Christian Atheists

[Mikee]

Objective ethics is different because it rejects inherent valuation or mystical associations, like "GAIA".

[BaalChatzaf]

Objective ethics is different because it rejects inherent valuation or mystical associations, like "GAIA".

Tell us one moral or ethical principle that follows from physical laws? Physical laws are objective. Ethics and morality is opinion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Guyau]

. . .

Tell us one moral or ethical principle that follows from physical laws? . . .

“Keep yourself and your kind breathing.” That some do not accept the norm “keep yourself and your kind breathing” weighs as little against its correctness of doing as the fact that some do not accept quantum mechanics weighs against its correctness.

Biology and biological functions, including functions of mind, are physical and are the basis of action norms in general, including ethical norms. The downward curving of a gravitropic root is as physical as the fall of a pebble, though only to the former do concepts of significance or value pertain – a, b, c, d.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have not thought highly of Christian atheism ever, but I expect I would think even more lowly of it were I to dig into it now that I have seriously studied Nietzsche* (thanks to Robert Pippin,* who was my professor, who got me started with Nietzsche in a good way).

While I was working on my first degree, likely about 1967, there was a debate at my campus between the famous Christian atheist Thomas Altizer* and James Pike.* I do not recall the debate anymore. I remember their personalities. Altizer was definitely the more intellectual and scholarly. I do remember one smiling thing. It was something my first philosophy professor, who was sitting near me, uttered under his breath. He was a Thomist. (He was native of Rumania, I think, he had been educated [putting it mildly] in Europe, had lived under the Nazis, and had escaped from the Communists; he lectured with a heavy accent and was an unforgettable character.) Pike had said at one point “I’m not an expert on Aquinas.” My professor uttered under his breath, “That’s pretty obvious.”

[BaalChatzaf]

. . .

Tell us one moral or ethical principle that follows from physical laws? . . .

“Keep yourself and your kind breathing.” That some do not accept the norm “keep yourself and your kind breathing” weighs as little against its correctness of doing as the fact that some do not accept quantum mechanics weighs against its correctness.

Falsified by death. No matter how hard we try, ultimately we fail. We do not and cannot keep ourselves breathing past a very limited period of time and only in very limited circumstances. And there is no ethical necessity to keep on trucking. We might, by happenstance try, but where is the -must-?

By the way to make your example an ethical example it ought to read: you -should- keep yourself and your kind breathing. And that modified version does not follow from a single physical law or principle.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mikee]

Objective ethics is different because it rejects inherent valuation or mystical associations, like "GAIA".

Tell us one moral or ethical principle that follows from physical laws? Physical laws are objective. Ethics and morality is opinion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Life is an expression of physical law. Ethics and morality are valuations, choice, possible only to living beings. They are internal to each living being. There is no inherent value in nature outside of living entities else ethics and morality (internal valuation) would be moot. The concept of "God", externally imposed morality, is an abomination which destroys morality.

[Brant Gaede]

Objective ethics is different because it rejects inherent valuation or mystical associations, like "GAIA".

Tell us one moral or ethical principle that follows from physical laws? Physical laws are objective. Ethics and morality is opinion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Life is an expression of physical law. Ethics and morality are valuations, choice, possible only to living beings. They are internal to each living being. There is no inherent value in nature outside of living entities else ethics and morality (internal valuation) would be moot. The concept of "God", externally imposed morality, is an abomination which destroys morality.

A lot of morality is "externally imposed." One way is through law. Another, cultural mores.

--Brant

[Mikee]

The rule of law imposes consequences not morality. Morality comes from within.

[Brant Gaede]

The rule of law imposes consequences not morality. Morality comes from within.

Is it moral to assault someone, initiate physical force? Nope. The law saying "No!" to that is imposing a morality that that law was built on on an immoral person respecting that crime.

--Brant

let's keep one foot on the ground

[Mikee]

The rule of law is not objective morality any more than our physics theories are reality. The rule of law evolves towards objectivity as cultures evolve. The law saying "NO" is imposing a consequence for a behavior which may or may not be immoral. I agree as in your example assaulting someone is immoral.

-Mike

[Brant Gaede]

The rule of law is not objective morality any more than our physics theories are reality. The rule of law evolves towards objectivity as cultures evolve. The law saying "NO" is imposing a consequence for a behavior which may or may not be immoral. I agree as in your example assaulting someone is immoral.

