Scientists and Atheists Should be Moral Absolutists

[Moonbear]

One can believe in moral absolutes without thinking they are physical. It requires faith that your beliefs are correct because there is absolutely no way to prove it.

Sure, but then that doesn't mean it's something that would necessarily fit in with a scientific or atheistic view. If it is faith-based, and not physical, then there is no reason to expect a scientist or atheist to hold that particular article of faith over any other.

 

[Dawguard]

Sure, but then that doesn't mean it's something that would necessarily fit in with a scientific or atheistic view. If it is faith-based, and not physical, then there is no reason to expect a scientist or atheist to hold that particular article of faith over any other.

There's no obvious reason to believe it, but I think the point of the OP was that scientists and aetheists shouldn't exclude things just because there is no physical proof. Why can't a scientist believe in non-physical absolutes? I hope they aren't as close minded as religious people who refuse to belief things that don't fit into their dogma. After all, isn't it the same thing?

 

[Sariel]

Even science isn't held as absolute, though. We may accept things as facts, but if someone were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain idea does not effectivly represent reality, that idea would no longer be accepted as fact.

 

[Moonbear]

There's no obvious reason to believe it, but I think the point of the OP was that scientists and aetheists shouldn't exclude things just because there is no physical proof. Why can't a scientist believe in non-physical absolutes? I hope they aren't as close minded as religious people who refuse to belief things that don't fit into their dogma. After all, isn't it the same thing?

I don't think we're interpreting the OP the same way, because I think I agree with what you're saying, except you're saying it concurs with the OP and I'm saying it doesn't. Maybe Russ will return to this thread some day and clear this up.

 

[Dawguard]

I don't think we're interpreting the OP the same way, because I think I agree with what you're saying, except you're saying it concurs with the OP and I'm saying it doesn't. Maybe Russ will return to this thread some day and clear this up.

Hmm...you're right. I missinterpreted the OP. I think Russ was saying that absolute morals could be proven, but are generally discarded because of the association with religion. While I certainly think you could develop a moral code that can be expressed in mathematical terms and is therefore indepentently absolute, there would be no way of proving that it's inherently correct. That's the only point where I disagree with the OP.

 

[hypnagogue]

Russ, you seem to be employing an evaluation of moral codes by reference to their social utility: If moral code X works, i.e. if X is empirically shown to be beneficial to society, then it is established to be 'true' (in some sense). This is the descriptive component of morality. But even though there exists a descriptive component, I have to agree with Tom that it's not really a moral code unless it also has a prescriptive component. In and of itself, observing that adherence to moral code X benefits society is really no different from observing any fact of nature. For instance, we could just as well observe that the Earth orbits the sun, and certainly there is no morality in that phenomenon one way or the other.

To transition from observation of facts to a system of morality requires an additional argument that I don't think you've yet made explicit. That additional argument would be something like this:

1. Moral code X benefits society;
2. Anything that benefits society, broadly speaking, is to be valued, is good;
3. We should strive to bring about goodness in the world;
4. Therefore, we should adhere to moral code X.

That's certainly a noble argument, and one we would be wise to pay credence to, for our own collective good. However, I think the nature of the argument invalidates any hope for establishing some system of morality as somehow describing objective facts about the world. Built into this argument is an implicit evaluation of goodness, an implicit value system. Values like these, I think, are clearly idiosyncratic creations in the minds of humans rather than some objective facet of nature.

Think of it this way: If someone were to systematically disagree with you about the goodness of those things you valued, what objective criterion could you turn to in order to settle the debate? Certainly you couldn't refer to social utility and so on, as that would be circular. I don't think you could objectively settle this debate any more than you could objectively settle a debate over whether broccoli tastes good or not. There is no fact of the matter as to whether broccoli is delicious or disgusting; its gustatory 'goodness' can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis within the domains of individual, subjective tastes. The same is true for all values in general, I think; it's just that it's much more difficult to find someone who thinks e.g. that pain and suffering is to be valued than it is to find someone who thinks broccoli does or doesn't taste good. We humans do seem to have a relatively stable and conserved set of core values built into us, which can create the illusion of universal, context-free, objective and absolute truth. But in the end, to me at least, it is still an illusion.

