Where do atheists get their morals from?

[Viking]

I'm not suggesting that we can get any "ought" from any "is" here . . .. I am not arguing for a foundation at all. I am observing that we have a common agreement of what moral behavior is and the reason we agree is that these morals evolved in the same or similar manner. Nothing that Paleolithic man though was moral should be or is binding on us. Just as in genetic evolution there are no good genes and bad genes, there are successful genes and only nature decides which are good, humanity does not. . . .

The important points I am making are
. . .
2 - normative morals do not follow from moral evolution through group selection just as eugenics does not follow from genetic evolution through natural selection.

If your argument held, then your would have just proven the case of the theists

I don't understand how you get to this conclusion. Could you expand on this?

As I understand it, you are advancing a empirical theory of morality without any normative content at all, thus avoiding Hume's fallacy.  But avoiding the fallacy doesn't make the question go away.  You've simply sidestepped the question at the heart of all moral reasoning - what is the good.  I.e. assuming that evolutionary forces operate over time to produce a particular set of mental structures, there is no way for us to know whether those mental structures are actually right or good in any sense other than that they are the ones we happene to have.

Under such an account, the faculty of human reasoning cannot contribute to elucidating moral problems other than to the extent of postulating constructs that are sorted and selected according to the evolutionary process.  That is, normative moral judgments cannot come from the human minds, nor do they arise from nature.  Thus, it follows that they can only come from some supernatural source. 

You've proven the case you set out to respond to.
Or at least you would have if the  underlying argument held.

the question "what is the good" presupposes the existence of "the good" in the first place. I don't think there is a "the good" and consequently I don't think that there is any way of reasoning your way to what is "the good". This is going back to philosophy 101 here but Socrates, Plato and later Plotinus their idea of forms left them with an infinite regression to form of forms they called the one and catholic church used as it's definition of god.

Hume didn't fall into this fallacy either, he just observed that you don't get normative morality from facts, effectively destroying eugenics over a hundred years before it was invented. I don't have a problem with dealing with the heart of all moral reasoning because I have no reason to conclude that there is such a thing as "the good". I'm not sure if I think this because it follows from a transcendental  non-material existence of "the good" that there is some sort of thing that by it's nature would have to be called god or merely that I think that "the good" is merely "stuff I like" (or some similar definition). Perhaps after hearing the ludicrous ontological argument for the existence of god I stopped assuming that things that have words exist.

Every time I return to the dialogues I find myself agreeing more and more with Milo, Protagoras and Gorgias (which is a bit like starting to root for Skeletor after watching too many He-Man cartoons). Virtue (the word Socrates uses for "the good") is just what Milo said it was a word we apply to attributes we approve of and respect. Basically it is what you me and all English speakers agree it is.

Our brain produces our instincts and our brain is a result of evolution. I think it is reasonable for it to follow from that that our instincts are a result of evolution, however vicariously. If you accept this and you accept the role of instinct in morality then  . . .

No, I don't think this does follow.
First, while it is true that our physical brain arose out of the biological, evolutionary process, it does not follows that every activity of the brain is governed by that process.  The brain may indeed have evolved the way it did beacuse it certain ancient environments it conferred survivability advantages that outweighed its disadvantages, but the organ that resulted was capable of functions beyond those particular contingent evolutionary advantages.  (just as by way of analogy certain techologies may have uses or functions well beyond the specific problems they were originally used to solve).  There may have been an evolutionary advantage to having brains capable of relatively sophisticated social interaction and behavioral dispositions favoring certain kinds of cooperation.  But the ability or inclination to engage in moral philsophy side effect of that biological process, and the moral reasoning that the mind engages in as part of that activity is just that -- reasoning -- and not just random mental projections that are then sorted out by blind processes of evolutionary selection.

Second, and indepedently, I reject the role of instinct in morality.  Instinct, if defined as innate and non-volitional behavior, has no moral content or significance at all.

I see we are separated by quite alot of presuppositions about the nature of the mind and psyche.

I think it does follow that all activties of the brain are governed by the biological evolutionary process. The brain is immensely expensive and I suggest that all it's functions are either vital or discarded. The brain came into being as part of additional uses arising through mutations. Evolution does not leave pointless attributes.

Our mind is the activity of our brain, we do not have an external soul which is us outside of our brain. Changes in the brain change our behavior and FMRI studies show that our brain decides before our mind makes the same decision. It is a bit mindblowing but when strapped into a MRI machine and asked to make a simple up down choice the MRI operator can tell what you are going to decide before subjects report deciding. We do not have libertarian free will.

