Is Morality really connected to Evolution?

It would seem that such a belief is superfluous since you can be moral with or without believing that[quote=“gbrooks9, post:81, topic:35781”]
I could write the following sentences about you:

“Atheists can’t say that there is no God of morality (they simply believe it to be so).”
“Atheists have no way of knowing there is no God of morality.”
[/quote]

You could write that, but you would be wrong. I don’t believe that there is no God. I just see no evidence for God, so I don’t believe God exists. Could God exist? I guess, but I have yet to see proof of it.

We have the Bible which has plenty of examples of God issuing immoral commands.

.

@T_aquaticus

Mr. T, my being a Freemason informs me that however moral a man may be . . . on average, if he also believes in a power greater than he, he will be even more conscious of morality, and more happy while doing so.

Your statements either agree with one of my three quotes, or they contradict your own statements.
I wrote “Atheists have no way of knowing there is no God…” and your response was to say I was wrong, and then you followed it with: “Could God exist? I guess, but I have yet to see proof of it.” To prove my statement wrong, you would have to prove that there could not be a God without proof. And here is where Atheists fail to drive their point home.

1 Like

I thought Morgan Freeman :confused:

1 Like

If this life is all there is - a few years of consciousness - then everything in it is meaningless. Love is meaningless. Family is meaningless.

Seems like you agree with the Preacher in Ecclesiaties, there. But he came around, and so can you.

I’ve also been looking at Job lately, and a big question there is whether Job would worship God because God was worthy of worship, not because Job got something from it. In Job’s case, that was earthly stuff, as afterlife ideas were pretty much you died and fed the worms at that point. The point is that this life on earth is meaningful, and worship of God is meaningful, regardless of the afterlife. Ultimately, if you are a Christian because you want to go to heaven, maybe you need to dig a little deeper. That is sort of a disturbing idea, since evangelical pushes are often along the “if you died tonight, where would you spend eternity” lines.

5 Likes

According to what evidence?

Your statement has nothing to do with my actual position. It is nothing more than a strawman. You are arguing against a position that I don’t hold.

In my view, believing that this life is all I have makes love and family all that more meaningful.

@T_aquaticus,

By what evidence? I think the principle of a higher power watching over your every action has a virtually a priori quality about it. Freemason’s All Seeing Eye is not just an idle artistic whimsy. It is to remind Freemasons that no matter when or where, their conduct matters.

As for my other statement being a strawman - - Exactly! I presented it to you in the very same strawman appearance as your earlier critiques of Theism employed.

The fact that men of Faith cannot logically prove a point of metaphysics is not necessarily enough to defeat the reasonableness of the belief. If this were not the case, I doubt Atheists would be in the minority of the otherwise diverse views of humankind.

1 Like

That would be an assertion, not evidence.

Then you should know that since you are the one claiming that God is the creator of morality that the burden of proof lies with you to support that assertion.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:89, topic:35781”]
The fact that men of Faith cannot logically prove a point of metaphysics is not necessarily enough to defeat the reasonableness of the belief. If this were not the case, I doubt Atheists would be in the minority of the otherwise diverse views of humankind.
[/quote]

At one time, the Heliocentrists were in the minority. I see that you are also fond of the Argument by Popularity fallacy.

1 Like

Yes, and all that harder to let go …

@T_aquaticus,

Well, yes, I suppose so. But that’s where the wisdom of the Founding Fathers comes into the picture. Rather than having lots of disputes between different faiths and denominations about proving what is True Morality vs. “Someone Else’s Flawed” perception of Morality - - the Founding Fathers wrote a constitution which became the basis for “Separation of Church and State”.

The Laws of the Land are civil laws rather than “theocratical” rules (like Sharia?) … and while Roe v. Wade is a civil law landmark, we still have lots of denominations and sects agonizing over the ruling not being based on religious morality.

But this is beside the point, from your Atheist view. You, I assume?, don’t even like to see people believing in a deity they can’t prove. I think you’ll get over that reaction over time. Many religious people don’t like to see people not believing in a deity at all. And they’ll get over that reaction (or not) as their [you say, imaginary] God gives them the wisdom to see the problem.

My point is unchanged in one regard: most of us Theists believe a person can be Reasonable about his or her faith - - even when there is insufficient Evidence of a deity’s existence for a Logic professor to call Proof.

In law, there are different standards of Evidence. From all those Law & Order shows, we are all familiar with the Evidentiary Standard of “Guilt Proved Beyond All Reasonable Doubt”. That’s tough standard.

But in civil cases, like the one brought against O.J. after he was found innocent in a criminal courtroom, the lower standard was for “a preponderance of the evidence”. And on that basis, the decision was found in Favor of the Plaintiff (a civil plaintiff) … against OJ, the civil defendant.