Just to be clear, btw: I think morality is to be valued and people should strive to act morally and so on; I just think there is no truly objective or absolute basis for this imperative. But nor do I think there needs to be one.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've mentioned this before and I think many of you have read it before so I'll try to summerize.
While there is no dictionary separation that I can find I personally define Morals and Ethics as two separate things. I define Morals as a religeous perscription taken on faith and Ethics as a logical deduction based on consequences.

In my opinion Ethics (as I define them) are relative and work on a case by case basis, although general guiding principles can be associated with broadly defined situations. To me Ethics would be the Atheist counterpart to the Morals of the religeous and it would seem only logical to me that scientists would base their actions more on these Ethics than Morals. Ofcourse I have no issue with scientists being religeous though.

Like Tom and Moonbear I'm having a bit of trouble discerning how you define "Moral Absolutism" vs "Moral Relativism". From what you have said it would seem to me as though your version of Morals is somewhat relative.

 

[Dawguard]

Like Tom and Moonbear I'm having a bit of trouble discerning how you define "Moral Absolutism" vs "Moral Relativism". From what you have said it would seem to me as though your version of Morals is somewhat relative.

I can't speak for Russ, but the reason that absolutism can appear somewhat relative is due to the fact that absolutists admit that their understanding of morals change. The distinction is actually simple, but easy to misinterpret. Slavery for example; it was once considered morally acceptable. However, further study and understanding of morals revealed it to be completely unacceptable. The morals didn't change, our knowledge of them did. Under relativism, slavery would have been OK so long as most people beleived it to be so. Under absolutism it is always wrong even if everyone accepts it. I hope this clarifies the question.

 

[hypnagogue]

Under relativism, slavery would have been OK so long as most people beleived it to be so.

I don't think this is quite right, or at least, it's not how I understand moral relativism. Moral relativism just holds that there is no ultimate, objective authority for evaluating moral codes. The statement that "slavery would be OK as long as most people believed it to be so" sounds like it implicitly assumes some kind of objective morality apart from the beliefs of the individuals themselves, perhaps one that varies over space and time as a function of people's beliefs. But moral relativism rejects such a thing; there can be no statements like "slavery is OK" or "slavery is wrong" in relativism, as such statements are detached from the individuals who form those judgments.

I think it would be more accurate to say something like: "Under relativism, there is no truly objective standard by which to compare the morals of slave owners to non-slave owners and decide which is superior." One could readily compare the two within one's own subjective set of values and morals of course; the fundamental idea is just that such comparisons and judgments are always made within some subjective framework.

 

[russ_watters]

I haven't been following my own thread, but I saw one thing here:

I don't think this is quite right, or at least, it's not how I understand moral relativism. Moral relativism just holds that there is no ultimate, objective authority for evaluating moral codes. The statement that "slavery would be OK as long as most people believed it to be so" sounds like it implicitly assumes some kind of objective morality apart from the beliefs of the individuals themselves, perhaps one that varies over space and time as a function of people's beliefs. But moral relativism rejects such a thing; there can be no statements like "slavery is OK" or "slavery is wrong" in relativism, as such statements are detached from the individuals who form those judgments.

I think you are reading into it a little too much. Saying "slavery is ok" isn't a complete sentence (it requires an implied object), so you need to interpret it to figure out to whom slavery is ok. I think the statement is really implying the redundant: "slavery is ok to a person who thinks slavery is ok" and not saying that one person saying it is ok makes it universal.

Nitpicking that aside, the point is that under moral relativity, no one has the moral authority to tell anyone else that slavery is wrong. That doesn't make slavery universally ok, but it does mean that we'd have to accept it from others if we want to be moral relativists*. And that, I think, is the point of that statement.