Just to clear some stuff up

Are you a dualist - beliving that humans consist of an independent mind and an independent body (basically having a soul).
Are you a determinist or a beliver in libertarian free will or hold some view inbetween
Are you a materialist - someone who believes that everything that exists is material (no trancindental or spiritual realms)
Are you a deist or theist

[Viking]

Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".

From the horses mouth. Selfish Genes can make you altruistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3L3QdL7HjQ&feature=related

It's only a 2 minute video (a link to the full interview is in the notes). I suspect you don't really know what Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene. The Selfish Gene does make the point of evolved morals much better than I could. iirc the audiobook was shorter than the lecture series that AmScip linked to timmy style sans comment.

[Viking]

Early on Viking made some comparison I didn't understand about me using the standards I work with in my job to my faith.  So I posted the "are you asking me if I can prove God exists in a courtroom?" and then went on with my very brief analysis.

I wasn't asking that. I was asking why faith is good enough for satisfying you that god exists while somebody else's faith doesn't satisfy in justifying anything. You brought up the assertion that you could prove god. If your faith is sufficient to prove to you that YAHWE exists why isn't the mooselimbs faith enough to prove that ALLAH does?

The post was probably more about how a courtroom operates than about religious faith though.  A courtroom does not operate on strict logic or on absolute proofs, which is what Viking wants with respect to religion.  It is the very rare case when I have a crime captured entirely on video.  Instead we deal with hearing witness recall what they saw and experienced, and we deal with documentary evidence and expert analysis.

A courtroom works on a very different basis than science does.  We embrace a degree of uncertainty.

I agree that arguign the existence of God isn't really the right forum for a courtroom - mostly given the enormity of the question.  But in my own life I've looked at the question, and I believe it is likely that God exists (but that I do have a doubt about it).

I'm sorry but you don't know shit about science if you think that it thinks it has conquered uncertainty. Only faith leads to certainty. I have no faith and I have non idea that I am certain on. Every single idea I have is subject to being changed with new evidence (check out my sig).

You brought up the claim you could prove his existence (apparently in civil court). I didn't.

The four facts I know about your life regard your work (that you speak for the crown), your family (that you are a parent), your location (as close to as many icelanders as possible while not being in scandinavia) and your sports team (not the falcons  ). I used your work where you often have to deal with truth claims and their validity and the test I was trying to set for you was to explain why the standard you apply to accepting god is different from the standard you apply at work. You obfuscated and tried to change the subject with Hijabs and minutia of rape law. You tried to bluff your way out by arguing that you didn't need faith to prove god, when I called it you backed down. You still haven't answered. Why does the truth claim of the existence of god have to meet a different standard to all other truth claims you encounter in life?

[grumbler]

Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".

Indeed, morality is defined by some as the power to overcome our instincts in favor of "what is right."

[Barrister]

Why does the truth claim of the existence of god have to meet a different standard to all other truth claims you encounter in life?

It doesn't.  I have never said "I believe in Jesus out of pure faith, and I have never not once critically analyzed that belief".

I have looked at all the facts and believe God exists.  There is an element of a leap of faith because I don't think those facts are entirely conclusive (as I said I have a doubt but believe anyways), but I think and feel there is sufficient evidence of God.

[grumbler]

Early on Viking made some comparison I didn't understand about me using the standards I work with in my job to my faith.  So I posted the "are you asking me if I can prove God exists in a courtroom?" and then went on with my very brief analysis.

The post was probably more about how a courtroom operates than about religious faith though.  A courtroom does not operate on strict logic or on absolute proofs, which is what Viking wants with respect to religion.  It is the very rare case when I have a crime captured entirely on video.  Instead we deal with hearing witness recall what they saw and experienced, and we deal with documentary evidence and expert analysis.

But courtrooms interested in justice operate in a far different fashion than your example, because you only present one side of the case. 

A courtroom works on a very different basis than science does.  We embrace a degree of uncertainty.

I agree that arguign the existence of God isn't really the right forum for a courtroom - mostly given the enormity of the question.  But in my own life I've looked at the question, and I believe it is likely that God exists (but that I do have a doubt about it).

It certainly doesn't sound to me like you objectively asked yourself "does this particular god exist" and then weighed the pro and con arguments.   It sounds to me like you looked for evidence to support the a priori belief that your particular god exists.  Which is fine by me; I don't care what people believe, or why they believe it, so long as they don't expect others to behave according to their own beliefs, and do nothing to harm others as a result of those beliefs.    My objection is only to your assertion that the subjective "evidence" you offer constitutes in any way evidence that would demonstrate the existence of your god in any way, let alone that he/she/its existence "could be proven on a balance of probabilities."

