Evidence for the Creator: Morality

This is another in my series of evidence FOR the Creator.

Morality is a deep, very involved topic including many related concepts. I will attempt to define the terms, analyze the source, and offer conclusions. Conscience, instinct, Law, sociopathy, and anthropomorphic projection all enter in to this basic Question:

Is morality a Real Thing, or is it a human construct?

..and, it's corollary,

Is universal, objective morality evidence for The Creator?

IF.. there is a Creator, one might expect a Standard.. an innate moral sense.. that transcends time, race, religious beliefs, culture, and region. At least 'Goddidit!', is a plausible explanation for the morality we observe in the human animal.

IF.. there is no God, and morality is only a human construct, we would not expect to see a common thread of absolute morality in the human experience. Morality would be arbitrary and local, mandated by the powerful, with only whimsy, manipulation, or expediency to drive them.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

The 'need', for human Law is a reflection, imo, of the REALITY of a universal moral code. We recognize, collectively, a moral consciousness, define it as 'conscience', and label those who violate it as criminals or sociopaths.

Definitions
Morality is an embedded sense, classically considered to be 'endowed' by a Creator, as in the American declaration of independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Merriam's: ..conformity to ideals of right human conduct

Morality is a 'self evident' standard that humans in every region, time, and culture have appealed to. It is equivalent to 'natural law', from reformation and Enlightenment philosophers. It is something internal, embedded, and universal in humanity.

I will use the dichotomy for origins that tickles many of the members of this forum:

1. Goddidit!
2. Nuthindidit!

..because the ONLY source for morality to be a Real Thing, and not a contrived human construct for manipulation, is if it were embedded by the Creator, or some Agent with the Ability to put this sense in man.

In a godless universe, no morality like this is possible. It is a delusion or manipulation, to control people. There is only animal instinct, or declared Law, in a godless universe, with no absolutes to appeal to.

IF... there is a Creator/moral Embedder.. AND IF... this Creator/moral embedder embedded moral standards in humans.. THEN... that is the source of embedded moral standards.. a 'sense' of universal, absolute morality.

BUT..

IF.. there is no Creator/moral Embedder.. THEN... morality is a human construct. ..any 'sense' of universal, absolute morality is a delusion or manipulation of man.

The observable reality of a universal moral code, and the inner conscience of humanity is evidence for the Creator.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/evidence-for-the-creator-angst.570540/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/evidence-for-the-creator-entropy.569446/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...or-the-creator-reproductive-isolation.569775/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/evidence-for-god-personal-experience.551651/

 

Morality changes all the time - slavery existed throughout the ages until fairly recently - empires and colonies were considered perfectly OK - women were treated as second-class citizens (and still are in some places) - the Nazis approved of genocide, as many people have - heretics were burned at the stake - and many god-botherers signed up for this. At least now we've got rid of most of this.

 

For better or for worse, "Goddidit" can explain anything. If we found unicorns or yetis or FTL travel or gold tablets, they could all be explained by "Goddidit". As such, while it can't be disproven in any epistemological sense, things being consistent with "Goddidit" isn't really a point in its favour.

I am not quite sure what you mean by human construct. My guess is that a majority of secular people today would suggest evolution as the source of morality, but you seem to have either left that category out, or labelled it strangely ("human construct" seems to me to imply that it was intentionally designed by humans themselves, which would not be true of an evolutionary morality).

If morality was an evolutionary product, it would have certain similarities all over the world (turns out killing everyone left and right is not a good strategy for any human society), but with local variations ("no shrimp" was at some point a good plan, now it is not). Just like our bodies have similarities (we tend to have two arms and two legs, but our skin colour varies greatly). This seems all quite consistent with the range of morality we see today. Like with the "Goddidit" approach, this argument can be made for many different kinds of moralities (i.e. consistent with the range of pseudomoralities that we see among bees, lions, humans, bison, penguins, bacteria, cells in an organism, etc.). As such, this isn't really an argument in favour of evolution, it is just a refutation of the argument against it.

I am willing enough to agree with the words (but perhaps not the implication). On the evolutionary view, that universal code is simply the fact that your species doesn't do very well if they don't cooperate. This part doesn't seem to favour the theist view over the evolutionary view.

This seems correct to me and consistent with the evolutionary view. Lesser versions of it (or maybe just different versions) can be seen in other animals as well.