-Mike

I did not previously say here that "the rule of law" is "objective morality." Law evolving towards objectivity is yet another matter. Where is that happening? You can objectify morality relative to law and law relative to morality, which should certainly be done, while understanding that morality has aspects that should be apart from law, but the part of morality reflected in law can be objectified to the human social individual only through the NIOF principle. As for the rest, we don't know enough to call it "objective." Morality is control. There is self control and the self constrained by law and the self constrained by social pressure. We do not display our beautiful bodies by going to work buck naked.

--Brant

[Mikee]

"Law evolving towards objectivity is yet another matter. Where is that happening?"

Is there another purpose for these forums?

The only part of what you said I agree with is "morality is self control".

[BaalChatzaf]

The rule of law is not objective morality any more than our physics theories are reality. The rule of law evolves towards objectivity as cultures evolve. The law saying "NO" is imposing a consequence for a behavior which may or may not be immoral. I agree as in your example assaulting someone is immoral.

-Mike

However our physics theories are strongly constrained by reality. Theory and reality should not collide. If they do, then the theory is wrong.

On the other hand morality is mostly convention in an intuitive envelope of perceived rectitude. Our morality tracks our intuitive notion of what is right and what is wrong. That may be subjective, but that is what we have.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

The rule of law is not objective morality any more than our physics theories are reality. The rule of law evolves towards objectivity as cultures evolve. The law saying "NO" is imposing a consequence for a behavior which may or may not be immoral. I agree as in your example assaulting someone is immoral.

-Mike

However our physics theories are strongly constrained by reality. Theory and reality should not collide. If they do, then the theory is wrong.

On the other hand morality is mostly convention in an intuitive envelope of perceived rectitude. Our morality tracks our intuitive notion of what is right and what is wrong. That may be subjective, but that is what we have.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Subjective"? or "mostly convention"? Well, some may have been so, but then they're wrong.

Morality is what is good for the organism. Therefore, objectively measurable.

Hell, if you gave me some time, I could come up with a morality for grass-hoppers.

(Obey your instincts; if you can hop, don't crawl; if you see a bird, hide.)

Just kidding.

Objectivist morality opines that what is good for the one, is good for the entire species.

Some other moralities begin and end with the specie, only.

[Mikee]

Tony, well put! The fact that man is both egocentric and interdependent requires objective rules of interaction, an objective rule of law. We can exponentially thrive by specializing and trading, not by preying on and looting others.

[Xray]

Brant/Tony,

In trying to etablish a secular ethics, could we agree on the common denominator that basic facts about man's nature (as it presents itself today) are absolutely essential criteria?

If yes, with what basic facts about man's nature would it be best to begin?

Sure, free will and rationality. There is no need to say, "complex life form." Social being, but it's an individual being social. It's an individual doing the thinking. It's the individual who's the moral agent. Etc.

I'd start with basic human needs, and would then work upward, maybe using something like Maslows "hierarchy of needs", in slightly modified form.

Imo the advantage of starting at the basis: any moral system that disregards basic human needs, even its advocates should propagate the highest "moral ideals" ideals, can be exposed right at the start as violating fundamental principles of humanity, and therefore be rejected as unethical.

[Xray]

"Secular ethics" is vague and subjective, and I believe deliberately ambiguous - coined to indicate that the user is smart enough to not be a 'believer', and 'good' enough to hold a morality, but also ironic enough not to take it seriously.

Secular ethics simply means an ethics not based on religious belief in a detiy or in any other kind of belief in the supernatural (like e. g. reincarnation).

I think what you call "vague and subjective" is influenced by the personal assocations and connotation you seem to have with the term "secular".

Ordinary post-modernism, if you ask me:

"If I have to explain it for you, then you could never understand."

But it is not difficult to understand at all.

Could it be THE ethics for Skeptics?

Advocates of a secular ethics are not merely skeptical about religion providing the basis the basis of a morality - they flat-out reject any moral laws grounded on religion. It's that simple actually.

"If you want to know the price, you can't afford it.")

Imo the 'price' one has to pay for uncritically accepting moral commandments dictated by a religion is far higher.

