Why Do Non-Believers Choose to Act Morally?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
First, I would say respectfully that too damn many questions are being asked here to make the replies stay on topic.

Sorry about that chief. I was trying to convey a state of mind along with the questions. Also, I didn't have enough time to make it shorter.

 

[BoulderHead]

No problem, and if you'd like to reduce all of it to a single question or point to debate on, I'd try my best to start all over from scratch.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I am an atheist. I use logic, scientific methods, et al, to come to this conclusion. We are all aware of what an atheist is.

Actually, can you define what you mean when you say atheist for me? I want to make sure we're on the same page.

Please THINK about questions and make sure they're not VAGUE or AMBIGUOUS. Otherwise you will get the same thing in return. [/B]

Actually, I understood the question and it's a relevant one.

It seems that you are actually validating Ivan's conclusion with your own ethics. By doing this, it isn't coincidence that you cannot see the importance of Ivan's key question because you do not place any negative implications on your own ethics. Whereas I think Ivan would see your ethic as an unfortunate implication of having no belief in something absolute, which was the whole point in asking the question. If I've mis-spoken Ivan please correct me.

 

[BoulderHead]

I found him a tough read. Probably my fault for not re-reading it enough prior to posting. My appologies in that case. Bear with me...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Fliption
If I've mis-spoken Ivan please correct me.

OK. Now you make my point better than I do.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Flipion;
What I think Ivan is saying here is similar to this view above. If a god exists, then that is the source of the purpose of creation. Hence the measure of good and bad is there. Without this "purpose", there is no single absolute rule of ethics. It is all individually based.

I would rather he have asked questions such as; what is a moral judgment, or; what makes a moral judgment moral, etc.
Having the ‘purpose’ by a belief in god does little in my view to resolve this matter into a single absolute rule of ethics, at least not collectively, because we do not all share a common view of god…

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I would rather he have asked questions such as; what is a moral judgment, or; what makes a moral judgment moral, etc.
Having the ‘purpose’ by a belief in god does little in my view to resolve this matter into a single absolute rule of ethics, at least not collectively, because we do not all share a common view of god…

Well I do think his question boils down to the question you have here. But Ivan was also letting you know why he thought the question was an important one to ask by asking it the way he did.

Also, I don't think the point was to come to an absolute ethic that everyone would follow, as much as it is to ask the question "How does a single individual justify and judge based on their own ethics when they do not believe in any foundation for an absolute ethic?"

His implied answer to this question is that there is no basis to do such a thing and therefore any bahavior can be argued to be ok.

 

[BoulderHead]

"How does a single individual justify and judge based on their own ethics when they do not believe in any foundation for an absolute ethic?"

Then for myself I think I have provided an answer. As applied towards other people, it is rooted in my belief that we are all ‘flukes’ of the universe and therefore no person is any more deserving to exist than another. From this viewpoint of existence I make the progression that because we all value ourselves nevertheless, that the best way to treat others is the way we would wish for them to treat us. This I have derived from a position of looking at the universe as being completely godless, simply owing to the fact that no ‘god’ has overtly made his position known to me. The ‘Divine Command Theory’ is shot full of holes, and not needed, imho.

If ethical facts actually exist, our own self-interest and self-deception might prevent us from seeing them. Whether they are simply absolute or belong to one of a myriad of subjectivist viewpoints, the arguments will carry on possibly forever.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well I do think his question boils down to the question you have here. But Ivan was also letting you know why he thought the question was an important one to ask by asking it the way he did.

Also, I don't think the point was to come to an absolute ethic that everyone would follow, as much as it is to ask the question "How does a single individual justify and judge based on their own ethics when they do not believe in any foundation for an absolute ethic?"

His implied answer to this question is that there is no basis to do such a thing and therefore any bahavior can be argued to be ok.

Pantheists and Materialists often argue that nature itself presents us with an absolute purpose and moral grounds that does not require a God. It can also be considered as much an individual and personal affair as a concrete and impersonal one.