[Viking]

Why does the truth claim of the existence of god have to meet a different standard to all other truth claims you encounter in life?

It doesn't.  I have never said "I believe in Jesus out of pure faith, and I have never not once critically analyzed that belief".

I have looked at all the facts and believe God exists.  There is an element of a leap of faith because I don't think those facts are entirely conclusive (as I said I have a doubt but believe anyways), but I think and feel there is sufficient evidence of God.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.. but when you said this

Faith is belief without evidence, I can't respect that and I can't respect anybody who thinks that is a virtue.

I guess I'll have to survive with you not respecting me then. 

what you really meant was

It doesn't.  I have never said "I believe in Jesus out of pure faith, and I have never not once critically analyzed that belief".

I have looked at all the facts and believe God exists.  There is an element of a leap of faith because I don't think those facts are entirely conclusive (as I said I have a doubt but believe anyways), but I think and feel there is sufficient evidence of God.

Is that correctly understood?

[Barrister]

Viking, it's up to you whether you "respect me" or not.  You have my words before you.

[Malthus]

Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".

From the horses mouth. Selfish Genes can make you altruistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3L3QdL7HjQ&feature=related

It's only a 2 minute video (a link to the full interview is in the notes). I suspect you don't really know what Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene. The Selfish Gene does make the point of evolved morals much better than I could. iirc the audiobook was shorter than the lecture series that AmScip linked to timmy style sans comment.

I suspect you missed my point.

[Viking]

Viking, it's up to you whether you "respect me" or not.  You have my words before you.

Sigh... I did predict you would try to weasel out of your claim that you could prove god on the balance of probabilities. I would like to hear your argument here, I would like to hear what it takes to convince you of the most significant fact in the universe. Is there any special reason for you to not tell me what a reasonable person needs to hear to become a believer. Here I stand, as you pointed out (fatuously) in a previous post listening ready to hear. Best case scenario you save one soul for jesus, worst case you get to feel smug about how the bible predicted this in Luke 6:22.

[Viking]

Heh, to an extent there is a tension between what one would imagine are the evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, the "selfish gene".

From the horses mouth. Selfish Genes can make you altruistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3L3QdL7HjQ&feature=related

It's only a 2 minute video (a link to the full interview is in the notes). I suspect you don't really know what Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene. The Selfish Gene does make the point of evolved morals much better than I could. iirc the audiobook was shorter than the lecture series that AmScip linked to timmy style sans comment.

I suspect you missed my point.

I assume you meant that evolutionary-derived instincts were selfish and thus contradicted what most people would consider moral. I just wanted to point out that the author of The Selfish Gene believes that the fact that genes are selfish causes being to be altruistic and that author obviously does not think there is any contradiction between evolutionarily-derived instincts and what most people would consider moral - hence, his chapter on how the selfish gene makes you altruistic.

[Barrister]

Viking, it's up to you whether you "respect me" or not.  You have my words before you.

Sigh... I did predict you would try to weasel out of your claim that you could prove god on the balance of probabilities. I would like to hear your argument here, I would like to hear what it takes to convince you of the most significant fact in the universe. Is there any special reason for you to not tell me what a reasonable person needs to hear to become a believer. Here I stand, as you pointed out (fatuously) in a previous post listening ready to hear. Best case scenario you save one soul for jesus, worst case you get to feel smug about how the bible predicted this in Luke 6:22.

Viking, we've gone over this material before.  The Bible itself, and its message.  All those who have experienced peace and happiness through prayer and speaking with God.  The number of other really smart people who believe in God.  The very fact of existence itself (okay, this is a "God of the gaps" argument - we know about the Big Bang, but can't explain what caused the Big Bang).  And just intuition and instinct - I feel there must be a meaning to existence, and some form of existence beyond death.

None of which is going to convince you, so I don't really feel like going into any greater detail.

[Razgovory]

Viking, word of friendly advice, I'd let this issue drop.  You aren't convincing anyone of anything except that you are a jerk.  A boring, bigoted jerk with a huge chip on his shoulder.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't understand how you get to this conclusion. Could you expand on this?

I did already but I can do it again.
By rejecting the possibility of normative moral judgment based in reason, all you are left with is a empirical account for behavior and some speculative hypotheses about how that behavior might have arisen.

