I always wonder how an Atheist believes that morality is a natural trait. I'm not discounting they have morality, but the "moral compass" seems a bit contradictory if you believe in the "natural world". Does the sun have no problem wiping out all existence to consume its planets to stay burning? Regardless, this is a battle in my logical thinking. I mean if your existence is only for the short time you have on this planet, then why not do whatever it takes to destroy, consume, kill or whatever to give yourself advantage in anything in life. Why would it be wrong if one cheats to get better grades on a test? I mean we are instinctively trying to survive right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice http://www.sciencechannel.com/life-earth-science/10-cultures-that-practiced-human-sacrifice.htm
Your references of man, regardless of religion, has used killing as a form to "get closer to God", which would in turn, give them an upper hand to other humans? So you support that it is okay to advance through any means naturally?
I think that anyone who thinks the golden rule is THE natural way of thinking needs to read those links. And rethink that premise.
Oh well, I figured the owner of this site would stay on topic. So you weren't replying to the question, just giving a dig on theism? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Well since Denny responded, I would have assumed that it was to topic. I was just trying to see how it would fit in with the OP
It's a question of individualism versus humanism, or stated in relation to your final paragraph, acting in self-interest or species-interest. The golden rule may not necessarily be best for maximizing self-interest, but it generally is a good axiom for the best interests of humanity as a whole. It is not unnatural for a member of any species to act in such a manner.
To assume that religion is a requirement for morality is kind of insulting to non religious folks. I feel that if you are only being moral with the hopes of some reward, isn't that kind of disingenuous. I look at morality more as a social feature. For instance I can believe in anything I want and still not want to kill or rape someone, because I know that is not right and I care for my fellow human beings and how something like that would effect both of us. Not because God told me it was bad.
That makes a lot of sense. So society could have instilled this "golden rule" for the betterment of their species? Is that what you are saying?
1500 christians killed in Iraq but nobody cares. Golden Rule in action. Rwanda. Nazi Germany. Christians fed to the lions. Gladiators. You're right it's a societal thing.
Atheists believe a wide range of things about morality so you can't really expect one response to this question. Some like Sam Harris believe in an evolutionary "fitness landscape", where whatever best furthers human well being and reduces suffering constitutes an objectively real moral direction. Some super deep thinking atheists (and a few theists) believe moral axioms exist Platonically - that is there exists an objectively real moral standard that is simply a feature of reality independent from the existence of anything else - independent of human minds, any type of God, or even of matter itself. I personally have been considering this for a couple decades now and have never been able to grasp how it could be meaningful, and I've sort of come to the conclusion it most likely isn't. But some really smart people (Penrose etc.) believe it's true so it's something to at least take seriously as a proposal. MOST self-professing atheists will say in one way or another that morality exists, but is subjective. That is moral standards vary from time to time and place to place and are real, but essentially just variable human inventions. I myself have noticed when I pay attention to other people talking about morality that most of the time they are just referencing how certain behavior makes them feel, rather than mentally referencing a moral standard they believe exists independently from their feelings. So that makes me at least a part-time moral non-cognitivist.
With my previous discussions, I could understand you believe the motives maybe for theism. That is actually not the case. We can throw any theism out the window in this thread and just discuss this topic and the atheist perspective.
Not that society installed it per se, but that understanding of the concept's could have evolved naturally. Many pack animals behave in a similar manner. Although one might argue that's more an example of a "needs of the many" philosophy rather than the golden rule.
I actually liked "Sam Harris's" view on morality, but still had so many holes. This part of your response interests me... Could you go a little deeper in this subject?
As I understand it, morality is a social construct with some biological underpinnings (protect your family, protect your friends, protect the pack). As an atheist, I view religion as a social construct with some biological underpinnings (the need to see patterns in incoming stimuli to survive). It makes sense to me that they would be taught arm in arm, because they are both ways of creating and maintaining a social order in groups that go beyond family and friends. However, I know you can have secular morality, even teaching commandments without teaching "the God parts."
That's my battle though. Like who decides this golden rule? There are countless examples throughout history of societies contradicting their moral compass. I mean at what point do we agree on which rule is "golden"?
Yes I do agree that an atheist could take some philosophy from religious texts and adopt it into their own compass, without having to believe in God. It would be in the same way a Christian could agree with an atheistic philosophy without having to agree with their entire philosophy.
