Religious Debate with Father

[Soldier of Entropy]

Recently, I found myself sucked into a debate on the topic of relgion with my father, who is not a fundamentalist, but rather a liberal Jew. The subject of the debate was whether or not one could have morality without a god of some sort, and I found myself unable to answer sufficiently. He does not claim that it must be one specific god, and indeed believes that all gods are merely different "faces" of one god, so the page on creationtheory.net on this topic was unable to help me. My question is, how do I respond to the assertation that there can be no certain morals without a belief in some kind of god?

[Surlethe]

You respond with the simplest rebuttal possible: "Why?"

To elaborate, the burden of extraordinary proof is on him rather than on you. He is claiming that morality is sufficient for belief in some manner of superhuman (not even supernatural, I guess) deity. So he needs to establish the links in the chain between them, otherwise he simply has no case beyond his own say-so.

[chitoryu12]

You respond with the simplest rebuttal possible: "Why?"

I've always used that in religious debates. The person either is totally ignorant and falls for some kind of common misconception or they say something extremely illogical.

[Rye]

The argument he seems to be fishing for is that without believing some phantasmagoric authority that can't even be verified to exist, let alone have any knowable moral teachings, humans can't come up with working morality, there's no biological/social context for morality, etc. This is nonsense.

In fact, I would argue that an authority that doesn't exist outside the minds of the people that already buy into it is a much more dangerous source for morality than the natural way we appraise good and bad; by social hedonism. The greatest good for the greatest number can be broken down into the greatest pleasure and the least pain for the greatest number possible. That "hedonic calculus" as I recall it was named in utilitarianism is a much more pleasant way to live than by divine dictation, in which any unethical commandment can get by because there's no way of verifying the authority or its character.

To put it another way, what if God were Saddam Hussein? Would that make him an appropriate moral authority? Of course not. To count on a divine dictator and judging that to be the only source of morality is incredibly immature and simple-minded. Grown ups can usually discern the shades of grey in moral judgments and do the least bad option when given a moral dilemma, just following orders doesn't do that. It's a childish way to look at the world.

[Darth Wong]

As him if he thinks that the rules of morality are beneficial for society. If he answers "yes", then you've got him because if they are beneficial for society, you don't need religion to justify them. All you need is society.

[Haruko]

Paul Tobin's "Evolution and the Origins of Morality" and "Metaethics and Atheism" are great essays on this matter.

[Superman]

I'm so tired of this stupid argument. As if this notion of morality couldn't simply have been part of a the process of natural selection... Hell, even apes have a highly structured society where ever member has social rules they live by.

[Darth Wong]

It is as I've said elsewhere. The religious moderates have the same broken logic as the hardcore fundies. They're more "reasonable" in the sense that they don't want to be pushy bastards about it, but they're no more reasonable in terms of the logic they use.

[Singular Intellect]

As him if he thinks that the rules of morality are beneficial for society. If he answers "yes", then you've got him because if they are beneficial for society, you don't need religion to justify them. All you need is society.

Ah, the joy of having an effective arguement in just a few choice words. Thanks Mike.

[Soldier of Entropy]

As him if he thinks that the rules of morality are beneficial for society. If he answers "yes", then you've got him because if they are beneficial for society, you don't need religion to justify them. All you need is society.

I've tried that on him. He claims that while yes, the conventional rules of morality are better for those individuals without power are benifited by the conventional rules of morality, a civilization where, for example, child labor was permitted would be more prosperous than one using conventional morality. He does not contest that morality on the level of don't murder, don't steal, don't rape, etc. could evolve athiestically as societies with these moral codes would indeed benifit. The key issue is that he does not feel that one can justify the more advanced levels of morality such as labor laws, war/enslavement/genocide/etc. of other civilizations (or tribes, nations, cultures, etc.), and the first amendment freedoms, for example, without a higher power to give you guidelines to at least start from. He feels that otherwise you are entrusting your moral code to a fallable being (Yes, he feels god is infallable, despite knowing about the "old testament" atrocities, claiming that they are either untrue, exaggerated, or misunderstood. He does not view the bible as the direct work of god though rather being divinely inspired.).

[Soldier of Entropy]

Ghetto Edit: I just thought of something. It's picking and choosing if he says the bible is fallable, but the moral codes used as a basis aren't, thus a theistic-based moral code is no better than an atheistic-based one...right?

[Civil War Man]

He does not contest that morality on the level of don't murder, don't steal, don't rape, etc. could evolve athiestically as societies with these moral codes would indeed benifit.

Okay, let's start with that.

The key issue is that he does not feel that one can justify the more advanced levels of morality such as labor laws,

Let's see...imagine you don't give your employees a living wage, but still expect them to do the same amount of work. You basically would not be paying them for their services. It would almost be like you were taking their wages from them without permission. You know, stealing.

war/enslavement/genocide/etc. of other civilizations (or tribes, nations, cultures, etc.)

