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.
Scott Reil
The "question" (it seems to me to be a treatise for the existence of God) assumes it was a divine gift in the first place when we have a perfectly good TED talk showing science being as good a (or better) judge for moral issues as religion (Sam Harris). So you CAN leave your god out of this and still have rape be wrong; heck even animals know right from wrong, despite a complete lack of religion (Franz de Waal's TED talk proves that point). I await a concession speech... ;)
Mom always said you taste like the broth you were boiled in, and as Scot is from Provo, I am guessing that he is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints. It is not suprising that someone raised in an environs where the church and its congregation are not just a feature of the society, but are the organizing principle of the community, where virtually everyone you meet is a believer, might come to see his God in every facet of existence. If you were raised in a sealed environment where everything was white, an argument on colors will be lost on you; it is the individual ability to see outside of one's own peculiar paradigm that is the first step to true compassion. And compassion is the root of moralistic behavior, not anyone's god.
Big G GOD (no matter what name you taped on him), has been responsible for far more suffering than necessary. All- powerful beings that allow for the sorry plight of all species we see demonstrated around the world have a POWERFUL amount of explaining to do, especially in the good versus evil category. I live in Connecticut and we recently had a most despicable evil befall twenty kindergarteners. What benificent omnipresent being could allow twenty young lives to be snuffed out without reason? I suggest none. But yes, there remains good and evil, God or no, and it is Socrate's definition, a man who was killed for trying to leave the gods out of it all. Was that good?
Scot Wilcox 10+
Scott Reil
And Mark's argument about Sam's allowance for the thin possibility of change in the paradigm negating all premise for moral behavior without divine intervention is more ontological than fact based. How many doubts dance on the head of a pin? Might as well count them as count angels.
I don't believe his allowance disproves anything; to belabor an example already used many times this thread, gay rights were unthinkable as they were a biological abberation a century ago; science has since been providing myriad examples of "gay" behavior in animals. If it is a natural behavior (as many examples from nature would suggest), it could be neither right or wrong, simply natural. Yet we often still try to define this as a good or bad, no matter which side of the argument you fall on. Science says it is natural, religion says it is evil. It is the human condition that causes liberals to adopt natural as good, when it is neither. So both sides can be guilty... yet this failure of secular thinking is not proof of the religious thought. It is simply another failure...
Sam Harris aside, I see no rejoinder concerning Franz de Waal's talk. If you are correct in the need of religion to bring forth "our better angels", why do animals do the right thing? Could it be...natural?
Louise Kyte
Louise Kyte
"Socrates was not the agnostic some have made him into. In fact, it seems that Socrates was very much a religious man, who believed that his live was guided by his daemon, what we today would call a “guardian angel”. -- Philip Coppens.
Would you deny the families of the slain children in Newtown the belief that their children are in heaven and they will see them again one day? How is that compassionate? This is earth, not heaven. We Christians believe it's far from perfect to challenge us to make it better. And that God does not pretend to try to make it a good place for us.
Mark Meijer 100+
And by ignorance I don't mean when you don't know something, but when you think you know something while you actually don't. It's when you insist on something being true because you want it to be true, or you insist on thinking you know something because you're afraid of the implications of the fact that you don't know anything.
And that's what all beliefs are. Including beliefs of right and wrong. Just look at all the effort being put into this conversation to assert and justify beliefs. In the words of one Dirty Harry, "opinions are like a..holes, everybody's got one". Atheists are by no means beyond frantic religious zealotry when it comes to their own beliefs and opinions. Just observe what is going on here, and pretty much everywhere else for that matter. That's what Socrates was talking about.
Louise Kyte
Explain please.
Mark Meijer 100+
Louise Kyte
Mark Meijer 100+
Louise Kyte
Mark Meijer 100+
Which anyone who stops arguing for just a minute and just starts observing should immediately be able to recognize. But you'd have to stop arguing for a minute first, Louise. Btw that's another hallmark of religious zealots, they can't see what's going on, and often don't even want to look, because they're too invested and caught up in their argument. Hence, if you haven't the slightest clue what the heck I'm talking about, then never mind.
Louise Kyte
Yes. I've noticed that for some years now. We like to say it is just as difficult to believe there is no god as it is to believe that there is one - so why not take the leap of faith that starts one on the beginnings of a relationship with Our Father?
In actuality, it is far more difficult to believe there is no god than to believe there is one, since, as they say, one cannot prove a negative. It also is more difficult to be an atheist than a believer because most of us in this world are believers.
Mark Meijer 100+
In addition, there is a great deal that can be positively eliminated as necessarily impossible, and as demonstrably nothing other than constructions of thought. If we'd just stop planting our flags in our fantasies and start to actually dismantle them, we may yet be surprised at what we find out that way.
