Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[cynic]

You say that as if wicked theistic morality hasn't and doesn't exist.

What I would prefer is for moral systems to be based on facts and rationality not the religious texts.

Richard Dawkins sums it up perfectly here.

Summed what up exactly?

Perhaps, his ability to dodge a question, by cherry picking religious writings in pursuance of his own anti theistic agenda, and at the same time hypocritically accusing theists of that very same damnable behaviour!

 

[bellenuit]

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/191614159122576671/?autologin=true

But those are the beliefs of some atheists, which is not the same as secular morality. Secular morality is what is described in that video of Dawkins at Q&A. The beliefs of some atheists can be transgressions of secular morality just as the beliefs of some Christian are transgression of Christian morality. I regard murder as a core transgression of Christian morality, but many Christians believe that it is OK to murder, for instance, staff at abortion clinics.

The problem with secular morality is that it is not codified in one place as the religious morality (of a particular sect) is. We know what is right and wrong, but haven't a set of written rules to follow or an imaginary deity who is going to punish us for not obeying. The closest we come to codifying secular morality is through the secular laws we have developed over time, which bans murder, slavery, inequality of women (mostly) etc. It is currently in the throes of ensuring equality for those who do not fit the straight male/female roles. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is all another attempt at defining secular morality.

 

[Tisme]

Have you spent much time out of Australia? They are folks with good morals all over the world, not just in countries with Christianity in their history.

I have indeed. Most them have been touched by the British Empire or their political and legal systems.

Not arguing that morality, ethics and guilt are patented by Christianity, just being pragmatic enough to accept our culture is grounded in it and our secularism pivots around it.

 

[cynic]

But those are the beliefs of some atheists, which is not the same as secular morality. Secular morality is what is described in that video of Dawkins at Q&A. The beliefs of some atheists can be transgressions of secular morality just as the beliefs of some Christian are transgression of Christian morality. I regard murder as a core transgression of Christian morality, but many Christians believe that it is OK to murder, for instance, staff at abortion clinics.

The problem with secular morality is that it is not codified in one place as the religious morality (of a particular sect) is. We know what is right and wrong, but haven't a set of written rules to follow or an imaginary deity who is going to punish us for not obeying. The closest we come to codifying secular morality is through the secular laws we have developed over time, which bans murder, slavery, inequality of women (mostly) etc. It is currently in the throes of ensuring equality for those who do not fit the straight male/female roles. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is all another attempt at defining secular morality.

So, let me see if I understand what you are saying here!

It is okay, for anti theists (like Dawkins) to criticise theistic morality, by cherry picking historical instances of theists claiming entitlement (via belief in God) to the commission of needlessly harmful acts.
And it is also okay, for the anti theist, to flatly refuse entertainment of any rational objections, presented by theists, in defence of theism.
Each and every theist, is expected to wear the anti theistic condemnation, of any misbehaviours, of any theist, found anywhere in human history!

However, when the shoe is on the other foot, and an atheist is guilty of similar (or perhaps even worse), it seems an entirely different code applies!

It is somehow, okay, for the anti theist to disavow the needlessly harmful actions of any professed atheist! The anti theist, unlike the theist,finds that excuses for disavowal of all atheist dictators, brutes, serial murderers, etcetera are somehow acceptable!

In summary, the anti theists', fantasy of the existence of superior "secular morality", is naught more than an exercise in logically bereft hypocrisy, of a very high order!

 

[Value Collector]

Summed what up exactly?

!

That a moral code that is based on rationality and reason is better than one pulled from absolute rules in religious texts.

 

[cynic]

That a moral code that is based on rationality and reason is better than one pulled from absolute rules in religious texts.

Well, since you failed to notice, he failed dismally on that score as well!

It is high time, that the anti theists of the world, caught up with the inconvenient fact, that morality, is logically incompatible with the contemporary secular viewpoint.

 

[Value Collector]

inconvenient fact, that morality, is logically incompatible with the contemporary secular viewpoint.

How so?

 

[cynic]

How so?

Already answered in numerous of my previous posts:

I agree that Christianity cannot rightly claim to hold the monopoly over morality, on account of its presence in teachings that predated the birth of Christ.

But where did you get the idea that the Christian morality, or its earlier incarnations, was of secular origin?

How can a secular perspective, claim the existence of rightful or wrongful actions, in a material world/universe that, by merit of secularist belief, is an accidental outcome of a chaotic maelstrom of matter, and therefore devoid of any intent or purpose?

My apologies if I misinterpreted your response, but please be aware that you are still misunderstanding the point that my question is raising.