*That, I think, is also an inherrent contradiction in moral relativism. It implies an absolute principle of respect for the morality of others. Ie, moral relativism is the aboslute principle that everyone can choose their own personal moral code.

I think it would be more accurate to say something like: "Under relativism, there is no truly objective standard by which to compare the morals of slave owners to non-slave owners and decide which is superior." One could readily compare the two within one's own subjective set of values and morals of course; the fundamental idea is just that such comparisons and judgments are always made within some subjective framework.

Certainly, but I think the issue here is how you take that and apply it to the real world. How do you outlaw slavery if there is no applicable moral standard that says it is wrong?

And that kinda brings us back to my main point about the illogic of moral relativism: fully-realized moral relativism can only exist under anarchy because only in anarchy can every person truly decide for him/herself what morality to follow (until, of course, their next-door neighbor decides to follow his personal code, which includes cannibalism...).

Also, I'd like to emphasize that I don't see the difference between universal and Universal morality to be particularly important. From a practical standpoint, it makes no difference whether a morality is universal simply based on the practical reality of everyone following it (or being forced to follow it) or if it is Universal because it is ordained by the God who also created the equations that govern the physical universe. It is because only either flavor of universal morality actually works when put into practice that I argue that scientists and athiests should be moral absolutists.

That said, the fact that a functional anarchy has never existed and the particulars of the absolute (for that society) moral code used in a society make a big difference in how "successful" (subjective, I know...) that society is, I think that provides convincing evidence that what works in morality is somehow hard-wired into our genetic code. And there is only one (scientific) way for that to happen: morality is derived from the same laws of the universe that directed our physical evolution.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And that kinda brings us back to my main point about the illogic of moral relativism: fully-realized moral relativism can only exist under anarchy because only in anarchy can every person truly decide for him/herself what morality to follow (until, of course, their next-door neighbor decides to follow his personal code, which includes cannibalism...).

From what it says here it would seem that the main feature of relativism is the concept that there is no inherant truth in any particular coda. "Truth" (with a capital T) can not be measured.
I'd imagine that you would argue that the "Truth" of the matter lies in wether or not it works. I think you would be able to find plenty of people from the era of slavery that thought it worked just fine. Aside from people eventually deciding that they did not agree with it and did not think people should be slaves any more can you point me to what about slavery did not "work"? If people had never decided otherwise and their society continued to work just fine with slavery would you conclude that slavery is "right"?
Relativism does not prescribe any particular manner in which morals/ethics should be followed. It only describes the nature of morals/ethics from which to draw conclusions about how they might be practiced. Nothing about relativism says that we should allow all people to prescribe their own moral codes and only be subject to their own moral codes.

 

[Dawguard]

From what it says here it would seem that the main feature of relativism is the concept that there is no inherant truth in any particular coda. "Truth" (with a capital T) can not be measured.

Herein lies the problem with relativism; if you draw this out to its logical conclusion there is no truth, nothing. There can be no wrong if there is no right. Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that anything is OK? Won't this eventually cause you to believe that you can do whatever you want so long as the law doesn't catch you? How can a system of morals exist that deny their own existence?
This is the inherent instability of relativism. While its premise is admirable, that of overcoming the blind dogma that stems from absolutism, the result it draws is self-destructive. Teach relativism to a society and it will, in time, deny all morals. Ultimetly relativism destroys the search for truth, since there is no moral truth. What we are left with is a greedy, decedant society with all its individuals members seeking their own gain at the expense of everyone else.
If we want there to discover how to act ethically and morally, we first have to admit that they actually exist. Since relativism will lead us to believe that they don't exist on an individual basis I see no reason to accept it. Relativism is an easy answer that leads nowhere.

