Atheism and Cultural Morality












JD Walters said…

Might want to be careful with this one. A few lines down you say that child sacrifice was condoned in cultures of the past. That doesn't seem like a superficial cultural difference to me.

I'm not saying that appeal to a universally presumed cross-cultural morality is illegitimate, but it needs to be a bit more nuanced.
Anonymous said…
I disagree that an objective universal morality does not exist in the absence of God or in the absence of proof of the existence of God. I assume "objectivity" and "universality" are what you mean by "absolute" morality.

I would cite the "natural moral law", often called an expression of God's general revelation in human nature.

The first premise (you ought to seek what's really good) is a statement of value that, as a commensurate universal (ought and desire), is self-evidently true.

The second premise (x is really good) is a statement of fact for which there can be substantial consensus. What is really good is what fulfills a natural human need as they are no wrong natural needs. Again, that is a self-evident truth. Distinquishing between natural needs, acquired wants and acquired needs (addictions) allows you to overcome cultural differences. In fact, the existence of cultural differences says nothing about the existence or non-existence of an objective and universal morality.

The conclusion (you ought to seek x) is logically valid and does not commit the naturalistic fallacy since the first premise is a statement of value not fact.

This structure says nothing about God. It is considered part of God's general revelation because God's created human beings with natural desires, but conceptually you can drop God and nothing changes in this objective and universal morality. Ought and desire (the first premise) still function as a self-evident commensurate universal. Human nature remains human nature. As long as human beings are human this morality prevails. The only real good that is dropped is the worship of God corresponding to the natural need for truth, goodness and beauty. The only possible challenge to this system is nominalism, but nominalism is self-defeating. Again, no recourse to God is necessary to create "objectivity" and "universality".

Robert Sutherland.
John W. Loftus said…
Just as there is no such thing as logic in the abstract (we are not logic machines), there is no such thing as an abstract moral standard (it is always a moral standard as understood by fallible humans).

It means nothing to say the Bible provides a moral standard that an atheist doesn't have, for what you need to say is that your particular interpretation of the Bible is the ultimate moral standard, and that's something no Christian down through the centuries can legitimately do. Although they have slaughtered many people while claiming this.

Which interpretation of Biblical morality is the ultimate standard, given the various ones Christians have espoused down through the centuries? Spell it out for us all.

I just don't think you fully understand this problem.

We're in the same boat.

Paul said…
"After all, if there is no absolute standard for morality, then morality becomes subjective."

You make it sound like morality would be arbitrary or whimsical, but a moment's reflection will show that this is not the case. I can no more change my basic moral code, non-asbolute though it may be, than I can change my language, non-absolute as it is, too.
Jason Pratt said…
I'll let Bill handle commentary on this thread, since I have my own OP to put up in a few days (maybe Sunday morning) on the topic, as the first part of an ongoing series of ruminations; and I would rather do commentary there.

From my referenced discussion with Paul, which btw I much appreciated {bowing in his direction!}, I would rather proceed into some technical issues of metaphysical analysis directly. I think Robert will appreciate it too, later if not sooner. I think John Loftus is not Socratic Cole Slaw; but I was saying that from the beginning. {g} (Anyone unfamiliar with why I would say that, can do a search on the site for Cole Slaw, cabbage, and cottage cheese. Have fun!)

Good luck, Bill! {g!}

BK said…

Good point. I should have been a bit more careful.
BK said…

First, there is such a thing as logic in the abstract.

Second, there is no such thing as a private interpretation of the Bible which is what I think you mean by "personal" interpretation. Sure, Christians sometimes differ and make mistakes about the meaning (sometimes leading to very bad actions by Christians), but that doesn't mean that the standard isn't there and real.

As usual, your statement that suggests that I "don't understand" something that you apparently believe you do suggests a strong arrogance that is reflected time and again in your comments. What bothers me most about you is that I think you understand the solutions but you pretend you don't.
BK said…

I agree that moral standards are somewhat built into our systems. Romans 1 and 2 teaches that. But I have a reason for believing in a moral code that is consistent and binding. If you are an atheist, you don't have such a reason.

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?


How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!


The Meaning of the Manger

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition