Reconciling morality with atheism

[Big Papa Goat]

"or can we safely and humbly assume that Physics has always existed as it is and that our understanding of it's nature has grown with time?"
"Morality is the Physics of man's interaction with itself."
hmm, so then morality hasn't always existed then right? Not that I'm saying you're wrong about morality being in some sense constant, I mean, no one has ever really wanted to say that morality is a historical/social construction.

All I'm really saying is that everyday morality is basically just sentimental, based on natural tendencies we've always had. Evolutionary psych seems to be exploring this kind of reasoning, but Adam Smith basically had it figured out a while ago based on common sense observations like the one about the guy hearing about a million dead Chinese people. I think this is basically as good a way to look at morality as any, even if it isn't very 'philosophical'. Now, you could say that the sentimentalist view of morality, particularly insofar as it is based on evolutionary psych is reductive and cheap for the reasons Emu laid out, but at the end of the day, what do you really want a theory about morality to be? I mean, this theory is descriptively fairly accurate right?

To get back to Preechr, you really do seem to be reaching at straws with the physics analogy, unless I really don't understand it. You say that our understanding of physics has grown over time, but physics itself hasn't changed because of that. True enough in that respect, Heidleberg uncertainty principle notwithstanding, but think about morality like that. Morality is how humans interact with one another, but the way people interact with eachother is tremendously influenced by the understandings of morality that the different people have. Obviously in the physics analogy you forgot that physics is how things do behave, but morality is how humans should behave. I mean, this is the first thing you have to remember to avoid the obvious problem that 'morality' in a descriptive sense (=the sense in which physics understands the world) is definitely depenendent on the (prescriptive) understanding of morality, insofar as the 'way humans interact' definitely does change depending on the way those humans feel they should behave. But if you want to be prescriptive, then you have to abandon to an extent the exactitude of physics, because the exactitude of physics comes from the fact that the human science of physics is the description of the non-human nature of physics.
Think about this; if you substitute your definition of physics for your use of the term physics in the sentence about morality you get something like this after you get rid of all the verbal junk: 'morality is the nature of man's interaction with itself'. Then, if we perform the same kind of operation on another sentence we get: 'some sorts of the natural interactions between men are more benefical than others' (after we remove the verbal junk about 'value', replacing that term with one that means something). At this point we're back to cost-benefit analysis though that Emu didn't like in the first place. The only difference seems to be that your cost-benefit analyses are going to be a lot more complicated because they want to deal with benefiting the entire human race.

[kahljorn]

But I think some people would say that to believe in such a pattern for the universe requires one to believe that it has been in some sense laid out by God, or that belief in such a pattern is the essential characteristic of belief in God in any case. I mean, if you believe the universe has some kind of inherently ordered pattern, that's kind of the same thing as believing that there is a God laying out a pattern.

that's probably because you think the universe can have no order without a god personally constructing it but obviously there is some type of order, even if it is just one of causality. But who knows; although, you can say with certainty that if there isn't a god, and there is morality, then there must be morality without god.
All I'm really saying is that an atheist person could do an action, recognize the results and attach a value to that action and result. And then have a value system designed to achieve certain results which they value.

I like to think of God more as a variable to explain things than necessarily as a guy in the sky who dictates things out of his consciousness.

[Preechr]

if you were wandering through the forest and came across the ruins of an ancient city, would it be all that easy to consider that the rocks had somehow stacked themselves that way naturally? Without some sort of help?

All of the "variables" just happen to be set to the exact values that allow life as we know it, with all it's order we can sense, to exist... and if any of those knobs were turned just a hair... even the value of the weakest force in nature: gravity... everything would either implode or explode or by some other means cease to be... how could existence and nature possibly be through an evolutionary process? Without a design?

Think about it: all of the forces of nature have to be dialed in with exacting precision and forced to work together by strict laws in order for everything in the universe to exist without instant destruction of some sort happening. How could nature evolve into that? The process of trial and error, from Big Bang to Big Flush would involve immeasurable instants of time, and I have have to ask... who would you propose is learning from this process if not some sort of intelligent designer?

[kahljorn]

So somebody makes an argument that atheists can be moral and you attempt to argue that God exists?

All of the "variables" just happen to be set to the exact values that allow life as we know it, with all it's order we can sense, to exist... and if any of those knobs were turned just a hair... even the value of the weakest force in nature: gravity... everything would either implode or explode or by some other means cease to be...

SO? What does that matter? IF EVERYTHING SUDDENLY CHANGED EVERYTHING WOULD SUDDENLY CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

how could existence and nature possibly be through an evolutionary process? Without a design?

Isn't the idea of the Platonic forms kind of that there is an intrinsic form to existence which can't be deviated from? and that this form is underlying all existence, just by the fact that it exists?

To use your physics example: Can you change any of the natural laws? Can you make "force" be not forceful? For example, if an extremely large and heavy boulder landed on your head, could it possibly have less force than the force of a feather which is extremely small and light dropping on your head? Or would it always have to be like that?
maybe there are just certain types of constants. But who says those constants are "God," or mean the same thing that God means to us?

i know im opening myself up for something about WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED IF THINGS WERE CREATED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY....

all of the forces of nature have to be dialed in with exacting precision and forced to work together by strict laws in order for everything in the universe to exist without instant destruction of some sort happening.

That's not necessarily true. And an interesting question is if it's even possible for things to not work in some sort of precision.

who would you propose is learning from this process if not some sort of intelligent designer?

Why does someone have to be learning? What makes you think existing has any sort of point...?

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

So somebody makes an argument that atheists can be moral and you attempt to argue that God exists?

