one would come to after examination of the beliefs that most plausibly seem to count as justified (which is just another way of saying: doing epistemology to figure out the features are had in common by beliefs that seem most likely to count as justified).

Of course, one could throw over the table and refuse to accept that actions plausibly count as morally wrong, and thus stop the process in its tracks. But unless one has argument for doing that, then one is also committed to doing that in the case of scientific terms life "planet", epistemic terms like "justified", etc. After all, one could make the same move and refuse to admit that anything plausibly counts as a planet, or as justified, or ... In fact, many creationists due just this sort of thing when they refuse to admit that anything counts as evolution, unless it meets the absurd definition they employ. Really, it's even worse than that, since would could employ the same reasoning to an account of almost any noun-term. For example, one could use the same process to reject any account of why objects are red, why dogs are mammals, etc. And that's absurd. So, unless one has non-specialpleading grounds for treating the moral case difference, the objection is inapplicable.

To put the point another way: regardless of the topic you're an objectivist about (science, epistemology, meta-ethics), there's going to be a set of claims that you bottom out at and a set of examples you proceed from. If people simply reject those claims/examples without argument, then progress with them is almost impossible. This is especially the case if they will simply ask "why?" over and over again, in response to any justification you give them. So, for example, if someone is simply going to ask "Why does that make something a planet?" no matter what response one gives them."

In a random universe that is essentially an accident and doesn't care one way or another that we exist, how can any moral theory be objectively true?

Whether this is a random universe that is essentially an accident and doesn't care one way or another that we exist is irrelevant to whether moral statements are objectively true, since moral properties can supervene on properties that occur in the universe, regardless of whether or not the universe cares or is an accident. For example, moral properties can supervene on the psychological properties discussed in virtue ethics. properties that can occur in a universe that was undesigned and does not care about us. These moral properties would then suffice for making moral statements objectively true, as per virtue ethics.

Maybe we have different ideas about what constitutes objective truth.

I've made it clear what I mean by it:

I already have: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...148#post219148

Basically:

A subjectively true or false statement is true or false in virtue of some mind's (or minds') views, such as attitudes, opinions, etc. [with some exceptions with regard to informed consent in a meta-ethical context, which I can go over later, if need be].

An objectively true or false statement is true or false in virtue of something other than a mind's (or minds') views.

One can have objective truths in an undesigned universe that does not care about anyone.

[Jichard]

Special pleading is only fallacious if there is no substanitive difference in the case. Saying God is categorically like Man is like saying Man is categorically like an ant.

It's not even what you're responding to, or how what you said is relevant.

[Papa Zoom]

I'll get to your replies as soon as I can read and asorb all that you've said. In the meantime check out this site (if interested). They have great discussions/debates on here and both views are allowed to be expressed freely. It's one of the best programs for those interested in hearing opposing views clearly articulated.

http://www.premierchristianradio.com...pisodes?page=2

They cover a lot of topics and this radio show also can be downloaded as a podcast.

[Jichard]

I'll get to your replies as soon as I can read and asorb all that you've said. In the meantime check out this site (if interested). They have great discussions/debates on here and both views are allowed to be expressed freely. It's one of the best programs for those interested in hearing opposing views clearly articulated.

http://www.premierchristianradio.com...pisodes?page=2

They cover a lot of topics and this radio show also can be downloaded as a podcast.

I've been listening to it for months. I was introduced it to it because I was listening to some stuff from Barth Ehrman, and they have a lot of debates involving him since he visits family in England and drops by to the show whenever he visits family.

[Papa Zoom]

I've been listening to it for months. I was introduced it to it because I was listening to some stuff from Barth Ehrman, and they have a lot of debates involving him since he visits family in England and drops by to the show whenever he visits family.

I think it's one of a kind type of program or at least it's rare. Also good is the Veritas program. http://www.veritas.org/talks/

[JimL]

If I kill you I can steal your land and property and it isn't like that has never happened. By what standard do you say murder is wrong?

There is no absolute standard of morality in the sense of ultimate justice, the absolute standard of morality is that which is in the best interests of individuals living together in a community, or a world. It is not in anyones interest to suffer loss of life, theft of property or any kind of intentional harm from another.

Well I agree with you but you do realize that there are people who feel just the opposite? If you say something is wrong and it is not just wrong for you but for everyone, to which standard do you appeal? What is the source of this standard? Don't say we are because in some cultures they eat their neighbor and in others they love their neighbor. Who is to say which is right and which is wrong?

Its not a matter of whether someone agrees or not with what it is that is in their best interests, its a matter of fact whether they agree or not. If they eat their neighbors then their neighbors will eat them, if they murder and rob their neighbors then their neighbors will murder and rob them. Morals safeguard society and the individuals belonging to it from this kind of chaos.

[Jichard]

I think it's one of a kind type of program or at least it's rare. Also good is the Veritas program. http://www.veritas.org/talks/

Thanks. Is there a podcast?

[Papa Zoom]

Thanks. Is there a podcast?

http://podcasts.veritas.org/ But at the moment I can't get the page to display correctly.

[Teallaura]

By the way, you just contradicted you, since you moved from saying that:

things are good or bad in and of themselves

to saying that:

someone has to decide things are bad in order for them to be bad

Please resolve the contradiction.

No contradiction. You just keep insisting on miscategorizing God as if He were human.

[Teallaura]

It's not even what you're responding to, or how what you said is relevant.

Um, could you try that again in English? You're missing a verb or noun somewhere..

[Teallaura]

There is no absolute standard of morality in the sense of ultimate justice, the absolute standard of morality is that which is in the best interests of individuals living together in a community, or a world. It is not in anyones interest to suffer loss of life, theft of property or any kind of intentional harm from another.



Its not a matter of whether someone agrees or not with what it is that is in their best interests, its a matter of fact whether they agree or not. If they eat their neighbors then their neighbors will eat them, if they murder and rob their neighbors then their neighbors will murder and rob them. Morals safeguard society and the individuals belonging to it from this kind of chaos.

And you know this how, exactly? That chaos might result without it doesn't tell us whether an absolute standard of morality / ultimate justice (whatever that is) exists. The same would be true in a system that did have an absolute standard.

[Jichard]

Um, could you try that again in English? You're missing a verb or noun somewhere..

It's not even clear what you're responding to, or how what you said is relevant.

[Jichard]

No contradiction.

Nope. It's a straightforward contradiction.

You just keep insisting on miscategorizing God as if He were human.

First, lasst I checked, Jesus was human. So you don't think Jesus is God?

Second, nowhere did I claim that God was human. So you're simply inventing the claim tht I am. I'm just rejecting the theistic special pleading, where some of you theists act as if basing the truth of moral claims on God's say-so, commands, etc. is not moral subjectivism. Sorry, but it is moral subjectivism. There was an entire thread explaining that point. You should know that, since you commented on that thread.