Under such an account, the only source for normative moral judgment has to be supernatural since there can be no natural or human source for it.

That is the very argument theists (and non-theistic moral rationalists) make against this kind of account.  The difference being that the theists use the argument to contend that normative moral judgments require super-natural agency, moral rationalists contend that human agency through the use of human capacities is sufficient.

the question "what is the good" presupposes the existence of "the good" in the first place. I don't think there is a "the good" and consequently I don't think that there is any way of reasoning your way to what is "the good".  . . . Virtue (the word Socrates uses for "the good") is just what Milo said it was a word we apply to attributes we approve of and respect. Basically it is what you me and all English speakers agree it is.

That's a perfectly legit philosophical position but realize that is what theists mean when they say atheists lack morality.  They don't mean atheists are incapable of formulating moral rules and principles and acting by them, they mean that atheists are incapable of ascribing any normative content to them - any reason why those rules and principles should be followed beyond social convention.   I happen to think that claim is false, but on your account, it is true.

I think it does follow that all activties of the brain are governed by the biological evolutionary process. The brain is immensely expensive and I suggest that all it's functions are either vital or discarded. The brain came into being as part of additional uses arising through mutations. Evolution does not leave pointless attributes. 

I am no expert in the area, but that statement contradicts everything I have read on the subject - i.e mutations that may spread because they were useful at some point don't just suddenly vanish when they are no longer as useful.  Particularly on the time scale of later human evolution which is relatively short.  In addition this doesn't take into account the fact that capabilities that spread due to some reproductive advantage may be re-purposed to other tasks that have nothing to do with the original advantage they incurred.

It is a bit mindblowing but when strapped into a MRI machine and asked to make a simple up down choice the MRI operator can tell what you are going to decide before subjects report deciding.

Not really, what exactly does that prove?

[Viking]

Viking, it's up to you whether you "respect me" or not.  You have my words before you.

Sigh... I did predict you would try to weasel out of your claim that you could prove god on the balance of probabilities. I would like to hear your argument here, I would like to hear what it takes to convince you of the most significant fact in the universe. Is there any special reason for you to not tell me what a reasonable person needs to hear to become a believer. Here I stand, as you pointed out (fatuously) in a previous post listening ready to hear. Best case scenario you save one soul for jesus, worst case you get to feel smug about how the bible predicted this in Luke 6:22.

Viking, we've gone over this material before.  The Bible itself, and its message.

Look, you said you could prove to your own satisfaction that god was real. Are you seriously telling me that you would rather have me burn in hell for eternity than spend 5 or 10 minutes summarizing and referencing that evidence? That's not very christian of you. The reason I am an atheist because I have not seen any convincing evidence for his existence. I'm not wedded to any Idea show me that you are right and I am wrong and I will change my mind. Maybe you are worried that I as a fundamentalist (since I already agreed that I would be a fundamentalist if I were religious) would burn down sea food stores and murder gays and lapsed christians. I'll promise right here and now to abide by my nation's laws in all cases if that is the price of you saving my soul here and now.

All those who have experienced peace and happiness through prayer and speaking with God.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw

The number of other really smart people who believe in God.  The very fact of existence itself (okay, this is a "God of the gaps" argument - we know about the Big Bang, but can't explain what caused the Big Bang).

It is also called the argument for ignorance

Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist - Stephen Hawking

And just intuition and instinct - I feel there must be a meaning to existence, and some form of existence beyond death.

None of which is going to convince you, so I don't really feel like going into any greater detail.

Basically it makes you happy, you don't know shit about astrophysics and you like the idea of there being a god? Your feelings, your ignorance and your hope?

That's not what you said earlier.

So you want me to put the existence of God on trial?

Well the thing is - in court you never have first hand evidence.  You only have witnesses, and then experts who give opinions based on what the witnesses have said.  And in court you absolutely never require absolute proof - depending on the matter you only require proof on a balance of probabilities, or proof beyond a resonable doubt.

Myself, I've always had a doubt God exists, so I can't say I'd find His existence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But balance of probabilities? Well like I said you have lots of witnesses who say they've seen Him and talked to Him.  You have the historical records showing His words (the Bible).  And you'll find plenty of Experts who say looking at the world and its beauty means there is a God.

So yes - I think His existence could be proven on a balance of probabilities.

Where are your witnesses of Jesus? Did I just spend waste an hour on getting up to speed on Bart Ehrman and the German Biblical Scholars? I was re-reading the text of the huxley wilberforce debate for your design argument.

That's it? WTF?