Atheistic Worldviews Cannot Determine Morality

[Sola_Fide]

Gordon Clark:

...for there is no morality apart from the laws of God.

I would like to make it clear that sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms. Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows.

Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy. Science can invent new ways of killing people, but science can never determine who should be killed. It cannot determine who should not be killed. It can only invent more effective ways of doing what somebody for some other reason wants to do.

[Falcon63]

Religion has no monopoly on morality. In fact, morality has nothing to do with religion at all.

[Sola_Fide]

Religion has no monopoly on morality. In fact, morality has nothing to do with religion at all.

"Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy."

[Falcon63]

"Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy."

I never said science could define morality.

Neither can religion...

[robert68]

If “God” does, then it just means those claiming to know “God’s will” are determining "morality".
What's “moral” and what isn’t “moral” has to do with one’s conscience.

[phill4paul]

...for there is no morality apart from the laws of God.

Which laws are these? As there is no proof of God, only that which man has attributed to HIM, then there is no "proof" of HIS laws, only those laws which are attributed to HIM.

If HIS laws say it is right to kill those he opposes BASED ON his MORALITY then are his laws "moral?"

I suppose so. However, I don't ascribe to such bunk. My morals are superior or inferior to my fellow man depending on belief. So are those beliefs of mine against my fellow man based on my belief.

Religion is a 'belief.' So is ones sense of morality.

There but for the sake of MYSELF, go I.

[Sola_Fide]

What's “moral” and what isn’t “moral” has to do with one’s conscience.

How do you know that?

[robert68]

I'll qualify what I wrote. It's the way the term is used by those with a conscience. For those who don't have a conscience, it can't be true. Do you have a conscience?

[Sola_Fide]

I'll qualify what I wrote. It's the way the term is used by those with a conscience. For those who don't have a conscience, it can't be true. Do you have a conscience?

How do you know you have a conscience? And what makes one conscience right and another one wrong?

[WhistlinDave]

Do I have to post the video again of the dog risking his own life to save his fellow dog from the oncoming traffic? This is seriously ridiculous.

Sola_Fide, I challenge you to find and post a credible source with statistics showing that the percentage of prison inmates who are atheists is higher than the overall percentage of atheists in the entire population. If you can show that, then you might have a leg to stand on here. It still wouldn't prove causation, but it would be enough to say maybe there is something to your premise.

I'll save you the time though... You'll find atheists are severely underrepresented in prison populations. Not by a little, but by a lot. This suggests that atheists do a much better job of living moral lives than religious people do.


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/athei...son-population

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...on-communities

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...ge_of_atheists

[jmdrake]

Sola_Fide, I challenge you to find and post a credible source with statistics showing that the percentage of prison inmates who are atheists is higher than the overall percentage of atheists in the entire population. If you can show that, then you might have a leg to stand on here. It still wouldn't prove causation, but it would be enough to say maybe there is something to your premise.

Not taking sides in the overall debate, but ^that likely to be a skewed statistics. Lot's of people find religion in prison. There's little else to do. Attending a Bible study gets you out of your cell. It's a stressful situation. (Like the "there are no atheists in foxholes" joke.) You want someone to speak on your behalf at your parole hearing and having a pastor do that can't hurt. Myriad other reasons.

[WhistlinDave]

Found it... I'm probably not going to post again on this because I already said it all on this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4962756

I don't know what you hope to accomplish or gain by asserting that atheists are not capable of true morality, but it's really silly. And simply not true. (If it was, I'm pretty sure my atheist wife would've either killed me or left me by now.)

[Sola_Fide]

Do I have to post the video again of the dog risking his own life to save his fellow dog from the oncoming traffic? This is seriously ridiculous.

Do I have to post a video of a dog eating another dog? Dogs eat each other and dogs save each other (according to your video). Who cares? It doesn't matter anyway, because:

sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms. Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy.

All that your observations do (at best) is show you what behavior is, it cannot tell you how one ought to act. Atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality.

[tttppp]

Gordon Clark:

The science of economics can tell you a whole lot about what people should and shouldn't do.

[Sola_Fide]

The science of economics can tell you a whole lot about what people should and shouldn't do.

No it doesn't.

[tttppp]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. It can tell you what major decisions policy makers should and shouldn't make and won't even have to open their Bibles.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes it does. It can tell you what major decisions policy makers should and shouldn't make and won't even have to open their Bibles.

No it it doesn't. Economics is the study of human action. It is value-free.

[TheTexan]

If morality comes from God, where does immorality come from? The lack of God? I am an atheist, and consider myself a moral (and good) person.

[TheGrinch]

If morality comes from God, where does immorality come from? The lack of God? I am an atheist, and consider myself a moral (and good) person.

Three choices: Satan, free will, or it doesn't $#@!ing matter because it's pretty much determined (whether thru god or genetic/environmental factors) whether you'll be a scumbag or not.

I personally believe in free will in much the same the way that you cannot definitively prove God. True free will has been very difficult to prove, but even if an illusion is an extremely important one when it comes to morality.

So in answer to your question, I believe in a sort of buddhist perspective that man must have a capacity for evil to have a capacity for good, but it's completely possible that you being moral was not a conscious decision at all.

[Sola_Fide]

If morality comes from God, where does immorality come from?

Immorality is the transgression of the law of God. It comes from our sinful heart. You couldn't have immorality without morality. This is the problem with atheistic worldviews. And even in the attempt to assert morality, they commit logical fallacies.

The lack of God? I am an atheist, and consider myself a moral (and good) person.