 

[hypnagogue]

Also, I'd like to emphasize that I don't see the difference between universal and Universal morality to be particularly important. From a practical standpoint, it makes no difference whether a morality is universal simply based on the practical reality of everyone following it (or being forced to follow it) or if it is Universal because it is ordained by the God who also created the equations that govern the physical universe. It is because only either flavor of universal morality actually works when put into practice that I argue that scientists and athiests should be moral absolutists.

Not to belabor the point, but the only way some moral system can be said to "actually work" is with respect to some subjective value system, even if only implicitly. One cannot evaluate whether something works or not without specifying its intended goal, and the intended goal is only intended as a goal in the first place because it is assigned some desireable value by some creature's subjective value system. In a discussion about moral absolutism vs. relativism it's important to draw out these seemingly pedantic observations.

From a practical standpoint, I agree with your position. Practically speaking, it is probably the case that most human beings have some common set of core values. It therefore makes sense to erect a social moral schema respecting and enforcing these core values. This is something like your universal (little u) morality.

I've just been concerned with arguing against Universal morality. I do not think there is any real basis for such a thing. This is not a practical point about how we should act as moral beings, but rather a metaphysical one about the nature of moral truth.

Maybe what I'm advocating is a "compatibilist" view between moral relativism and universal morality, like Hume's compatibilism between free will and determinism. Moral relativism holds that no moral code is absolutely true, but rather only gains truth or falsity when considered with respect to some subjective value system. But if it is the case that most individuals' subjective value systems are essentially similar on some level or another, then you still have a basis for practicing a universal morality of some sort.

Moral relativism certainly does not entail that one should be free to do whatever one wishes, anymore than the heliocentric model implies that human beings are worthless and unimportant. Moving from the geocentric to the heliocentric model may have undercut some supposed objective foundation to the importance of humanity, but of course that importance can still be maintained without objective support by means of purely subjective values. Likewise, moving from moral absolutism to moral relativism may undercut some supposed objective foundation to the respect demanded by socially ordained moral codes, but the essence of those codes can still be maintained by subjective values. Just because there is no objective reason why one should not be an anarchist does not entail that there is no reason not to be an anarchist.

That said, the fact that a functional anarchy has never existed and the particulars of the absolute (for that society) moral code used in a society make a big difference in how "successful" (subjective, I know...) that society is, I think that provides convincing evidence that what works in morality is somehow hard-wired into our genetic code. And there is only one (scientific) way for that to happen: morality is derived from the same laws of the universe that directed our physical evolution.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing here that our moral codes might find absolute validation by virtue of having been formed by objective evolutionary forces, because they "work."

But hopefully you can see the circularity in this. Assuming that human morality was created and promoted by evolutionary forces because it has helped us thrive as a species, we still do not arrive at any absolute validation of morality because we are still implicitly adhering to some subjective value system. Here, that implicit value is something like "the survival and reproduction of a species is good," or perhaps more generally, "order is good" or "whatever works is good." Again I submit that nothing is "good," nothing is to be intrinsically valued, in and of itself; goodness arises as a function of the fluid relationship between the objective world and some subjective creature over time.

 

[arildno]

Take a concrete example:
1. To preserve one own's life is a duty
2. To preserve one own's life is a right
3. In some situations, someone has a duty to lose his life (i.e, we should for example, deem it immoral of the individual to try to resist his own death)

Many who in general believe in 1. (against euthanasia, for example) can also be found to advocate 3.(for example believes in army conscription, and deny that prisoners on Death Row has a right to resist their deaths).

As for a clash between 1. and 2. advocates of 2 will often point to that option 1 (not to mention 3) imposes a restriction on the fredom of the individual.

That is, the principles of life-preservation and freedom are not the same, and different individuals will uphold these principles to different degrees.

To me, "absolutism" is merely the simplistic assumption that there necessarily exists a single, true balance between such (and other) concerns rather than at some fundamental level one makes a few axiomatic choices that determine the morality one pursues.