So he thinks atheist morality would consist of "don't kill people, unless you decide to kill them all at once. Then it's okay"?

I would cover all the points now, but dinner is ready.

[Simmon]

As him if he thinks that the rules of morality are beneficial for society. If he answers "yes", then you've got him because if they are beneficial for society, you don't need religion to justify them. All you need is society.

Is that an application of Occam's razor? I’m unsure.
(ie society+morality is simpler than society+morality+religion)

[Darth Wong]

As him if he thinks that the rules of morality are beneficial for society. If he answers "yes", then you've got him because if they are beneficial for society, you don't need religion to justify them. All you need is society.

I've tried that on him. He claims that while yes, the conventional rules of morality are better for those individuals without power are benifited by the conventional rules of morality, a civilization where, for example, child labor was permitted would be more prosperous than one using conventional morality.

Does he realize that none of the major religions outlaw child labour?

He does not contest that morality on the level of don't murder, don't steal, don't rape, etc. could evolve athiestically as societies with these moral codes would indeed benifit. The key issue is that he does not feel that one can justify the more advanced levels of morality such as labor laws, war/enslavement/genocide/etc. of other civilizations (or tribes, nations, cultures, etc.), and the first amendment freedoms, for example, without a higher power to give you guidelines to at least start from.

Does he realize that religions do not promote freedom of speech, and that all of the world's most religious societies have historically practiced slavery and genocide?

He feels that otherwise you are entrusting your moral code to a fallable being (Yes, he feels god is infallable, despite knowing about the "old testament" atrocities, claiming that they are either untrue, exaggerated, or misunderstood. He does not view the bible as the direct work of god though rather being divinely inspired.).

So instead of agreeing with fallible human beings who try to back up their arguments with reasoning and facts, you should trust the word of fallible human beings who do not, and who claim to be "divinely inspired" instead?

[Civil War Man]

Okay, back from dinner. Just add one other point.

the first amendment freedoms

So, the basic tenor of the first amendment is that it is not right to impose views on others (more the vein of the government, but since the US is at least ostentatiously supposed to be run by the citizens, we'll go with the more general view). Basically it is not right to try to silence another because they do not share your political, religious, or even linguistic ideals. These rights are based on a premise that everyone within the society at least starts on relatively equal footing, that one person does not contain more intrinsic worth than another simply because they exist. This premise ties into the very veins of morality that he admits can be atheistically derived, because murder, theft, and rape would not be considered inherently bad in a slave-master relationship, so long as you do the act to an inferior. It'd be like killing mosquitos.


Anyway, my whole point for those two posts is that the moral and ethical concepts he claims to require divine inspiration are basically extrapolations of the moral and ethical concepts he admits could be athestically derived.

[General Zod]

I've tried that on him. He claims that while yes, the conventional rules of morality are better for those individuals without power are benifited by the conventional rules of morality, a civilization where, for example, child labor was permitted would be more prosperous than one using conventional morality. He does not contest that morality on the level of don't murder, don't steal, don't rape, etc. could evolve athiestically as societies with these moral codes would indeed benifit. The key issue is that he does not feel that one can justify the more advanced levels of morality such as labor laws, war/enslavement/genocide/etc. of other civilizations (or tribes, nations, cultures, etc.), and the first amendment freedoms, for example, without a higher power to give you guidelines to at least start from.

Point out that the Bible approves of slavery and sees nothing wrong with it. Demand that he justify this. I'm fairly sure there's passages advocating genocide as well.

Lev 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Bondsman was the old term for "slave", for all intents and purposes.

[Stark]

Isn't it utterly bizarre to use *religion* as the basis for fucking *labour laws*? That's skipping over the silly ten commandments and deciding that without GOD'S MESSAGE we'd just exploit everyone all the time - because holy shit societies never evolve politically and culturally around these issues, right? It's all due to religion!

How anyone who's read any history can imagine that our enlightened society is the result of Biblical values is fucking beyond me. Western culture got where it is through bloody revolution, global war and economic changes, not 'oh Bible says it's wrong to have child labour now, new update'.

[Surlethe]

Lev 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Bondsman was the old term for "slave", for all intents and purposes.

Here's the passage from the NIV, if you want it in less obscure language:

"'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.'" (Lev. 25:44-6)

How anyone who's read any history can imagine that our enlightened society is the result of Biblical values is fucking beyond me. Western culture got where it is through bloody revolution, global war and economic changes, not 'oh Bible says it's wrong to have child labour now, new update'.

It may also be helpful to bear in mind that our enlightened society is a direct result of the Enlightenment, which involved not only scientific thinkers throwing off the yoke of the Church (and as a result giving us our obscene material wealth) but also ethicists striking out and thinking for themselves. For example, America wouldn't exist in its current form were it not for Locke and his thoughts on morality -- which are and were areligious, as I understand him.

