Evidence for the Creator: Morality

We have moral instincts, but we also have other competing instincts as well. This falls in line with game theory which presents a model of how we have to strike a balance between helping yourself and helping others and your group.

 

A sense of morality goes hand-in-hand with self-awareness. Any sentient being would eventually develop a sense of morality. Is not reliant on a dog.

 

Common ancestry does indeed select for survival and preservation (not really of self as in the individual, but of the gene in question). If morality and conscience benefits the gene, then we would expect it to be selected for. Turns out morality, being closely linked with cooperation, is really quite useful, and has done well for humans, evolutionarily.

For the same reason we hunger and eat, for the same reason we feel and act on sexual attraction, for the same reason we fear and avoid death. Evolution suggests all those are embedded by evolution, and we obey those. We can dodge them for a while, maybe even to the point where it kills us, but I don't have a problem calling them real.

You keep saying it, but I'm not seeing the evidence or logic. How do you define "real"? What is required to "delineate the reality of morality"? I suggest that morality has arisen in a way similar to how our numbers of arms and legs evolved. Would you say they are not "Real"?

This seems to me incorrect. If morality is caused by evolution, then I would expect it to follow similar rules as other traits, for instance physical ones. You won't be able to chose your morality any more than you can pick your number of arms or legs. True, our consciences are influenced by social impact more than our arms are, but that doesn't make them whole cloth made up.

As mentioned before (but you somehow ignored it again), we have no reason to believe that morality has to be absolute. Secular humanism suggests that morality is intrinsic to humans. As such, it would not be absolute (in that it doesn't apply to bees or rocks or quarks) but it would apply to humans. Humans would have no way to directly influence it (well, there are some interesting moral conundrums regarding breeding of conscience, but that is for another thread) and it does not obey human manipulators or powers.

Just like number of arms, we would expect it to be consistent all over humanity, but have local blips. A sociopath would be the conscientious equivalent to a person who was born with a misshapen or no arm, or who had an arm damaged.

You may be playing a bit fast and loose with the relation between morality and conscience. I wold agree that there is an inner moral code, and that we can observe it. I would also argue that that makes it a real thing (although I might revise that statement if you write out what you actually mean by "Real thing" and I don't think it applies to the conscience). However, I don't agree that that is evidence that the conscience and the moral code that it follows is universal (indeed, it seems only to apply to humans), or that it is evidence of a creator.

 

So bacteria have a sense of morality. Who knew?

 

in other words there is no operative universal morality!

 

Agreed. Morality is subjective and relative. Its emotionally-based and its primary purpose is to facilitate social interaction.

 

perhaps social cohesion and threats imagined or real from outsiders.

 

Something tells me that you don't know what the meaning of sentient is. It means having self awareness.

 

It seems to me that 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a concept just as easily arrived at by logic as by divine inspiration.

 

Then you should ignore that something henceforth, obviously

No it doesn't. Merriam-Webster has this to say about it:

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions sentient beings

[...]

A sentient being is one who perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind - sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell. ​

If bacteria couldn't do that, they couldn't live.

 

Sure. If you want people to tell you sweet little lies about yourself, it only makes sense to return the favor, right?

 

I don't even know what that means...

 

It's news to you that there are people who like to be lied to?

 

No, but those ppl are crazy. What do they have to do with the golden rule?

 

A dead universe doesn't care about morality.

 

They demonstrate that logic alone is insufficient to derive it, assuming it's to have any meaning consonant with sanity.

 

They only demonstrate that its insufficient for them, crazy people.

I never claimed it was sufficient for everyone, and neither is divine inspiration, apparently.

 

It's not sufficient for anyone.

Nevertheless, it is necessary for everyone. That's why the second Great Commandment, of which the Golden Rule is merely a paraphrase, follows the first, without which the second is worthless.

 

In a godless universe, absolute morality is a delusion. How can it be otherwise? Other atheist posters grasp this obvious concept. All morality is relative, and is not absolute, so it is a human construct ONLY. It is not a Real Thing, reflecting universal values or moral standards. An example later, about theft should illustrate this better.

Which implies it is a contrived human construct, to manipulate people. It is not a Real Thing.

Exactly. The 'norm' for humanity is an innate moral sense. Most atheists have this, too, and some even boast of moral superiority. This is evidence of a moral Embedder, as this 'sense' can only be a delusion, in a godless universe.

'Evolution!', has no mechanism to instill a universal moral code. It can only select those qualities that enhance survivability.

Theft, for example, is a virtue in the animal kingdom. The best theives have an edge in survival. Why would humans preach against this virtuous trait, and smear it as a 'sin!'?

The only possible reasons are:

• 'Thou shalt not steal', is a moral absolute, embedded by the Creator.
• It is a human construct, to manipulate people.

The same with marital fidelity. The natural, animal instinct is to reproduce. But a sense of moral absolutes restrains the animal drive, and the sting of conscience deters us from indulging our self interests and animal instincts, indicating a moral choice, to follow this innate code, instead of our animal drives.

Precisely. That is the logical conclusion in a godless universe.

Right. It is not a Real Thing, but a human construct, for manipulation. That is the only logical conclusion, in a godless universe.