That point of view certainly allows the possibility that there may be some fundamentally differing moralities, but it by no means follows from this that one "isn't allowed" to make moral judgments, one certainly is, according to one own's standards of reasoning out of one's own axioms.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Herein lies the problem with relativism; if you draw this out to its logical conclusion there is no truth, nothing.

I don't think that relativism in itself rejects objective reality, that would be an entirely different discussion. Relativism only deals in social fictions as far as I can tell. I can see though where such a philosophy can spill over into one's perceptions of reality itself, that seems to be one of the factors that inspired this particular thread. "How does a scientist who deals with objective fact reconcile this with a relativistic view of morals?"
Richard Dawkins response to the "Most Dangerous Question" this year was interesting if a bit extreme and touched on this same sort of topic.
At any rate Relativism doesn't reject social fictions. It is only a theory as to their nature. In my opinion it's important to recognize that social mores are not indelibly enscribed on tablets, souls, or even DNA. If we realize that they are malleable it should aid our social evolution.

 

[Dawguard]

Take a concrete example:
1. To preserve one own's life is a duty
2. To preserve one own's life is a right
3. In some situations, someone has a duty to lose his life (i.e, we should for example, deem it immoral of the individual to try to resist his own death)

Many who in general believe in 1. (against euthanasia, for example) can also be found to advocate 3.(for example believes in army conscription, and deny that prisoners on Death Row has a right to resist their deaths).

As for a clash between 1. and 2. advocates of 2 will often point to that option 1 (not to mention 3) imposes a restriction on the fredom of the individual.

That is, the principles of life-preservation and freedom are not the same, and different individuals will uphold these principles to different degrees.

There is actually a simple explanation to this apparent paradox. It hinges on two things; the fact that a greater good should be morally superior and that rights can be abrigated.
Example for the former: a business man is expected to use his talents to improve his lot in life. However, if his interests clash with that of society it is morally correct for him to act in the benefit of society.
Example of the latter: a thief negates the right to his own property equal to that which he stole, i.e. restitution.
Now, when we apply these two principles to murder and the draft both can be explained. Capital punishment is excused becuase the murderer by taking another life abrigates his own right to his life. The draft is necesarry becuase it can be used for the greater good in order to protect society. Can both of these be abused? Of course, but that does not make their foundation faulty. There is no paradox, even with absolutism.

 

[clouded.perception]

The scientists who are relativists when it comes to morality are most likely, often the atheist ones.
As an atheist relativist, I'll give my point of view, but I don't know whether or to what extent ot's shared by others.

Bear with me: I believe there is no 'immortal soul'. I don't believe in any predetermined purpose for the universe, and I see life as a by-product of physical processes, not necessarily more or less than them.
The universe (not being a conscious creature) is indifferent to our existence. Any concepts of life, and correct behaviour, stem from us; our own opinions. Because there is nothing and nobody other than us (through our wish to survive and natural sympathy, such as the 'cute effect', etc.,) to determine what is right and wrong, yet we clearly have perceptions on such things, they are determined by us.

Put simply: the universe created us. We created morality. We don't have control over universal laws, but we have controlo over morality.

 

[heartless]

I didn't follow the whole thread, it's a little bit too long. I'd only like to say what I think.

It seems to me that athiests are often athiests because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are athiests)

Atheists are rarely driven by logic. Most of them is unable to defend their ideas, and belief. They aren't able to derive any logical sense from their belief. Most of them think that since they can't hear or see God, it isn't there at all. It's the same with every religious person, christians, muslims, hinduii and the like. They are unable to defend their ideas while talking seriously. In today's society religion is a false belief. People don't dig into what they believe, but follow the stereotype, I think there's only a tiny percent of people who actually follow their belief like their writings, laws, rules say. I also think that good fraction of scientists aren't atheists. Good fraction of scientist are not religious and don't believe in any religion out there. I myself came across many articles and books where scientists accept the existence of God which doesn't interfer with this world, or have any influence on one. All the above is just my opinion, I've never talked to variety of people about beliefs, but I talked to many folks in my school who I found unable to support their idea. Same was with my parents, relatives, and their friends or even people whom I met on the streets and fell like I want to stand and preach all the people, to stop believing blindly but find the sense in their beliefs.

