Where do atheists get their morals from?

[grumbler]

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). 

Surely you do not really believe that this is evidence of anything - if something must be "caused" to come into existence, then what caused your god?  If your god needed no "cause," then why assume that the Big Bang needs a "cause?"

A simple thought experiment will convince you that the idea of a god outside spacetime (which started with the Big Bang, insofar as we know, but whatever started it, there couldn't be any gods outside it).  Time is the difference between cause and effect - that is, if there are two events that cannot exist independently, then the difference between the cause and the effect is only time.  If time doesn't exist (in other words, if the universe/spacetime doesn't exist), then there is no difference between cause and effect.  The universe would create the god as much as the god would create the universe.

So, the Big Bang as evidence of the existence of gods is logically untenable.  It is possible that a god existing in a previous or "higher-level" spacetime created the Big bang we know of, but that just gets us back to how that spacetime came into being.  In the final analysis, it cannot be gods creating time.   The argument that your god exists outside spacetime also is an admission that he can't create anything, because creation is a phenomenon of time.

[DGuller]

So, are you guys close on the consensus here?

[Barrister]

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.

What a really, really bizarre post.  Why on earth would I want you to become a Christian fundamentalist?  They're scracely any better than militant atheists.

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?

You really are scaring me if this is true.  I'm just posting in my spare time while I'm at work.  Hell I ran a trial in the middle of this debate.

Viking, just chill.

[grumbler]

So, are you guys close on the consensus here?

I think there was a consensus before we started: 
(1) people engage in magical thinking in order to justify their belief in their particular deity; and
(2) people engage in magical thinking in order to justify their belief that morality is instinctual (wholly or partly).

[Viking]

Joan, do you use some external editor to do your posts, your end quote code and extra start quote codes are always in caps.

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.

OK, yes, that makes sense. I don't reject normative moral judgment based in reason; I reject normative moral judgment. Man is the measure. I reject the entire rationalist project. I reject the idea of pre-modernist truth - the idea that there is such a thing as an external or non material truth with a big T. I am a materialist-modernist all we can know is what we can experience through our senses.

This does not mean I reject normative morals. I just accept that they are invented by humans and are only backed by sanctions (social or otherwise) by society. This is the role of religion and culture in morality. These imposed "morals" are also subjected to selective pressure as societies with normative morals with help societal success will thrive and the ones which hinder societal success will fall along with the societies which imposed them.

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.

Yes that claim is true. We do not have a non-material external source of normative morals. It's just that they don't either, they just think they do. This is the reason I think this issue provokes such vitriol on the religious side, merely showing how we can get our morals naturally and observing that we have the same morals god is no longer necessary for anything.

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.

You are right, but it is always more complicated. Atavisms exist and continue to exist. Chickens still have the genes for making teeth and sometimes you get chicken with teeth. The same applies to human tails and whale and dolphin hind legs. In all cases these body parts continue to exist but in a nearly completely reduced form. Reach down your back to the end of your spine and you will be able to feel your tail bones, three extra vertibrae which extend past the last connection, they are in the way, break when you fall down causing much pain and have to the best of our knowledge provide no real benefit. There are even muscles attached to these bones, in monkeys the same muscles are used to move the tail. These muscles are also atrophied to nothing. The tail bone is sufficiently cheap energy wise that having to use resources to build it is not sufficient a detriment to the body that it prevents evolutionary success. The same applies to the micro-legs that whales and dolphins have (completely encased in blubber). Chicken managed to get rid of the teeth, but they recur from time to time.

The human brain however is the most energy expensive organ in our body. Despite being about 2% of body mass it uses 20% or our energy. Any small change in the brain where a bit which doesn't help survival doesn't consume energy provides a real survival advantage. In about 2 million years the homo brain has grown in size by between 100% and 200%. This is really really really fast. We don't have much spare capacity in the brain and certainly no busy sectors. The trope about using only 5% of our brain is untrue, damage any part not matter how small you will be handicapped. 

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?

That the "I" character that you experience being inside your brain is not making the decisions, it is merely rationalizing them. We don't have free will if "we" means the "I" character inside your brain. That is what it means and I think that is mindblowing.

[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.

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.