That's the famous "via negativa", or in other words: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Because the funny thing about truth is that it's self-evident and obvious, except insofar as we allow it to be obscured by the fantasies we so desperately latch onto for dear life. So the whole thing always starts with simply admitting that you don't know anything, and working through the implications, despite your fear of it. Because there's just no sense in fearing the truth. Might as well give up now if you can't get over that.
Louise Kyte
Surely with that you are not suggesting that I, myself, give up. Perhaps you meant, "One may as well give up if one can't get over that."
"When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life." -- Marilyn Adamson
Mark Meijer 100+
As for that quote, I agree with it insofar as it illustrates all our commonly hidden agendas, of which we ourselves tend to be only dimly aware, if at all. Although it seems that Marilyn may have merely exchanged one for another. If you want to use god as a synonym for truth or the absolute, then sure. But, to give one more suggestion for consideration, anything that involves belief, hypothesis, metaphor, interpretation etc. is not it. Because all those are arguable (and demonstrably nothing other than constructions of the mind). In other words they're all examples of the kind of ignorance mentioned before.
But this is as far as I'm going on this tangent right now. It's never settled by argument anyway.
Louise Kyte
Mark Meijer 100+
It's difficult to convey this but I don't define myself as an atheist (Scot said I am one but those are his words, not mine). And I don't see atheists as non-believers. I already mentioned that atheists (and basically everyone) clearly have their own beliefs and often defend them vehemently. The extent to which they defend them illustrates their investment in them. This entire conversation is a shining example of that, and I don't claim to be innocent here. That's being worked on.
Which is one reason why I've seen my distaste for my own proselytizing growing to a degree where I'm all too happy to give it up entirely. There won't be much more of this from me around here, rest assured. And I got to this place by being self-critical while doing it, by acknowledging my own hypocricy, often openly, rather than denying it and trying to suppress the impulse. I've pretty much worked it out of my system now (thanks in part due to this conversation as a recent example).
Mark Meijer 100+
But the word "agnostic" carries the implication that there might be a god or there might not be (in the way that the word "god" is generally understood by monotheists). Like I said (and this is the most difficult to convey) it is certainly possible to rule out things about the nature of reality that are necessarily impossible, such as for example free will, or some entity responsible for the whole of existence while somehow standing apart from it. There is a difference between reality and the way we think of reality, and the fallacies in the way we think of reality can certainly be found out and eliminated if one were so inclined.
There is exactly one definition of the word god that I would be willing to accept, although I would still be inclined to object to its use due to the inevitable and often insurmountable baggage it carries. And that definition is god as the absolute, i.e. truth, ultimate reality, god as whatever it is that does exist. Because the only knowable fact is the fact of existence, and the only sensible definition for the word god is the entirety of existence as it is, whatever it is (and of which we are necessarily an integral part). And the only thing that can generate any doubt about that whatsoever, is investment in false certainties, i.e. belief. Absolute truth and belief are mutually exclusive, and this can be found out and known directly.
Scott Reil
Louise, I haver come to my atheism fairly and squarely from a lifelong search for God. Agnosticism was the last stop along the way before I "came out" which is truly what it is like. Anyone claiming the mantle of atheist is NOT doing this because it is the easier option, believe that...
I statrted Christian because that was where I was born. If I had been born in Mumbai, the chance I would have been Christian at birth would be much reduced. As it would be for you also. Had either of us been born in Riyadh, it seems almost certain we would be Muslim, yes? So One True God on this planet seems more a matter of real estate than real belief...
As I searched for the OTG, I quickly dismissed my birth religion; the historical litany was more one of crusades and inquisitions than any of the true teachings of Jesus. I still hold all religions to the same litmus test " not as I say but as I do", and most fall far short. I sorted through any religion that came to hand; Buddhism was a front runner for a long time until I found the "Woman is the root of all evil" clause; that was a non-starter. And so it went. They all seemed to have a few good bits here and there, but always with some glaring flaw that left them wanting in my eye.
The last one I gave any sort of chance was Zoroasterianism, where a main tenet that anyone claiming to know the mind of God was a heretic, as God was unknowable, and we should take very good care of the creation we were given until he shows us what he wants done with it. The main tenet was that life must be about good acts, bringing the balance toward the good. Like Jeffeson's biography of Jesus, the deism is vaguely still there, but it becomes more about what you do with it. If they weren't always burning things I might have settled here, but there is still an off-putting, mumbo-jumbo factor; I do not crave ritual as some do...
So I am a quasi-Zen, proto-Parsee atheist. What's in a name?
Louise Kyte