Not really. It is contrary to our self centered instincts. Stealing, infidelity, lying, and a host of other 'sins!', should be virtues, in a godless universe. Only the restraint of conscience, embedded by the Creator, deters us from following our natural inclinations and instincts.

A godless universe would be amoral. There is no way a random, meaningless universe can have any moral platitudes. One person's values are as good (or bad) as another's. Neither Mother Theresa, Hitler, nor an aborted fetus have 'Absolute Truth!', regarding morality. It is all relative, and an individual choice. That is the only rational conclusion, in a godless universe.

HOWEVER, that is not what we observe. We observe human beings, elevating a Moral Standard, and expressing outrage over moral violations. Many atheists boast of a superior morality, that is not driven by religious beliefs, but an innate sense. I completely agree with them, and see this as evidence for the Creator. Because it could only be a delusion, in a godless universe.

 

This topic has been covered extensively in multiple threads, over the years. Here are a couple i was involved in:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/delusions-in-a-godless-universe.552943/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/morality-instinct-law.551932/

I have called morality a delusion, in a godless universe, because there is no Source for moralizing.. only human manipulation, or arbitrary dictates from those in power.

ONLY a Supreme Being, or some Force with the ability to do so, could embed a sense of morality and conscience, in the human animal. Without this Embedder, there is only relativity, and arbitrary decree, from human controllers.

The universe doesn't care, if you follow your conscience. Lie, steal, cheat.. do whatever you want, and a godless universe will only stare blankly. ONLY if there is a Creator/God, can there be a Moral Standard.. a reflection of the values the Creator has infused in us.

So to be a Real Thing, and not a delusion, 'morality' had to be instilled in us by our Creator. To pretend moral awareness, superiority, or ANY acknowledgment of a moral sense, implies Causation.. a Moral Embedder.

A godless universe has no virtues, no sin, no right and wrong, or any moral judgments. It just is, and it matters not whether you follow the delusion of human constructed moralizing platitudes, or not. Serve mankind selflessly, cure cancer, or murder millions. A godless universe has no judgment for the choices you make.

 

The basis for morality, as defined in this thread, can ONLY come from an 'Embedder'. It is different from instinct or arbitrary Law.

Here is the logical progression. We will assume both premises, and follow the implications and conclusions, as they relate to morality.

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. ..a 'sense' of universal, absolute morality is a delusion or manipulation of man.

An example might help, though i find it hard to believe this simplest of logical reasoning cannot be followed.

IF.. a Creator embedded, 'thou shalt not steal', into the inner conscience of man..
THEN.. any 'sense' of property rights are an inherent moral value.

But in a godless universe, 'thou shalt not steal!', is a human construct. It is not even an instinct, as every animal species rewards stealing as a virtue. It can be (and is) codefied into Law, to deter theft by a human enforcer, but at its root, it is only a human construct, to control weak minded dupes. It is an imposed platitude, to control people. There is no overriding moral imperative to sting one's conscience, if they steal something.

'Conscience!' is also a human construct, in a godless universe. With no moral values embedded, but only human manipulation, any appeals to 'conscience!' are manipulations from human controllers.

 

I would agree that "absolute" morality is a delusion, but the evidence you suggested wasn't for absolute morality, it serves just as well as evidence for subjective morality as suggested by evolution.

You've seen my objection to this, and haven't answered it. If morality is subjective and instilled by evolution, then it is not a human construct, and it is real. It would not be reflecting universal values or moral standards, just human values and moral standards.

Humans have two legs. Evolution suggests this arose by evolution. It is not subject to human whims, it is not a human construct, our legs are real. Thus, I don't see how you can claim that another thing which arose in the same way and is equally demonstrable is any less real or any more a human construct. Without explaining that distinction, your argument does not hold up.

How do you suggest that evidence works? It seems to me evolution could just as well have instilled such a sense, so it doesn't seem to argue in your favour.

You seem to have a simplistic view of what nature benefits. Who says thieves have an edge in survival? Thieves have an edge in survival under certain circumstances, but not in others. In a society in which it is quite possible to live and reproduce without stealing, and in which theft is often met with punishment, your assumptions are simply incorrect.

The same with marital fidelity. For instance, in animals with large parental involvement, like humans, it is not beneficial to reproduce with just anyone, there will be competition over parental investment, your parents have an evolutionary stake in your mate etc.. Your assertion that nature corresponds only to the base and basic seems to me a short sighted understanding of evolution. Again, your argument fails because you have misunderstood what evolution actually suggests.

 

We're not purely instinctual beings. Animals are. The capacity for logic is what seperates us. The Golden Rule is logically beneficial to us.

 

No, morality is based on human emotions such as empathy, compassion, guilt, love, vengeance, sense of rightness, and fear of reprisal. The fact that morality is so uniform across human society means that it must be embedded by something. The real question is whether it is embedded by evolution, or a creator, or both.

 

Evidence of evolution: Morality.

Morality is a trait shared by social animals of sufficient complexity of mind, most especially the primates, enabling groups to live together, which generally benefits its individual members. Unfortunately, with this also come violent tendencies and tribal warfare, a trait shared between humans and chimpanzees. Chimps, like humans, will at times commit murder and go to war against rival groups, presumably over territory and food. Likely as not, their thinking is not so formal; they, like warring humans, act on emotion first and ask questions later.