As with angst, your explanation of the secular view is not great (but perhaps only for poor choice of words). I don't see why an evolutionary morality wouldn't be "Real" (especially if the alternative turns out to be outright false). It doesn't seem to me to be a delusion, in that it is verifiably there, with the expected results on small as well as large scales. I'm not sure what you mean by "manipulation", but I guess you could say that humanity is "manipulated" by itself into forming genuinely caring groups, with uncalculated regard and concern for his fellow man.

What criteria for "Real"ness do you use which wouldn't call that real?

 

The same people who claim that their God is necessary for universal, objective morality are incapable of producing said universal, objective morality beyond "Obey my God, even when he tells you to do some thing evil like murder children." Divine command theory is as morally bankrupt as an ethical theory can get.

 

..sorry i did not get back sooner. I'm dealing with the usual censorship in this forum, and get discouraged posting.. which is, i am sure, the desired tactic. Echo chambers do not appreciate diversity of opinion, even if it is presented rationally and civilly.

 

No, the base 'sense' of morality does not change. Humans may add, tweak, or ignore the inner sense of morality, but that only is evidence of its reality.

Deflecting with nazis or witches does not address the universal moral code, obviously felt by those who condemn nazis and witch hunts in the past as 'immoral!'

Goddidit or Nuthindidit.. those are the possibilities.
Does the evidence support one belief, or the other?

'Human Construct' = contrived by man, for manipulation. It is not a Real, embedded sense, but a deception, to control people.

You are welcome to your opinion of my communication skills, though you do not address the points, just dismiss them.

The keeping of the inner, felt sense of morality is not the issue. The PRESENCE of it, is.

Your righteous indignation over immoral actions in the past only confirm that morality is real and universal.. it is not arbitrary, fickle, and relative. Otherwise, you have no basis to condemn the moral platitudes of others.

Why would someone who believes we are in a godless universe ascribe to a moral code? If anyone's opinion is as good as anothers, how can we label one system of ethics, 'bad!', or another, 'good!'?

 

Ok, then it seems your setup doesn't actually address the version that a majority of secular people would suggest, the evolutionary approach.

You say in your last post "IF.. there is no God, and morality is only a human construct", however, it seems to me that if morality is a product of evolution without a god, then there is no Gud, but morality is not just a human construct. It would be an embedded sense, it would not be contrived by man, it would not be a deception. Whether it would be a manipulation in order to control people I think is a question of semantics, but it wouldn't necessarily come with the negative tone of those statements.

I'm confused, in what sense did I not address them? I had several paragraphs of challenging what you think makes something "Real", providing a counterexample to your idea that No God must mean that morality is contrived by man, and challenging your understanding of what the secular view predicts. Those all seem to me to be ways in which I addressed your points, things that would have to be resolved for you arguments to be valid, whereas you just deleted them from the quote.

 

Even if there was a creator, I don't see how this changes whether morality exists or not. Lets say we become very advanced and seed life on other planets. That doesn't somehow mean that objective morality exists on those planets when it wouldn't have before.

You also claim that morality is "self-evident" and then claim that since we feel there is objective morality, that it needs to exist. Making these kinds of claims are not evidence for anything.

Its possible that since humans are social creatures, we evolved emotions that helped us work together in social groups. Hence feelings of compassion, guilt, rightness, etc.

 

The dichotomy is simple:
Morality, if it is a Real Thing, and not a human construct, can ONLY come from an Embedder.

ELSE, it is a human construct, designed to control people.

You can explain this contrivance as 'evolved!', but there is only relative platitudes, and nothing universal or absolute, in a godless universe.

There is no explanation or source of morality, as a Real Thing, in the human animal, in a godless universe. It can only be a contrived human construct, to manipulate people.

How can ANY moral platitudes be absolute, in an amoral universe? There is only power and decree, from human manipulators, imposing their standards on everyone else.

It does not 'need' to exist.. it is observable reality. Our dilemma is explaining 'Why', it exists.

I submit that the universal observation of absolute morality in the human animal is evidence that this has been 'embedded', by our Creator. Defying that moral standard brings a universal sting of conscience, that cannot be described as a human construct.

 

You’re right that morality is not a human construct, it’s a social one. Humans are social creatures. Because of our social behavior we are apex predators. We don’t have sharp claws/teeth, thick hides, or powerful jaws. We have tools and the ability to work together. Humans have thrived because we learned that working together with other humans was a good way to secure food and other resources. We also learned that certain behaviors made it easier to live together. We learned that killing another human to take his things did not make for a strong social group. We learned that treating each other well was not only rewarding (both emotionally and resource wise) for others, but also for ourselves.

Morals are not something contrived by the powerful to control the weak. They’re the inherited rules that made humans the pinnacle of evolutionary success.