(Perhaps I haven't expressed myself as clearly as I had hoped!).

How can anyone deviate from a plan, when no plan exists?

I quite agree!
But you are still missing the point!

In order for something to be truly wrong, it must surely be out of accord with a purpose, intent or design, otherwise it could not be objectively deemed to be wrong, aberrant, sinful, or in any way incorrect!

In our current secular understanding of existence, where is the objective purpose, intent or design to be found?

You are still failing to answer the question!

What you are describing here is an evolved behaviour or behavioural trait, that cannot be said to be "good" or "bad" from a purely secular perspective.

I maintain that the existence of morality demands the presence of purpose, intent or design, else morality cannot truly be said to exist!
If an intelligent agent creates a thing, then that thing has inherited purpose from its creator!
Once a thing has purpose, its behaviour, can be deemed to be accordant, or discordant, via reference to its purpose!
Without purpose intent or design, how can anyone objectively lay claim to the accordance, or discordance, of any behaviour?

Rather than reiterating my reasons for disbelief in the existence of secular morality, I have attached a video, showing an excerpt from a debate, where a theist elucidates upon the key reason, underlying my stance on this topic:

 

[SirRumpole]

How so?

So what do you see as some things that are legal but morally wrong ?

 

[Value Collector]

Already answered in numerous of my previous posts:

Actually you haven’t

How is morality incompatible with a secular viewpoint?

 

[Value Collector]

So what do you see as some things that are legal but morally wrong ?

I am not sure what that has to do with my question you quoted.

I am asking cynic to explain how a secular view point is incompatible with morality.

So I am not sure why you are asking me this question, why are you asking me that question?

 

[cynic]

Actually you haven’t

How is morality incompatible with a secular viewpoint?

On the contrary! I have already articulated that it is logically impossible for objective morality to exist in the absence of purpose. The contemporary secular viewpoint, attests to all life having originated from a chaotic event, totally devoid of intelligence and purpose.

 

[SirRumpole]

So I am not sure why you are asking me this question, why are you asking me that question?

Because I'm interested in exactly what "secular morality" is and how it's formed.

 

[Value Collector]

I have already articulated that it is logically impossible for objective morality to exist in the absence of purpose.

Where did you do that?

The “purpose” doesn’t have to be a god.

The “purpose” can just be that we want to live well and enjoy our lives.

And it is totally logical and rational that for us to live well and enjoy our lives, we need society to recognize our rights and in turn we need to recognize theirs etc.

I ask you the same question I ask graph? (Which he avoided) why do you care about morality?

I bet the real practice reasons you care about morality have nothing to do with gods, but are about being able to live well while you are alive.

 

[Value Collector]

So what do you see as some things that are legal but morally wrong ?

Ok,

Laws and morality are two different things.

Laws are blunt instruments and are general in nature, where as morality is situational.

Religions tend to see morality as obeying absolute laws written in their texts,

Where as secular morality isn’t so much about obeying absolute unchanging laws, but rather working out what the best solution is for all those involved in any given situation.

The laws of a secular nation should be adjusted over time to get as close as possible to be good guides of what is moral, and then judges and juries etc need to do their best to look at cases in the grey areas to make situational decisions.

A religious law might be “thy shalt not kill”, but there may be situations where the best objective moral outcome is achieved by killing someone, and not killing some one might be totally immoral.

So any religious person following the absolute morality of their text, might find them selves enforcing immoral laws, when a rational secular debate of the facts might see that changing the law creates better outcomes.

 

[cynic]

Where did you do that?

The “purpose” doesn’t have to be a god.

The “purpose” can just be that we want to live well and enjoy our lives.

And it is totally logical and rational that for us to live well and enjoy our lives, we need society to recognize our rights and in turn we need to recognize theirs etc.

I ask you the same question I ask graph? (Which he avoided) why do you care about morality?

I bet the real practice reasons you care about morality have nothing to do with gods, but are about being able to live well while you are alive.

What you are talking about here is not morality!

Morality is defined as "the practice of what is right".

How can anything, that any human does to another, be deemed to be right, or not right, when the secular belief, is that, all life originated from an unintended event, and is therefore devoid of any purpose against which rightness and wrongness of behaviour, may be measured?

Objective morality cannot be defined from within the purely secular viewpoint.

As such "secular morality" cannot truly exist!

 

[SirRumpole]

A religious law might be “thy shalt not kill”, but there may be situations where the best objective moral outcome is achieved by killing someone, and not killing some one might be totally immoral.