I'm sure you do. But the OP (which I really think you should read and understand because it is an invincible argument) speaks more about logic and valid argumentation as opposed to feelings.

[TheTexan]

But the OP (which I really think you should read and understand because it is an invincible argument) speaks more about logic and valid argumentation as opposed to feelings.

The argument in the OP is circular in nature.

"Atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality for there is no morality apart from the laws of God."

This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question. Such circular reasoning is prevalent throughout all religious debate, because religion is based on faith, not reason.

God is, because he is. And so on.

[robert68]

How do you know you have a conscience?

The same way you know you have feelings or thoughts.

And what makes one conscience right and another one wrong?

One only experiences their own conscience, so a direct comparison can’t be made.

And to be clear, none of this is to say the conscience can’t be ignored.

[bolil]

I've often thought one of the most tragic afflictions, or combinations, is to have a liar's heart and an honest conscience.

[WhistlinDave]

Do I have to post a video of a dog eating another dog? Dogs eat each other and dogs save each other (according to your video). Who cares? It doesn't matter anyway, because:

sociology, statistics, psychology, or any empirical science can never determine moral norms. Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy.

All that your observations do (at best) is show you what behavior is, it cannot tell you how one ought to act. Atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality.

I'll bet I can find historical record of a few million more people throughout history who have been slaughtered/tortured/pillaged by Christians on a Christian quest or in a Christian war than you can find instances of dogs eating dogs. So who cares? I wasn't asserting that dogs are always moral any more than you can claim religious people are always moral! You're trying to evade your own point.

Your claim is that it's impossible to know how one ought to act without subscribing to "laws of God." Clearly, this is not the case.

I already completely answered this in that other thread, and you simply are not willing to consider anything outside your world view, in spite of evidence that proves you're wrong. (Unless we are to assume the dog in that video is a Christian and that's why he was displaying such good moral behavior.)

The atheists' morality is actually far more pure than the Christian's morality, because the atheist takes personal responsibility and does the right thing out of genuine respect and concern for others, whereas the Christian puts responsibility for good and evil on external spiritual influences (the devil made me do it, or all good comes from the glory of God), and the Christian acts in a moral manner not because it's the right thing to do, but because "those are the rules" and one must follow the rules in order to avoid punishment.

[WhistlinDave]

Which Bible verse do you suppose this dog was reciting to himself as he did this act of morality?

[Danan]

"Secular science at best can discover what people do; but it cannot discover what people ought to do. From observational premises no normative conclusion follows. Any attempt to define morality by observational science is a logical fallacy."

The world doesn't consist of science and religion only.

You can derive morality in a secular manner similarily to how religious people do it. Establishing first principles that one holds to be true and deriving what follows to be moral/ethical. Of course you can't prove those first principles and you can't even falsify them, because they are entirely subjective. But the same is true for every form of religious morality. You can claim that your god's laws are universal, absolute and objective but that doesn't make it true. It has just as much value as if I claim that my morality is universal, absolute and objective (which in fact I do).

[Danan]

Three choices: Satan, free will, or it doesn't $#@!ing matter because it's pretty much determined (whether thru god or genetic/environmental factors) whether you'll be a scumbag or not.

I personally believe in free will in much the same the way that you cannot definitively prove God. True free will has been very difficult to prove, but even if an illusion is an extremely important one when it comes to morality.

So in answer to your question, I believe in a sort of buddhist perspective that man must have a capacity for evil to have a capacity for good, but it's completely possible that you being moral was not a conscious decision at all.

I don't believe that determinism is ruling out free will in the traditional sense. It only establishes that whatever your choices are going to be is determined by past events. Nobody (save some leftist sociologists) would argue that you don't have free will because you only act the way you do because of your upbringing, your childhood, your genetic disposition, etc.

Physical determinism is only adding another layer of explaination of your behaviour. You have free will as long as you are always able to choose those available alternatives that benefit you the most (or yield the highest utility) and in fact base your choices on that consideration. Determinism doesn't really collide with that idea. It only tells us which of your options you are going to favor the most and subsequently be choosing, based on the past.

[Falcon63]

Which Bible verse do you suppose this dog was reciting to himself as he did this act of morality?

Like one of the comments said, it kind of irked me that the dog was more human than the humans not even trying to help the dog.

[jmdrake]

Which Bible verse do you suppose this dog was reciting to himself as he did this act of morality?

I dunno. But it does bring some Bible verses to my mind.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Romans 8:19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are.

Proverbs 30:24 - 28
24 There are four things which are little on the earth, But they are exceedingly wise:
25 The ants are a people not strong, Yet they prepare their food in the summer;
26 The rock badgers[b] are a feeble folk, Yet they make their homes in the crags;
27 The locusts have no king, Yet they all advance in ranks;
28 The spider[c] skillfully grasps with its hands, And it is in kings’ palaces.

And here's one frog saving another from a snake. It's at 8:30 in. If you blink you miss it.



And the story of Balaam's donkey illustrates that God communicates with the lower creatures.

Numbers 22:21-32
21 Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite officials. 22 But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the Lord stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, it turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat it to get it back on the road.

24 Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path through the vineyards, with walls on both sides. 25 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam’s foot against it. So he beat the donkey again.

26 Then the angel of the Lord moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff. 28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

“No,” he said.

31 Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

32 The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.[a] 33 The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.”

[Sola_Fide]

The argument in the OP is circular in nature.

"Atheistic worldviews cannot determine morality for there is no morality apart from the laws of God."

That is not the argument of the OP.