For example, the two pillars of Pantheist ethics were first expressed in formal western philosophical terms by Spinoza and are considered to be among the strongest foundations of any morality or ethics yet devised. They consist of the egalitarian principle and our emotional lives.

As one modern Pantheist has expressed it, "The Earth is sacred, the universe is divine." Instead of morals being given by a God, for Pantheists morals are inherent in nature or existence itself which is considered to be a kind of abstract, non-anthropomorphic "Divinity." The egalitarian principle applies because everything is equally sacred because everything is part of the Divinity itself. This includes our feelings as well. For Spinoza, the happier and less confused he felt about his actions, the closer he believed they reflected the inherent morality of nature.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well I do think his question boils down to the question you have here. But Ivan was also letting you know why he thought the question was an important one to ask by asking it the way he did.

Also, I don't think the point was to come to an absolute ethic that everyone would follow, as much as it is to ask the question "How does a single individual justify and judge based on their own ethics when they do not believe in any foundation for an absolute ethic?"

His implied answer to this question is that there is no basis to do such a thing and therefore any bahavior can be argued to be ok.

I get in over my head with some of ya'all rather quickly, but Flipton has precisely defined the problem that I see. Thanks Flipton for helping to define the argument. Feel free to fill me in on the rest of my argument.

Also, the other point I keep trying to get at is, a big difference exist between philosophical arguments and true belief...divine belief. We have no or at least very few comparable motivators.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Also, the other point I keep trying to get at is, a big difference exist between philosophical arguments and true belief...divine belief. We have no or at least very few comparable motivators.

Gandhi, Mendella, Mother Terasa, King, Mother Jones, Linchon, and on and on. You don't need philosophy, religion, or beliefs as motivators. The youngest and most inarticulate child can understand and find motivation of a purity and intensity adults cannot touch.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Gandhi, Mendella, Mother Terasa, King, Mother Jones, Linchon, and on and on. You don't need philosophy, religion, or beliefs as motivators. The youngest and most inarticulate child can understand and find motivation of a purity and intensity adults cannot touch.

Perhaps this is true for some children. Do you maintain this for teenagers? Should we allow teens to follow their natural instincts rather than a formalized philosophy? And how then do we prove this philosophy as worthy beyond others. How do you prove to your 16 year old son that you are right? This is where I think philosophy cannot answer to true beliefs...even if those beliefs are fallacious. “True Beliefs” [true believers] are not subject to argument or debate by definition.

What if a large percentage of the population truly needs a God, and then science proves he doesn’t exist [it couldn’t but for the sake of argument, assume that everyone is convinced as much]. I think for many people this is already happening. I know many people who feel that religion has failed them, and who are philosophically adrift seemingly without anywhere to turn. If they are predisposed to philosophy and great arguments about purpose and alternative thinking, then like some of you, they find their own way. But what of those who are not so sophisticated? Could this be why people in developing nations, whose cultures are steeped in mysticism and religion, are often happier than us citizens of philosophically enlightened post industrial giants? Could God’s death simply be too much for many to bear…and still be happy?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Perhaps this is true for some children. Do you maintain this for teenagers? Should we allow teens to follow their natural instincts rather than a formalized philosophy? And how then do we prove this philosophy as worthy beyond others. How do you prove to your 16 year old son that you are right? This is where I think philosophy cannot answer to true beliefs...even if those beliefs are fallacious. “True Beliefs” [true believers] are not subject to argument or debate by definition.

What if a large percentage of the population truly needs a God, and then science proves he doesn’t exist [it couldn’t but for the sake of argument, assume that everyone is convinced as much]. I think for many people this is already happening. I know many people who feel that religion has failed them, and who are philosophically adrift seemingly without anywhere to turn. If they are predisposed to philosophy and great arguments about purpose and alternative thinking, then like some of you, they find their own way. But what of those who are not so sophisticated. Could this be why people in developing nations, whose cultures are steeped in mysticism and religion, are often happier than us citizens of philosophically enlightened post industrial giants? Could God’s death simply be too much for many to bear…and still be happy?