 

Same thing. Social is human, not something imposed by an external agent.

So, if anyone can 'impose' their standards of behavior, and there are no absolutes, what other description can 'morality!', have, other than a contrived, arbitrary, human construct to control behavior?

It doesn't matter if there are centuries or millennia of these imposed, arbitrary platitudes for behavior. They are still human constructs, designed to manipulate people. They are not an imbedded 'sense', placed by a Moral Agent.

Morality can only be a delusion, in a godless universe.

 

How about we examine the "morality" of the OP's IMAGINARY "creator" so that we have a better handle on what the OP expects us to accept as his "EVIDENCE"?



So the OP's IMAGINARY "creator" advocates the MURDER of gays by his followers to be "MORAL" even after he stipulated that "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?



Once again the OP's IMAGINARY "creator" advocates that his followers MURDER those exercising their "god given" Freedom of Expression right after after he stipulated that "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?

What kind of "morality" is that?



The OP's IMAGINARY "creator" VIOLATES his own "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment when it suits him to do it and then ENDORSES that his "chosen people" ENSLAVE other people?

How does the OP find anything remotely akin to "morality" in that BIZARRE scenario?



Yet again the OP's IMAGINARY "creator" advocates that his followers commit MURDER after he stipulated that "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?

At what point does this "morality" make any sense at all?



The OP's IMAGINARY "creator" not only DEMANDS that INFANTS must be MURDERED but he goes even further and orders ABORTIONS on top of that.

So much for the "pro life morality" BS!

The OP is using the ODIOUS "morality" of his IMAGINARY "creator" as "EVIDENCE" for his existence!

Instead that is just evidence of a bigoted homicidal sociopath with ZERO morality of any kind whatsoever.

Perhaps the OP should have looked at the "morality evidence" BEFORE he dug this hole for himself and his IMAGINARY "homicidal sociopath creator".

 

Social behaviors are not uniquely human. Many members of the animal kingdom practice social behavior and have observable codes that help them function as a unit.

Morality does not depend on the existence of a god.

 

..all of which depend completely on power.. 'might makes right.' There is no 'appeal' in the animal kingdom, to an unseen moral code. They either respond involuntarily to an unseen instinct, or to the authority of might. Humans, otoh, appeal to conscience, and an implied moral absolute, and not just might.

Morality, as a Real Thing, is completely dependent on an Embedder. It is a delusion, in a godless universe.

The nuances between morality, instinct, and Law intertwine in this topic, and they need to be differentiated, not blended together in a muddy jumble. They are not synonymous.

 

You can mock and attack your religious enemies, with caricatures of religious bigotry, but they do not address the topic.

Religious texts are not the topic, here, though i would argue that they present, as a whole, a homogeneous view of absolute morality, in the human experience.

 

Animal brains aren’t as developed as ours. There’s a reason they don’t build massive civilizations. We have a stronger understanding than they do and as such we can appeal to factors other than might.

God is not required for morals to exist.

 

How was morality embedded? Do you mean that an objective morality was created by a creator, or that creator created a moral sense in humans? If the latter, how do you know that this moral sense is at all objective and isn't just programming to create a functional social species like we see in other animals?

We have felt moral emotions numerous times like guilt, compassion, pity, sense of justice, sense of unfairness, love, etc. Emotions are the product of proteins and receptors in the brain like adrenaline, seretonin, dopamine, oxycotin, endorphins, testosterone, oestrogen, noeprinaphrine, and much more. We are moral because it feels so good to be moral.

Ever heard of game theory? Basically the most successful people are ones who are self but can cooperate with others and sometimes work against their immediate interests for the common good. Humans are a very social animal and we succeed in the wild by banding together and helping each other out. If we were amoral psychopaths, mothers would kill their children and groups would fall apart. So the groups that had moral emotions succeeded and were naturally selected, while the groups that didn't have them perished.

 

YOU brought up the fallacy of "morality" as "evidence" of your IMAGINARY "creator".

Now you are running away from that EVIDENCE of "morality" because it exposes the FALLACY of your OP!

Sad!

 

Morality was discovered the first time Moog realized that by cooperating with Ug instead of bashing him in the head, that he stood a greater chance of survival.

 

No mortality is a constant, behavior that's acceptable to people changes. Those are two different things

 

Seems to me a false dichotomy. Consider the idea of morality as developed through evolution, designed neither by God nor by humans. It fits in neither of your categories, so your dichotomy must be false.

Well, why does a morality have to be universal or absolute? If morality evolved, then we would expect it to not be universal (rocks or planets don't have it), but common to humans. Just like fingers or knees are suggested to be evolved: not universal, just common to humans.