So, in matters of Faith, I think it is reasonable for a Theist to make his or her decision on an evidentiary standard like “preponderance of evidence” or even a lesser standard like, say, the one represented by Pascal’s Wager.

It’s a personal matter… and Logic, as applied enthusiastically by Atheists, really isn’t the point.

1 Like

I have absolutely no problem with people believing in whatever deity they deem fit. I actually celebrate religious freedom as one of the greater achievements of secularism.

When I see people misrepresenting what atheism is or what atheists think, then I tend to interject. I also challenge religious beliefs when they impinge on my personal freedoms, such as the separation of church and state you mention earlier.

Pascal’s Wager isn’t evidence, and I am still curious about what evidence you are using.

Perhaps you are a Christian without realising it (I joke). It needs to be said that belief in God is not the only thing for us - the life we live on this earth has an awful lot to do with the Faith. We had better be good and meaningful etc., or we are not welcomed by Christ.

1 Like

@T_aquaticus

I’m quite sure you wouldn’t consider it evidence. But evidence is really anything that helps to “persuade”, right?

So, “tautologies” can be evidence … if they “move” the listener.
I think I have mentioned my own favorite evidence, which again, is not something that proves anything … but it triggers a gut feeling, a hunch, that I find is so strong, I cannot dismiss it:

it is that I am conscious of my own thoughts.

I know you will say you are conscious as well … but I really can’t be sure of that, can I…

Dennett, one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism has a nice lecture on the topic of consciousness and solipsist side of that phenomenon.

In any case, I fully acknowledge that evidence of all sorts is not “proof” by any means.

But I think I once kept a friend from going into a severe depressive episode by pointing out that a person can cling to the fact there is no evidence of God, or of any thing for that matter, and still be wrong.

Probabilities are played … but it doesn’t mean probabilities will always be right.

Suddenly, it seemed to me anyway, my friend gave himself permission to return to a faith that he had firmly excluded from his daily life because “there was no proof”. Sometimes, bad things can be avoided if we stop worrying about proof, and worry about love and kindness and a tolerance for a little magic in the Universe instead.

1 Like

Yes and no, I’d say. If we’re going all the way back to the ultimate questions, there’s not much solid information to go on, and logic starts running into blind spots. In my experience most atheists claim to be agnostic on such questions, essentially being comfortable saying “we don’t know.”

When claims start getting more specific–as they generally seem to–logic has more bearing on the situation. In a sense, this site is a testament to this–I see logical arguments concerning such issues here every day. Logic can just as easily be applied to refute such claims outright–not to say that any such refutation is necessarily correct of course.

Also, in itself a belief is a personal matter–but beliefs (particularly the specific beliefs which logic can be applied to) tend strongly to inform actions, which may effect everyone.

1 Like

@John_Dalton

All I see is a lot of rhetoric trying to make your logic binding over my personal beliefs and values. And i’m not buying the approach.

I have personally seen a group of atheists argue that common denominator reasonableness leads to Atheism. And yet when I pointed out that if this were actually true, then something even more obvious than the existence of God - - like, for example, whether humans have Free Will or not - - would also easily find common ground and agreement amongst Atheists.

And when one Atheist said, "Absolutely, because it is logically easy to refute Free Will, before you knew it, there was another group of Atheists arguing that Free Will is easy to verify as existing.

When you show me the fail-safe logic for proving or disproving Free Will, then I will be willing to discuss the same kind of application of logic for proving or disproving the existence of God!

1 Like

People can be persuaded by things that aren’t evidence, including fallacious arguments like Pascal’s Wager. Saying that you had better believe in God just in case is a rather poor argument, if you ask me. I could just as easily state that the real God that actually exists has purposefully hid from humans, and that God will only let you into heaven if you live your life as an atheist. So you had better be an atheist, just in case. Do you find that argument compelling, or is it only compelling when it involves a deity you already believe in?

1 Like

@gbrooks9 and @T_aquaticus, all this talk of bravado of one side thinking it has the other side “out-evidenced” much less painted into a corner with [dis]proof is what Tim Keller has called “proofism” in this Google talk he gave. I thought it nicely done, and he of course is a Christian and gives a brief overview of the defense from (and of) that point of view especially with regard to morality. I’d be interested in what all of you think of what he has to say – including from the Q and A when he’s done. It’s really more about ethics and their source (Hey, I’m on topic with the OP for once!) than it is about trying to win arguments.

1 Like

No. Arguments and analogies aren’t evidence.

I’m not quite sure I fully understand what Dredge is saying, but I don’t think he said that.

1 Like