Trying to silence one's voice of reason never works in the long run.

[anthony]

"Secular ethics" is vague and subjective, and I believe deliberately ambiguous - coined to indicate that the user is smart enough to not be a 'believer', and 'good' enough to hold a morality, but also ironic enough not to take it seriously.

Secular ethics simply means an ethics not based on religious belief in a detiy or in any other kind of belief in the supernatural (like e. g. reincarnation).

I think what you call "vague and subjective" is influenced by the personal assocations and connotation you seem to have with the term "secular".

Ordinary post-modernism, if you ask me:

"If I have to explain it for you, then you could never understand."

But it is not difficult to understand at all.

Could it be THE ethics for Skeptics?

Advocates of a secular ethics are not merely skeptical about religion providing the basis the basis of a morality - they flat-out reject any moral laws grounded on religion. It's that simple actually.

"If you want to know the price, you can't afford it.")

Imo the 'price' one has to pay for uncritically accepting moral commandments dictated by a religion is far higher.

Trying to silence one's voice of reason never works in the long run.

You've made my point for me: "secular" - not this...not that, not anything - just 'a lack of'.

No, I don't get influenced by personal associations of a mere word.

Its the people who use the word "secular", as if non-god and non-religion confers something morally

and intellectually superior on them. How clever does anyone have to be to reject an ancient, primitive

philosophy, and then turn around and mock it?

[Brant Gaede]

Opps! Seems like "secular" might be substituted for "God" in a way making it just as invalid respecting morality for the same reason: dogmatism.

I'd never reject any moral law out of hand based on religion. I'd examine it first "with many instruments."

--Brant

[Xray]

You've made my point for me: "secular" - not this...not that, not anything - just 'a lack of'.

No, I don't get influenced by personal associations of a mere word.

Its the people who use the word "secular", as if non-god and non-religion confers something morally

and intellectually superior on them. How clever does anyone have to be to reject an ancient, primitive

philosophy, and then turn around and mock it?

You forget the firm empirical ground the rejection of any non-secular ethics stands on: every religion that establishes moral rules necessarily acts on irrational premises:

For to claim that a god commanded this or that, or that e. g. people have to bear the consequence of their bad deeds 'reincarnated' in a future life can be rejected as totally unfounded, with not a smidgen of evidence existing to support the allegations.

[Xray]

Opps! Seems like "secular" might be substituted for "God" in a way making it just as invalid respecting morality for the same reason: dogmatism.

It is indeed possible that a dogmatic ideological system can develop into what is called 'secular religion'.

I'd never reject any moral law out of hand based on religion. I'd examine it first "with many instruments."

It is about the premises on which religion operates. The act of buidling an ethics on unfounded premises (commandments of a god, etc.) is epistemologically so flawed that it has no leg to stand on.

Now one could argue that surely there also exists, here and there in religious texts, some ethical advice that makes sense.

But on closer examination of these examples, you will see that they are often just the expression of human common sense (like i.e. the Golden Rule), and common sense is a human trait. The god premise is not needed in order to establish such rules. They work perfectly without it.

Feel free to list any religious moral rules that you think make sense - I'm convinced you will, in each case, be able to trace them back to some human common sense, and /or human benevolence. Like for example "Peace be with you", which is uttered quite often by the Jesus character. I really liked that phrase as a kid. Still do.

The reverse is also true: religious moral commandments that we would regard as unethical today often reflect the blind tribal hatred, and patriarchalism prevalent at the times when these religions were founded. Again, a god premise is not needed.

[anthony]

You've made my point for me: "secular" - not this...not that, not anything - just 'a lack of'.

No, I don't get influenced by personal associations of a mere word.

Its the people who use the word "secular", as if non-god and non-religion confers something morally

and intellectually superior on them. How clever does anyone have to be to reject an ancient, primitive

philosophy, and then turn around and mock it?

You forget the firm empirical ground the rejection of any non-secular ethics stands on: every religion that establishes moral rules necessarily acts on irrational premises:

For to claim that a god commanded this or that, or that e. g. people have to bear the consequence of their bad deeds 'reincarnated' in a future life can be rejected as totally unfounded, with not a smidgen of evidence existing to support the allegations.

Spin it any way you like, you don't prove a positive by disproving a negative.

Empirically.

