This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Do right and wrong exist?
I'm curious about objective right and wrong. If you believe in God, this is a no-brainer. Some things are wrong, some things are right, simply because God says so and He knows. But if you don't believe in God, can you still believe in objective morality? I personally don't think you can. I mean, what do you base it off of? How do you find out what's objectively right or wrong? (By objective I mean "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." from dictionary.com)
Sure, there's subjective morality. Any idea of right or wrong come up with by a human is by definition subjective. That's all well and good. Problem is that it only applies to people who believe in it and it gives them no authority to proclaim anything as "what we should be doing." Very often everybody disagrees with each other and we don't get anywhere. (Just look at Congress for an example of this.)
Maybe you disagree with me and you think there is objective morality but no God. That's fine. I would like to ask you to answer a question for me though. Let's pick an easy one. Why is rape objectively wrong? Don't misunderstand me, I can't think of a single instance where rape wouldn't be wrong. I believe very strongly that sexual abuse is one of the greatest evils in the world. Why is it evil? If you can answer me without using a God-based or subjective argument, I'll concede the point.
That point is this: Without God, there is no such thing as right and wrong, only the things we call right and wrong. And since nobody can agree on what to call what, we're all in a lot of trouble.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Mark Meijer 100+
God is also an idea come up with by humans. Believing something to be objective does not make it so. If something were objective, it would not be a matter of belief. Neither morality nor god are "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." Basing morality off of your belief in god still makes it a matter of belief. All belief is necessarily subjective, and nothing derived from it can ever be objective, god or no god.
Scot Wilcox 10+
Mark Meijer 100+
Ideas invariably fool their audience, and the audience of your ideas is you. If and when you learn to see through their tricks, it becomes painfully obvious how you were taken in by them. No scientific experiment or logical argument is going to convince you of anything unless you are willing to look directly into these tricks for yourself.
You have mentioned that you've had personal experiences with god. I'm going to suggest that those experiences were real AS experiences, but that the ideas you have ABOUT them are not. Because in fact no experience tells you what it is an experience of, that only comes in later as a matter of interpretation (i.e. fitting your ideas onto the experience).
You are drawing conclusions (and entire conceptual frameworks and world views) from those experiences that are not warranted. It's up to you to consider that possibility, not me, not science, not religion. Until that time, your beliefs will always appear to be self-confirming, as with the magician's tricks. That's one of their major tricks, it's what allows them to survive unchallenged.
You say you want to make atheists think about their beliefs. Good on ya, and good luck (and be prepared to be disappointed). But meanwhile don't forget to challenge your own. Those are the only ones that matter, and the only ones you can correct.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If someone claims something exists I suggest the burden of proof is normally on them, not on everyone else to disprove it.
Suggest some mundane claims about existence can be reasonably proven false e.g. the claim that a regular African elephant exists in my living room. But I can not disprove that a spiritual elephant god that is all knowing, all good, all loving, all; powerful and created the universe exists in my living room.
But suggest it is reasonable not to believe in this elephant god unless there is reasonable evidence.
I note most gods believed in today exist are defined as immaterial, sometimes outside time and space etc. What that means, how something like that interacts with physical reality, are they made of spiritual atoms, how can you reliably know anything about something like that?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Divine command, what a god or goddess wants if it does exist is not necessarily right. It is just what the god wants. So if a god wants us to kill homosexuals and adulters, or the tribe next door, it is just what that god wants. Not absolute right or wrong.
Some theists try to get round this by saying their interpretation of god is all knowing and all good and therefore what it wants us to do is by definition right. How convenient. You can define anything you want but that does not mean it exists.
Every moral framework needs some starting assumptions and then you can work out objectively within that framework within the limits of human capability what best meets these. Your starting assumption might be what the pope says, or something like what reduces the suffering of conscious beings.
Mark Meijer 100+
Bingo.
Louise Kyte