[Darth Wong]

I'm quite frankly disturbed that this guy could seriously think that the "higher" levels of morality (ie- all the ones that have cropped up since the Enlightenment period) are due to religion, even though their appearance is directly correlated with a weakening of religion in whatever country they are taken seriously. How stupid and/or dishonest is he?

And worse yet, he seems to think that society is actually harmed by child labour laws! This guy is quite frankly scary. Does he honestly think that we would have a more prosperous society if we threw kids into factories rather than letting them grow up to be well-educated and better-adjusted adults?

[J_Cayman]

The way I've handled this in the past is to ask why the deity would allow some things but disallow others.
At this point they must decide whether the deity is arbitrary or not. If they think that their deity is arbitrary and could allow say murdering children then they have problems. If the deity however isn't arbitrary then they would have to use some objective means of determining morality.
Then your argument will develop from there.
1. arbitrary = morality is meaningless as the rules could change from one minute to the next. The deity could just up and decide that it is evil to live. It would be right, merely because the deity says so. Why haven't they done it yet?
2. objectivity = morality would be separate from the deity, and as such can be determined atheistically (sp?). All we would need is to determine the morality criteria.

[Superman]

My own father sounds a lot like Soldier's dad. No matter how liberal he becomes, he just ultimately can't seem let go of this silly and childish belief.

It amazes me how religionists can't see the bigger picture. All of their beliefs, whether they're part of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc., are nothing more than superstitious nonsense. All of it basically comes down to, "if I am bad, then I get punished!" They really need to grow the hell up.

If these people were living in some tribal society thousands of years ago, they would be throwing virgins into a volcano to appease their god... which might be better than the stupid shit they do these days.

[Twoyboy]

I had this arguement with a guy on another forum one night. I said that religious dogma consistently lags behind other social standards in the morals department. I asked him 5 or 6 times to show me even one moral standard of todays society which was delivered to us by religion BEFORE the general public demanded it. He kept changing the subject.

It may just have been easier to ask him why he thinks he's a better person than me because I follow a moral code for the good of society and he follows one so his loving God won't burn him in hell for eternity.

[Androsphinx]

The question of whether there can be an absolute moral standard without a God, and its inverse - whether a moral code can claim to be supported by its purportedly Divine origin - is one of the oldest and most studied philosophical issues ever. There are literally thousands of books in print currently in print on the issue.

The original and the best form is the Euthyphro dilemma - generally pronounced You-thi-fro, (although Classics undergrads pronounce it Ef-thi-fro) - it's one of Plato's, it should be in any library. Crudely put, it asks "Are things moral because God commanded them, or did God command them because they are moral?". There should be a chapter on it in any philosophy of religon textbook.

Suffice it to say that as with most philosophical arguments, there is no agreed-on consensus, except that the Euthyphro dilemma itself is one of the most damaging blows ever made to the idea of a Divinely commanded moral code.

Of course, the fact that almost all the moral codes ever written which claimed Divine authorship are utterly at odds with modern perceptions, as mentioned above, helps.

[Darth Wong]

It's quite telling that when "moderates" try to defend religious moral codes, they always pick and choose the parts of those morals codes which can also be justified without religion. It's basically a tacit admission that religious morality is totally redundant at best.

Of course, fundies don't even try to justify their moral codes; they simply state them as fact and expect others to simply accept that.

[Plekhanov]

As him if he thinks that the rules of morality are beneficial for society. If he answers "yes", then you've got him because if they are beneficial for society, you don't need religion to justify them. All you need is society.

I've tried that on him. He claims that while yes, the conventional rules of morality are better for those individuals without power are benifited by the conventional rules of morality, a civilization where, for example, child labor was permitted would be more prosperous than one using conventional morality. He does not contest that morality on the level of don't murder, don't steal, don't rape, etc. could evolve athiestically as societies with these moral codes would indeed benifit. The key issue is that he does not feel that one can justify the more advanced levels of morality such as labor laws, war/enslavement/genocide/etc. of other civilizations (or tribes, nations, cultures, etc.), and the first amendment freedoms, for example, without a higher power to give you guidelines to at least start from. He feels that otherwise you are entrusting your moral code to a fallable being (Yes, he feels god is infallable, despite knowing about the "old testament" atrocities, claiming that they are either untrue, exaggerated, or misunderstood. He does not view the bible as the direct work of god though rather being divinely inspired.).

Not only does this guy not know anything about morality he’s also painfully ignorant of history.

Labour Laws around the world are brought in due to political pressure from workers who obviously think that such things are in their interest, they weren’t granted from on high because unaccountable leaders felt moved by god to act ‘morally’.

The first amendment was past by people who thought that it was in their and societies interest that their be certain limitations placed on the governments power.

International moves to discourage wars came in the aftermath of World Wars one and two which painfully demonstrated just how harmful to all those who held them the pro-war sentiments of the late 19th century were…

The list goes on what your father describes as ‘higher morality’ is just as explicable through people acting in what they consider to be their self interest as prohibitions on murder.