They don't believe that similar to (perhaps even part of) the laws of science, there exists a set of universal laws of morality.

Morality is passed from parent to child, and I think it didn't change too much from the laws 3000 years ago. Every human gets to keep very similar concept of morality. But for example, animals are often governed by different morality. There aren't true laws of morality as there are laws that govern our universe. Morality may be changed within a few minutes, as long as many people start to accept your moral ideas. Morality in today's societies are driven by a stereotype, if majority of people do that, it is accepted as good. From the day you're born, parents teach you the morality they've learned from their parents who learned from theirs and so on. Now, you're parents start to you teach the opposite of moral ideas. Every good becomes bad and every bad becomes good. Then you are driven by totally different laws of morality than any other person. Morality isn't a steady thing, but changes over time. It used to be so that execution was accepted as good way to deal with people, well... not any more, although it still is in some parts of middle-east countries. As techology and world evolves, morality evolves.

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

It happens because different societies are driven by similar but not quite the same laws of morality. Morality in India may be a little different than here in US. They also don't need that because morality is self-accepted and obeyed without the help of the court and government. It probably is so that I'm wrong in in with this case.

It is my perception that the unwillingness to take that jump comes from a fear that it implies a creator - which would make this the one main issue where scientists allow their belief in [the nonexistence of] God to interfere with their logical analysis of morality. But the issue of God does not even need to be in play here.

Then, why look and dig into the morality at all? Wouldn't it be better to leave it and let it find a shape for itself? I don't think we in this case need government, who after scientists, would try to force the laws of morality unto people. It wouldn't be a good idea to ask government whether this specific thing is good or bad. We're free. Many people don't realize that almost 80 or even 90% of human's morality is based upon the Bible in whichever way you look. We follow almost all that Bible says, except for a few things - some commandments, faith and the like. Religion has already shaped good ideas of moralty. Today's morality isn't incorrect, it would be more convenient, and better to don't experiment with it.

That's all of my thoughts, thanks and I'm looking for many responses.

 

[quantumdude]

Atheists are rarely driven by logic. Most of them is unable to defend their ideas, and belief. They aren't able to derive any logical sense from their belief.

Am I to infer from this that you've taken a scientific poll? Where are the results?

Most of them think that since they can't hear or see God, it isn't there at all.

No, that's only strong atheism. Weak atheism asserts neither belief nor disbelief in any god.

In today's society religion is a false belief.

Now you're doing exactly what you accused "most atheists" of doing. You simply don't know that religious beliefs are false.

All the above is just my opinion,

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But an unsubstantiated opinion isn't good enough for the Philosophy section of PF. There are rules here, and you agreed to them. Either present a well-supported argument or please refrain from posting here.

That doesn't just go for you, that goes for everyone. The quality of posts here has really gone downhill lately.

I've never talked to variety of people about beliefs,

That's what I thought.

 

[heartless]

Am I to infer from this that you've taken a scientific poll? Where are the results?

No, I didn't do the poll, but I've had many conversations with my friends, parents, relatives and their friends. They almost all think alike, but since 30 or more people do the same thing, you may as well derive the farther results of people of the same social class, age and the like.

Now you're doing exactly what you accused "most atheists" of doing. You simply don't know that religious beliefs are false.

By false belief I don't mean that religions are wrong, I mean that people don't know what they believe in. They call themselves muslims or christians or jews but they don't follow what their religious writings say. They don't dig into their belief and don't know what their religions talk about.

That's what I thought.

That's exactly it. But by veriety of people, I mean, both averaged people, religion-heads, priests, rabiis, and the like. I wrote that "many" people, but by many it doesn't have to be everyone. Many people, are the averaged people, since there's much more of them than any others.