You can ask "What if..." about anything ad infinitum and whatever answers I might provide will always be suspect. However, I might point out that the US is the exception to the rule and most developed nations are steadilly becoming less religious. Sweden presents an interesting example. It is now one of eleven countries worldwide to making hitting a child illegal. This was done not by the politicians who, understandably, would never dare to touch such an issue. It was done by popular mandate.

The Swedes basically come from a harsh fundamentalist Calvinist Protestant tradition and when interviewed many said they supported the mandate because they needed help overcoming the culture of blame and shame their religion had spawned. Notably they also outlawed publically shaming a child. As a result the politicians dedicated money to educating parents about alternatives and no more children have been taken away from their parents than occurred before the mandate.

Such dramatic changes in adults and teenagers occur when we finally say to ourselves Enough! and we acknowledge our power to make change happen. It is that little accepting voice we are all born with that provides the guidance and motivation for such changes. Sometimes people say it is their allowing God into their lives, but clearly that is not always the case.

As Taoists like to say, "Many paths, one mountain." Maybe how you get there doesn't really matter and the less complicated, direct, and empowering the path the better. If there is a God, I'm sure that is what they would want.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wuliheron
You can ask "What if..." about anything ad infinitum and whatever answers I might provide will always be suspect...

Yes that was a lousy choice of words. Your comments are all well considered and to a large extent I agree. I guess this argument comes down to a matter of my own observations, combined with the general trends for suicides, violent behavior, depression, anxiety, and the many ills of modern society. To me it seems that although there are many complicated reasons for these problems, the loss of or lack of belief in anything beyond simple existence is leaving many people very lost. My "what if" was really meant rhetorically I guess.

 

[sage]

This debate is interesting.your question was simple yet fundamental.you have asked whether good and bad can be defined in the absence of the belief in god and whether god less society is better than a god fearing one(which was the only kind existing till half a century ago.)I agree that merely saying “didn’t you know god does not exist, it’s only a figment of imagination!”does not solve anything.its amply clear that truth has nothing to do with it, people want to believe in god and I have a suspicion that they have to-to exist, to live their lives,to tide over difficult circumstances etc.the next question is why.

To illustrate let's talk a little about an even stronger illusion, I. What do we mean by I?surely we mean something much more fundamental than a collection of cells that we actually are.we are assigining ourselves through this word some speciality which lulls us into a totally false but extremely effective sense of separation from everything else and I mean everything.this pizza is not I, this chair is not I, you are not i.i am I and I only.every animal has some form of this exclusiveness, invincibility if you like.or else why would you run from a tiger when you know you and this tiger are a part of the universe and that it matters little to the hydrocarbons that make you up whether it goes to a tiger stomach or stays where it is.what is I for a human is god for humanity.there’s no mistaking it the same strong illusion, the same sense of exclusivity that give us(mark that word!)a sense of belonging and purpose.this illusion of speciality is necessary to survive in the long run since without it we will not have the will to survive(would not run from a tiger etc.)next comes the question why do less intelligent animals don’t need god(I am in favour of excluding apes, dolphins etc. from this group as I have a suspicion that they have a rudimentary form)it’s because their brain is not controlled by that part where logical processes occur whereas our brain is. Logic finds truth and this truth about how ordinary we are is positively harmful towards our chances of survival. So we require a safety mechanism I and god so that though we may say I don’t exist or god doesn’t we cannot comprehend what we are saying.to be continued

 

[jammieg]

If every effect has a cause then what caused the universe to be here?
I don't believe the universe was created by a rock.
"There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it."-George Bernard Shaw
To say the belief in God arises out of the instinct for selfpreservation is plausible, but to say the belief in God arises out of common sense is probable.