No... the original question was from where could an atheist build a foundation of morality if not from God? I attempted to answer that, but the discussion was diverted into this. I think it's pretty interesting. Do you object?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

SO? What does that matter? IF EVERYTHING SUDDENLY CHANGED EVERYTHING WOULD SUDDENLY CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here you go again. What I said was that if anything changed even slightly everything we know would not be able to exist at all.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Isn't the idea of the Platonic forms kind of that there is an intrinsic form to existence which can't be deviated from? and that this form is underlying all existence, just by the fact that it exists?

I don't know.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

To use your physics example: Can you change any of the natural laws? Can you make "force" be not forceful? For example, if an extremely large and heavy boulder landed on your head, could it possibly have less force than the force of a feather which is extremely small and light dropping on your head? Or would it always have to be like that?
maybe there are just certain types of constants. But who says those constants are "God," or mean the same thing that God means to us?

i know im opening myself up for something about WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED IF THINGS WERE CREATED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY....

I already opened that up... you just missed it.

If so, nothing would exist.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

That's not necessarily true. And an interesting question is if it's even possible for things to not work in some sort of precision.

Are you just arguing with yourself?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Why does someone have to be learning? What makes you think existing has any sort of point...?

For Physics to have evolved, that means it was subject to a process of trial and error, where an imperfect form of Physics was Darwinially outpaced by a more superior form until eventually our current model reigned supreme over all other lesser forms of Physics. Unfortunately, for Physics to be imperfect, the universe itself ceases to exist. If the force of gravity is .01 n/m off, the Big Bang can't happen, buddy.

There is no other Physics available. From the get go this is what existed. What are the chances of that happening randomly on the first go around?

Existence was intended, and intention always has a point.

[kahljorn]

Do you object?

Clearly.

What I said was that if anything changed even slightly everything we know would not be able to exist at all.

First off, you don't know that that's true, and neither do I. What if something completely useless and unnecessary changed. Secondly, to say something like, "If some essential factor of the entire universe changed then the entire universe would change" doesn't really prove anything or even say anything other than things would be different if they were different.
is it even possible that those things could ever change?

If so, nothing would exist.

Nothing? Or something else?

Are you just arguing with yourself?

Are you arguing with yourself by projecting your faults onto me or something i dont get it i thought we should be asking you if you're arguing with yourself.

For Physics to have evolved

Physics evolved?

that means it was subject to a process of trial and error, where an imperfect form of Physics was Darwinially outpaced by a more superior form until eventually our current model reigned supreme over all other lesser forms of Physics.

Or, things could have just suddenly changed. Maybe what happened wasn't evolution, but growth.

There is no other Physics available. From the get go this is what existed. What are the chances of that happening randomly on the first go around?

The point of me bringing up forms was to bring up that it might not be random and there might only be certain types of ways things can work -- and those constants may not be the result of God. Or, if "God" is taken as a variable, maybe those constants are God.

Aren't there books about how evolution isn't "random" but tempered by the environment or something im not sure exactly!

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

Obviously in the physics analogy you forgot that physics is how things do behave, but morality is how humans should behave.

No I didn't. You are just rewording what I said in order to make it make less sense. I'll assume I said what I did in such a way as to render it incomprehensible. Let's try it this way: I believe Morality is the "Physics" of human interaction, in that the results of our interactions, to positive or negative effect, are the products of what in physics we refer to as laws. If the net value of my action is immoral, the result of my action will be negative, regardless of whether or not I understand the rules... just as were I to dump a spoonful of phosphorous into a glass of water I would likely get burned were I a caveman or a chemist.

I think that it's rare that we do what we should. I think it's the nature of man to behave in a self-destructive way, in general, but that the net products of our moral decisions is positive.

Now, you can try again to twist up what I said into something I didn't in order to finish me off in one post, or you can honestly process what I actually have said and ask me any question you like, as I have intentionally left plenty of room for discussion... if that's what you're after.

Either way, you win.

[kahljorn]

If the net value of my action is immoral, the result of my action will be negative, regardless of whether or not I understand the rules... just as were I to dump a spoonful of phosphorous into a glass of water I would likely get burned were I a caveman or a chemist.

that's not necessarily true, at all. It might be immoral to kill, and then you kill a bunch of child rapists and it has a good result. Does that make it right to kill child rapists?
There's lots of things which can have good results, or even harmless results, but would be considered immoral.

uhh, and if you were a caveman and you killed someone what would the negative consequence be, exactly? Getting locked up in caveman jail? the demise of Mayor Cavemammon which collapses all of caveman society!? What if you stole another caveman's banana?
what does negative consequence mean, anyway, and in reference to what is it negative to? If I slaughtered the entire human race it might have a positive result in reference to the planet earth and the animals which live on it.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

that's not necessarily true, at all. It might be immoral to kill, and then you kill a bunch of child rapists and it has a good result. Does that make it right to kill child rapists?
There's lots of things which can have good results, or even harmless results, but would be considered immoral.

Originally Posted by preechr

NET value... NET

Originally Posted by kahljorn

uhh, and if you were a caveman and you killed someone what would the negative consequence be, exactly? Getting locked up in caveman jail? the demise of Mayor Cavemammon which collapses all of caveman society!? What if you stole another caveman's banana?
what does negative consequence mean, anyway, and in reference to what is it negative to? If I slaughtered the entire human race it might have a positive result in reference to the planet earth and the animals which live on it.

You are answering your own questions.

Here's how I'm gonna answer you: If the net effect of human existence was a negative in terms of the world, as you seem to be proposing, then does committing immoral acts always or even generally result in a positive effect on the actor? Do you get where I am taking you?

[Preechr]

G'night Kahl... Nice to have you back.