 

[clouded.perception]

Atheists are rarely driven by logic. Most of them is unable to defend their ideas, and belief. They aren't able to derive any logical sense from their belief.

What exactly do you mean about not being driven by logic?

Most of them think that since they can't hear or see God, it isn't there at all.

Yes -- I don't believe in God without evidence in the same way I don't believe in pixies without evidence.

Just wanted to point that out. Sorry if I interrupted your conversation.

 

[arildno]

Just chiming in with clouded.perception:

While "everyone" agrees the belief in pixies is just silly and DISMISSABLE AT THE OUTSET, this silliness somehow disappears if you give the pixie the qualities of omnipotence and all-goodness (in addition to transparent wings of course).
In fact, now the belief is to be regarded as something profound and spiritual..

Well, I for one don't get this, and never will.

 

[moving finger]

So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Excellent post, excellent question.

Like many, I think I felt "intuitively" that moral values should be relative rather than absolute.

But your post has started me thinking. Thank you.

I'm going to do some more study & reading, and will be back.

My initial reaction is : Moral values are relative because they are values based on perspective and subjectivity. But I'm re-evaluating this.

Thanks for making me think!

Best Regards

 

[loseyourname]

What exactly do you mean about not being driven by logic?

I think he's trying to claim that atheism is the default position of the intelligentsia these days, and most atheists simply accept this status quo, rather than being driven to their beliefs by rational inference from the available evidence.

Of course, he does seem to go on to say that atheists do not believe in God because they have never experienced anything that would cause them to believe. I fail to see what's so illogical about this. I'd say the inference from "there is no good evidence for the existence of X" to "I do not believe in the existence of X" is perfectly rational. The real contentiousness lies in the truth of the first proposition and mostly in what exactly constitutes good evidence.

 

[moving finger]

Of course, he does seem to go on to say that atheists do not believe in God because they have never experienced anything that would cause them to believe. I fail to see what's so illogical about this. I'd say the inference from "there is no good evidence for the existence of X" to "I do not believe in the existence of X" is perfectly rational. The real contentiousness lies in the truth of the first proposition and mostly in what exactly constitutes good evidence.

If God wanted humans to believe in Him based on "good evidence", then He could easily provide plenty of such good evidence. God has it within His power to "prove" to everyone on Earth that He exists.

However, He chooses not to do this.

Conclusion : God does not want people to believe in Him simply because they have "good evidence" that He exists. Rather, He wants people to believe in Him based on faith alone - and faith by definition does not require "good evidence".

Now, if we are to assume that God is both omnipotent and consistent, then it follows from the above that He wants all people to believe in Him based on faith rather than "good evidence". Hence He will act to ensure there is no such "good evidence".

Thus, any and all phenomena which we might call "good evidence" are in fact either illusions or misinterpretations, and there is no such thing as "good evidence" that He exists.

Moving Finger

 

[moving finger]

A recent thread on moral absolutism/relativism got me thinking about the issue again, and rather than do the usual arguments, I'd like to take a slightly different angle at the issue.

Firstly, how do we define moral absolutism and moral relativism?

I suggest possible operational definitions are :

Moral Absolutism : The optimum moral code for any society is independent of the individuals which make up that society.

Moral Relativism : The optimum moral code for any society is dependent on the individuals which make up that society.

Any comments on these?

It seems to me that athiests are often athiests because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are athiests). But science is predicated on one primary/core article of faith/belief: that the universe obeys fixed laws and if we're smart enough, we can figure out what they are. Ie, scientists believe there are absolute physical laws that govern the universe. And yet, when it comes to morality, it seems a great many scientists and athiests are moral relativists. They don't believe that similar to (perhaps even part of) the laws of science, there exists a set of universal laws of morality.