Why couldn't an evolved morality be "Real"? If morality evolved, then that morality is as real as it gets. I asked about what you meant by realness before, and you didn't answer. It wasn't a rhetorical question, if you cannot show what makes something Real (and why it has to be Real), then your argument falls flat.

Moral "platitudes" don't need to be absolute, they just need to apply to humans, and an evolved morality explains that well (in fact, I think it explains it better, given that your Godgiven morality also doesn't apply to rocks or planets). There isn't just power and decree, there are also genuine feelings instilled in us by evolution, without ulterior motives (or at least without the kind of ulterior motives that you seem to imply by talking about "human manipulators").

 

From this we may reasonably infer that whatever passes for moraltiy in your little slice of the universe is founded on your sense of personal advantage.

 

If moral values are relative.. that is, if anyone can pick and choose their preferred standards, THEN there is no 'morality', at all. There should be no conscience, but only a consensus of opinion, based only on expediency and human power.
Moral platitudes should be fickle and relative, with no appeal to a moral sense that seems absolute among humans.

Animals have jungle law.. might makes right. Nobody can challenge the will of the top dog, or moose, or bull. If a chimp kills some babies, or if a male lion kills some cubs, there is no justice sought, or moral outrage expressed for the travesty. Acquiescence is the only animal response, unless you are strong enough to challenge the alpha Male.

The human brain cannot be the source of morality.. it can only contrive platitudes to manipulate people. How can the fickle imaginations of man concoct a conscience? Moral absolutes?

I don't know, 'how'. I can only observe that it is.

'Programming' implies a Programmer.

On the contrary, the opposite seems to be universal. We are IMMORAL for selfish gratification, and only the sting of conscience, and the inner compass to do 'right' keeps us in line.

Animal instinct is not morality. Morality goes against animal instincts, at times, and makes us choose actions that are not in our best interests for survival.

..then there is no morality, at all, just human cooperation for expediency.. relative morality is the same as no morality. If it can change with the wind, it is not absolute morality.

Animal instinct is not morality. Common ancestry has no moral compass, and can only select for survival and self preservation. If some invisible, mystical, impersonal 'power' tells us to not steal, murder, rape, lie, or do violence to another, why should we observe it? There is only human law, with the force of the collective, and nothing internal, at all. Conscience is a delusion, in a godless universe of amorality. A godless universe stares blankly, at any moralizing or behavioral platitudes.

Morality, to be real, can only come from an Embedder. Else, it is a human construct for manipulation. To posit 'evolution created morality!', does not delineate the reality of morality. With no overriding moral compass, to cause the conflicts we see in human beings, there is only expediency or human whims, to declare 'morality!' as something real. In a godless universe of amoral nothingness, morality is a human invention, to manipulate people for some agenda. It is not real.

No, it is a human contrivance. You pick your social mores, and i pick mine. There is no inner 'compass' to guide our choices, in a godless universe. There is only amorality.

If your 'morality' is just contrived by man, or is a manipulation of 'evolution!', however that allegedly happened, it still has no absolutes. It is based only on human whim, expediency, or power. Morals are meaningless platitudes, in an amoral universe of random chaos.

To observe, or believe in, a moral compass, in a godless universe is a delusion, with no rational basis.

The observable, universal, and obvious presence of an inner moral code.. the conscience, and defining social aberrants as 'sociopaths!, who have lost or corrupted their conscience, is evidence of morality as a Real Thing. Universal, absolute morality is evidence for the Creator, not atheistic naturalism.

 

Ok, but how do you know this programming means objective morality? Maybe the programmer just wanted us to act a certain way. For example, the programmer made tigers to be mostly reclusive, and he made humans to act somewhat morally. If some mystical personal creator tells us not to steal, murder, rate, lie or do violence to another, who should be obey? Is it simply out of fear of punishment?

Do you really believe that? Try stealing from someone you really love. Or try abandoning your baby for just an hour while it cries. Does it feel good? No, it feels absolutely horrible. Gratification isn't just physical, it is also emotional. We have moral instinct that make us feel good for being moral.

Morality is just a set of behavior and ideas that conform to our moral instincts. This behavior is mostly beneficial because it promotes good social skills with others. Social skills are crucial for your success. So moral instincts promote survival and is naturally selected. What you should do is question your moral instinct like any other instincts and make sure it is benefitting your self-interest.

 

And how do you account for the fact that if there is a universal morality people fo steal from their families and do abandon their babies,etc,etc.