You assumed wrongly. I do not pretend to know what "evolutionary-derived instincts" are. I said that what people would imagine such things are and what they would cosider moral are in tension. As noted below, Dawkins himself comments on that tension. Hence, a title such as the "Selfish Gene", which clearly plays on that.

Dawkins himself writes about how apparently "altruistic" behaviour can be explained in terms of his theory, but he's also careful to avoid making the kind of claims you are making. From the outset, Dawkins stated he is "not advocating a morality based on evolution."[p. 2] Instead, he is simply describing what may have actually happened in evolution. Thus, we should expect selfishness in human nature, but must "teach generosity and altruism"[p. 3], although this does not mean that we will not observe altruism in nature. "Genes are the primary-policy makers; brains are the executives."[p. 60] Dawkins indicates that brains have evolved to take control of the body, even in opposition to the inherent selfish tendencies of replicators.

[Viking]

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.

What a really, really bizarre post.  Why on earth would I want you to become a Christian fundamentalist?  They're scracely any better than militant atheists.

Because I want to have as many true beliefs as possible and as few false ones as possible. This is important to me.

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?

You really are scaring me if this is true.  I'm just posting in my spare time while I'm at work.  Hell I ran a trial in the middle of this debate.

Viking, just chill.

I don't have a wife or kids and don't like the crowded pubs and clubs as they are on fridays and saturdays. I'm posting this in the afternoons and evenings. So I have lots of free time. Also, I multitask well.

[Razgovory]

Maybe you should look for wife and kids...

[Viking]

You assumed wrongly. I do not pretend to know what "evolutionary-derived instincts" are. I said that what people would imagine such things are and what they would cosider moral are in tension. As noted below, Dawkins himself comments on that tension. Hence, a title such as the "Selfish Gene", which clearly plays on that.

I agree, most people are idiots.

Dawkins himself writes about how apparently "altruistic" behaviour can be explained in terms of his theory, but he's also careful to avoid making the kind of claims you are making. From the outset, Dawkins stated he is "not advocating a morality based on evolution."[p. 2] Instead, he is simply describing what may have actually happened in evolution. Thus, we should expect selfishness in human nature, but must "teach generosity and altruism"[p. 3], although this does not mean that we will not observe altruism in nature. "Genes are the primary-policy makers; brains are the executives."[p. 60] Dawkins indicates that brains have evolved to take control of the body, even in opposition to the inherent selfish tendencies of replicators.

If you read through the blocks of text me and joan are producing you'll see that neither do I. No fact about reality can possibly be used to justify absolute normative morals. We have an instinct for morality which naturally selected for the instincts which produced the most successful societies and in addition to that we have culturally imposed morals which are selected for the moral rules which produced the most successful societies.

There are no absolute eternal normative morals. We have instinctive morals which evolve really slowly and cultural morals which evolve really fast. I suggest that the instinctive morals are the most fundamental which are shared by all societies and most often referenced when morals are being discussed (in part because they seem universal).

We have an instinctive aversion to murder, but that is not always enough so a second cultural layer re-enforces the first.

[Razgovory]

So, are you guys close on the consensus here?

I think there was a consensus before we started: 
(1) people engage in magical thinking in order to justify their belief in their particular deity; and
(2) people engage in magical thinking in order to justify their belief that morality is instinctual (wholly or partly).

And Grumbler gets to feel superior attacking both sides.  Like usual.

[Oexmelin]

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

In case some of you are interested, Daniel Dennett's work has been an attempt to tackle that very question, trying to manage a space between Hume and Darwin.

[Razgovory]

Another hateful man.

[The Minsky Moment]

In case some of you are interested, Daniel Dennett's work has been an attempt to tackle that very question, trying to manage a space between Hume and Darwin.

Dennett I thought was focused on reconciling free will and determinism.  It's an inquiry that has some relevance to what Viking is talking about but not quite the same thing.

[DGuller]

I used to not believe in things like hell, but then I came across this thread. 

[The Minsky Moment]

That the "I" character that you experience being inside your brain is not making the decisions, it is merely rationalizing them. We don't have free will if "we" means the "I" character inside your brain. That is what it means and I think that is mindblowing.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the experimental result.  All the experimental result shows is that mental activity is associated with a mechanical physical manifestation, which is something even a Cartesian dualist can accept.