So this is all subjective, it varies from person to person as to what they believe achieves the best outcome ?

btw , laws allow killing in certain circumstances like self defence so there is an objective morality for you, although people still have to make a subjective decision as to whether the killer was actually threatened to the point that they had no choice but to kill.

My view is that "secular morality" is just a wrapper that atheists put around religious morality in order to deny that religious morality is the basis of our moral system as ingrained into Anglo Saxon society by thousands of years of Church influence.

 

[bellenuit]

So, let me see if I understand what you are saying here!

It is okay, for anti theists (like Dawkins) to criticise theistic morality, by cherry picking historical instances of theists claiming entitlement (via belief in God) to the commission of needlessly harmful acts.

Yes, that is OK. The OT is rife with commands to commit needlessly harmful acts. Read Leviticus for instance. And by excluding those, it is the theists that are cherry picking.

And it is also okay, for the anti theist, to flatly refuse entertainment of any rational objections, presented by theists, in defence of theism.

Yes, there is no compulsion on anyone to agree with the arguments presented by theists in defence of theism. However, flatly refuse is not the same thing. That implies (to me at least) refusing to even listen to the theists' arguments. That is a closed mind IMO and I certainly do not see Dawkins as having a closed mind.

Each and every theist, is expected to wear the anti theistic condemnation, of any misbehaviours, of any theist, found anywhere in human history!

Not at all. It is just those theists that insist their holy book is the word of God and unerring, while at the same time those holy books contain exhortations to commit morally repugnant acts. You cannot on the one hand claim that the books were written (or inspired) by God, are a moral blueprint, are unerring and represent an absolute unchanging morality, then insist large chunks of it are not relevant to society today. That is hypocrisy. Absolute morality, unchanging, but at the same time not applicable to current society simply do not go together. I am (and Dawkins is too AFAIK) quite willing to accept that many Christian theists do not regard much of the Bible (particularly OT) as a moral blue print for modern society, but then to retain credibility they need to stop using terms that the morality they get from their religion is absolute and unchanging. They cannot have it both ways.

However, when the shoe is on the other foot, and an atheist is guilty of similar (or perhaps even worse), it seems an entirely different code applies!

We are talking about secular morality not the actions of some atheists. One can be of a religious persuasion and still subscribe to the tenets of secular morality and even find them superior to those prescribed by their own religion. As I said perviously, secular morality is really what modern society deems to be good and beneficial. There is no single source that codifies what secular morality is, apart from what encompasses many of the laws enacted in free secular states. We have seen that the golden rule pre-existed Christianity and that is the main driving force of what constitutes secular morality.

It is somehow, okay, for the anti theist to disavow the needlessly harmful actions of any professed atheist! The anti theist, unlike the theist,finds that excuses for disavowal of all atheist dictators, brutes, serial murderers, etcetera are somehow acceptable!

Yes, because those actions are not in accordance with secular morality and in a free society would be punishable.

In summary, the anti theists', fantasy of the existence of superior "secular morality", is naught more than an exercise in logically bereft hypocrisy, of a very high order!

Again your summary is based on a misunderstanding of secular morality.

 

[Value Collector]

So this is all subjective, it varies from person to person as to what they believe achieves the best outcome ?

btw , laws allow killing in certain circumstances like self defence so there is an objective morality for you, although people still have to make a subjective decision as to whether the killer was actually threatened to the point that they had no choice but to kill.

My view is that "secular morality" is just a wrapper that atheists put around religious morality in order to deny that religious morality is the basis of our moral system as ingrained into Anglo Saxon society by thousands of years of Church influence.

In any situation, whether the people are aware of it or not, there is an action that would be create the best outcome for those involved based on objective facts, that is objective morality.

now opinions on what that most moral action is may vary, due to subjective reasons and the people’s knowledge of the facts, but that doesn’t take away the fact that the objective moral option still exists.

So the question is, how do find out what he most moral action is?

Do we just follow absolute religious laws? Or do we try and figure out the facts and use logic to decide the best moral outcome based on rational reasoning?

If you don’t want secular morality, which morality do you want? Which brand of religious morality do you want?

 

[Value Collector]

What you are talking about here is not morality!

Morality is defined as "the practice of what is right".

How can anything, that any human does to another, be deemed to be right, or not right, when the secular belief, is that, all life originated from an unintended event, and is therefore devoid of any purpose against which rightness and wrongness of behaviour, may be measured?

Objective morality cannot be defined from within the purely secular viewpoint.

As such "secular morality" cannot truly exist!

Why does it matter how we got here?

The fact is we are here, and want to live enjoyable lives.

We can measure an actions rightness or wrongness based on its outcomes, we don’t need a Devine purpose.