 

[sage]

continued
With present day society leaning towards truth we have forgotten one thing.world is made of things that have what it takes to be there for a long time.we are talking of things that are good enough to survive for millions of years and these won’t let you off because one fine day you(actually your highly developed reasoning part of the brain)decides that it wants nothing but the truth.you need truth ninetynine percent of the time,mix one percent of good illusion and you have what it takes to count for a billion years more. This is also why we have irrational emotions:anger,hatred,greed,love, compassion etc.since
when they kick in,rationality could get you killed, without having children-ghastly!
Till now I have rallied for you believers , in a rather macabre way .let’s now rally against you beginning with this statement.i(what’s that?)feel(this too is irrational thing)that god in all his connotations is not the best illusion there can be to achieve the purpose assigned to him , our survival in the long run as a perfect social unit.this is hardly unexpected.two million years it has taken to cement this idea and for the majority of this unimaginably vast span society meant a group of less than 20 I’s. then in merely ten thousand year this belief had to contend with a thousand I’s ,then a million and then another million with a slightly different illusion(read god)and the nightmare had continued till today when we have ten billion people and hundreds of gods. No wonder we have fanatism, holy warsand what not.imagine your body suddenly growing by the minute with new arms,legs etc each with different I’s.they would be fighting over each others’ illusion and you would be all bruised up.in disgust you may ban all forms of I’s but then when the tiger comes they might not be inclined to run……………..!
That is the problem.there is a solution however.there isn’t anymore new human communities left.god has been defined and redefined countless of times before.lets do it once more,together in way which is most suited to our survival as a cohesive unit for a long long time.if me must eat fish let us choose the best one in the market.we at least have that freedom and we must use it judicially.

 

[heusdens]

This is like asking, which is better: dinosaur or mammal.

Nature's 'judgement' was to let alomst all dinosaur go extinct, and form mamals into a species like humans.

Unless there is an (economical) reason to believe, believe will ultimately go extinct, like the dinosaur...

NB.
To belief is very 'economical' thinking. You can arrive at instantanious conclusions about the world in an absolute sence, valid for all times, without having to go through the hard work of aquiring relative knowledge, which can be and will be disproven one day, through science.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by jammieg
If every effect has a cause then what caused the universe to be here?

Wrong thinking here. Causality can just claim that there was no 'first' cause to the way matter exists, but matter exists in a way of 'eternal' change/motion. Although all material forms known to us, are definitely finite in spatial and timely extents, they ware always preceded by and will be followed by different matterial forms. Matter is in eternal transformation from one form, to another.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

i have a very simple philosophy on what is good. (do unto others that which you want done to yourself) basically treat people how you want to be treated. this is a self centred philosophy that also benefits other people as well. this philosophy does not reuire a belief in a god of any sort as it depends purly on your actions.

 

[The Grimmus]

well simply put, when you lack organized religion you make a personal philiosphy that is a huge calabration of outside morales and such so you define good and bad. On a side note: I have found that when you lack organized religion your very desprate to find meaning everywhere i have turned to song.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
As a few of you might have noticed, I attempt to argue for beliefs beyond only those justified by science. In fact, I think that it can be wrong to challenge a person’s belief system since none can be defended. Of course, I only came to this conclusion after years of heated arguments with friends, relatives, eventually my wife, passers by, the guy at the donut shop...you get the idea. But with that said, I have always wondered all of you non-believers - since when a non-believer I encountered this paradox - what justifies doing good, and what is good...why bother? It seems to me that all arguments for anything except self-serving selfish behavior quickly fail. In turn, this kind of behavior has negative effects on society. Of course, if the world effectively ends with my death what do I care?

first of all, what self-serving selfish behavior? that is all we ever do! believers and non-beleivers alike, we all do for ourselves. What is the goal of a Christian? to get into heaven, of course! isn't this selfish? we do good only to give our selves a good feeling or to get something in return for it (eternal life).
secondly we (the nonbelievers) are still moral. the perfect society is one in which everyone helps each other and gets helped in return. we still get emotional and can care for people. we still know what good is, we just use our own definition of good instead of a god's definition.