I think it depends on how you define the term “laws of morality”
Morality is an extremely complex phenomenon. If someone believes (as I do) that notions of morality arise purely deterministically from interaction between individuals, then it follows that the basic “rules” of this morality are based on deterministic “laws”. The problem, however, is that the emergent “moral rules” are dependent on (derived from) the detailed value systems of the individuals concerned. Different individuals will give rise to different “moral rules”. Thus, given that individuals can vary across very wide ranges, there is no “universal set of moral rules” which would apply to all societies. Though the moral rules are based on universal laws, the detailed moral rules for a given society emerge from, and are dependent on, the individuals which make up that society.

In a similar way, “cloud formation” ultimately follows universal physical laws. But it does not follow from this that we can identify a “universal law of clouds” which will be applicable to all clouds and will prescribe the details of each cloud (size, shape, colour etc) in absence of the variable contributing factors which influence the formation of those clouds.

I am suggesting it is the same with moral laws. Moral rules ultimately follow universal physical laws, but it does not follow from this that we can identify a “universal law of morality” which will be applicable to all societies and will prescribe the details of all moral rules in absence of the variable contributing factors which influence those laws – ie the individuals in the society.

Best Regards

 

[selfAdjoint]

I suggest possible operational definitions are :

Moral Absolutism : The optimum moral code for any society is independent of the individuals which make up that society.

Moral Relativism : The optimum moral code for any society is dependent on the individuals which make up that society.

Any comments on these?

1) In what sense optimum? How about using "existing" instead?

2) Your absolute definition wouldn't satisfy most people who believe in absolute morality because of the restriction "for any society". This raises the question whether different societies could have different absolute moral codes (for example democracy and shari'a).

 

[moving finger]

Moral Absolutism : The optimum moral code for any society is independent of the individuals which make up that society.

Moral Relativism : The optimum moral code for any society is dependent on the individuals which make up that society.

1) In what sense optimum? How about using "existing" instead?

Good suggestion. However the problem with “existing” is that it presupposes agreement on the “existing” moral code. Can we assume that all members of any given society will agree on all the details of the moral code for that society? I doubt it. Lawyers make a lot of money from the fact that there is often disagreement!

2) Your absolute definition wouldn't satisfy most people who believe in absolute morality because of the restriction "for any society". This raises the question whether different societies could have different absolute moral codes (for example democracy and shari'a).

But isn’t the thesis that “different societies have different moral codes” just Moral Relativism (why – because “different societies” = “different individuals”, and Moral Relativism says that moral code depends on the individuals which make up the society)?

Could you perhaps suggest a better definition of Moral Absolutism to distinguish it from Moral Relativism?

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Or, better yet, why don't scientists consider absolute laws of morality to be part of the absolute laws of science?

As both a scientist and an atheist I feel obliged to get to the bottom of this question, and provide Russ with the answer he is seeking.

From Wikipedia :

Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.

The problem with this is that “the context of the act” includes the properties of the individuals involved. Thus, it follows that moral absolutism entails that morals are independent of the properties of the individuals involved.

But any society is simply a collection of individuals.

Therefore moral absolutism entails that morals are independent of the society to which they apply.

Therefore moral absolutism entails that there is one and only one set of morals, which must be applicable to all societies and all individuals.

What is wrong with the above argument, if anything?

Also from Wikipedia :

Moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but are instead relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.

It follows that moral relativism entails that morals are dependent on the individuals involved, and on the societies which these individuals make up.

Therefore moral relativism entails that there can be different sets of morals, applicable to different societies.

This explication of moral relativism I see as being entirely rational and deterministic. I see nothing in the above which would lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational for an atheist or a scientist to believe in moral relativism (as suggested by russ watters) – quite the reverse. The moral relativist position seems to me to be the more reasonable and scientific account of morality.

Russ - the simple answer to your question of why scientists/athiests do not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality is because the laws of morality are emergent laws which are critically dependent on the individuals involved (unlike physical laws which, it seems, are fundamental and not dependent on the entities involved). This means that physical laws can be considered absolute, whereas moral laws are not.

Best Regards

 

[George Jones]

I am a physicist, and I am not aware of any absolute physical laws.