1 - 1 = 0

(but last I looked you claimed to be agnostic - a 'maybe believer' - NOT atheist,

so how does that match your criticisms of god and religion? At least show the convictions of your courage.)

[Brant Gaede]

Opps! Seems like "secular" might be substituted for "God" in a way making it just as invalid respecting morality for the same reason: dogmatism.

It is indeed possible that a dogmatic ideological system can develop into what is called 'secular religion'.

I'd never reject any moral law out of hand based on religion. I'd examine it first "with many instruments."

It is about the premises on which religion operates. The act of buidling an ethics on unfounded premises (commandments of a god, etc.) is epistemologically so flawed that it has no leg to stand on.

Now one could argue that surely there also exists, here and there in religious texts, some ethical advice that makes sense.

But on closer examination of these examples, you will see that they are often just the expression of human common sense (like i.e. the Golden Rule), and common sense is a human trait. The god premise is not needed in order to establish such rules. They work perfectly without it.

Feel free to list any religious moral rules that you think make sense - I'm convinced you will, in each case, be able to trace them back to some human common sense, and /or human benevolence. Like for example "Peace be with you", which is uttered quite often by the Jesus character. I really liked that phrase as a kid. Still do.

The reverse is also true: religious moral commandments that we would regard as unethical today often reflect the blind tribal hatred, and patriarchalism prevalent at the times when these religions were founded. Again, a god premise is not needed.

Yeah. "God" is frequently moral filler or punish-you-if-you-don't obey. It's not secular or religious so much as rational or irrational, but generally you have to be specific as to what you are referring to. You can support this point about religious vs secular with a broad generalization without much trouble. Look more closely and a lot breaks down into complicated jumbles. I simply don't see the value or point of this approach. Rational vs irrational seems much better. Let the religious make rational statements about their moralities if they can. Ferventness leads to ostensible, self-refuting, Bible thumping silliness that drives away the young and intelligent.

--Brant

[Xray]

You forget the firm empirical ground the rejection of any non-secular ethics stands on: every religion that establishes moral rules necessarily acts on irrational premises:

For to claim that a god commanded this or that, or that e. g. people have to bear the consequence of their bad deeds 'reincarnated' in a future life can be rejected as totally unfounded, with not a smidgen of evidence existing to support the allegations.

Spin it any way you like, you don't prove a positive by disproving a negative

Empirically.

1 - 1 = 0

What spin? The burden of proof is not on me. It is on the other party who claims that something like god's will or some law of karma leading to reincarnation provides the basis for ethics.

The other party does not have a smidgen of evidence to prove their case. They are emtpy-handed.

Empirically.

0 + 0 = 0

(but last I looked you claimed to be agnostic - a 'maybe believer' - NOT atheist,

so how does that match your criticisms of god and religion? At least show the convictions of your courage.)

I'm an agnostic for epistemological reasons: for one cannot claim knowledge either way.

As for what I personally believe - an agnostic can be a 'maybe-believer', but also a 'maybe non-believer'.

Wavering back and forth is not uncommon.

In recent years, I have found myself leaning, belief-wise, more and more toward the atheist side of the fence.

Morality is what is good for the organism. Therefore, objectively measurable.

But isn't the "objecively measurable" part restricted to the physiological here? The organism does not care how people get their stomach filled, whether it is by stealing, robbing, etc

If morality is equated with what is good for the organism, e. g. eating broccoli that one has stolen from a health food store would be a moral act.

[Brant Gaede]

But isn't the "objecively measurable" part restricted to the physiological here? The organism does not care how people get their stomach filled, whether it is by stealing, robbing, etc

If morality is equated with what is good for the organism, e. g. eating broccoli that one has stolen from a health food store would be a moral act.

The organism that does not care about morality is a non-human organism. The [human] Body Has a Head.

--Brant

[anthony]

(but last I looked you claimed to be agnostic - a 'maybe believer' - NOT atheist, so how does that match your criticisms of god and religion? At least show the convictions of your courage.)

I'm an agnostic for epistemological reasons: for one cannot claim knowledge either way.

That's Skepticism, qua philosophy. I've heard a Christian use that very argument - and apart from

the onus of proof thing - what separates him from you? You can't claim knowledge, he can't claim

knowledge. Stalemate.