Amazon.com Widgets

Does atheism provide justification for morality, laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature?

Asked by: Valiente
  • The prompt itself is misleading

    ----------
    MORALITY:
    Morality is entirely a social construct created by humans; it is dictated by different factors such as culture, society, backgrounds, religion, and nationality, which differ from person to person and thus making each person's morals different.
    Religion is only one of those factors. Because atheism is a lack of religion, atheists still have those other factors to have their morals based upon.

    LAWS OF LOGIC:
    Logic is simply logic; it is not influenced by outside factors such as religion, as if it were the logic would be false.

    UNIFORMITY OF NATURE:
    Again, nothing to do with religious views.
    Also, what do you mean by uniformity of nature? Nature is hardly uniform; all organisms have different genes, the same species can inhabit far different places, and even the same trait can develop independently in entirely different ways.

  • Sociobiological Instincts That We Have and the Nature of Widely Acknowledged Subjective Moral Values Provide Justification

    After billions of years of evolution, this is what complex multicellular entities can come up with. Supposed 'objective' morals are never the same for those who claim objective morality, each believing that their god is the one who holds it. Without getting into the Euthyphro Dilemma, the moral 'facts' independent of human opinion are always different. That says something. Now, all of these claims, however, stem from an atheistic evolutionary process establishing these widely accepted subjective morals. The belief that humans can be inherently good is not one that I disagree with. Secular Humanism, for example, is a positive ideaology for human society and does nothing claiming moral perfection or objectivity.

  • Sociobiological Instincts That We Have and the Nature of Widely Acknowledged Subjective Moral Values Provide Justification

    After billions of years of evolution, this is what complex multicellular entities can come up with. Supposed 'objective' morals are never the same for those who claim objective morality, each believing that their god is the one who holds it. Without getting into the Euthyphro Dilemma, the moral 'facts' independent of human opinion are always different. That says something. Now, all of these claims, however, stem from an atheistic evolutionary process establishing these widely accepted subjective morals. The belief that humans can be inherently good is not one that I disagree with. Secular Humanism, for example, is a positive ideaology for human society and does nothing claiming moral perfection or objectivity.

  • Atheism is just a rejection of a deity.

    But I understand your question none the less, albeit flawed. Science can and has answered our questions of morality, and it's natural evolution. It definitely speaks of logic, as it is father of skepticism, providing us both science and skepticism towards a deity. (The two of which are not related, despite the best efforts of the ignorant). And of nature, uniformity not withstanding until further description to ensure it's justification in the topic.

  • The things atheists do naturally are things that the religious need to be told.

    To compare the two, one first has to define what each is identified as.
    Atheism: The simple statement that gods do not exist.
    Religion: A set of beliefs centered around a god or group of god based on sacred scriptures.
    Does either provide justification for morality?
    Atheist contribute moral or immoral actions to learned actions, human nature and in some cases mental defects. This is why atheist do both good and bad things.
    Religion contributes their moral actions to only knowledge of god and their immoral actions to the ignoring gods messages. In other words, without their religion they would just be immoral. Seeing that atheist can be moral as well, they obviously do not need to be told by a god what is good or bad.
    Does this mean that the religious are just immoral people who only resist because of the god?
    Laws of logic:
    A) The law of identity (something is, what it is)
    Atheist: A man is a man
    Religion: A man is a man, but can also be a mystical being.
    B) The law of non-contradiction
    Atheism: Because atheism is simply defined it does not contradict itself. Even though scientific theories can contradict each other, atheism is not a compilation of theories but just the simple statement.
    Religion: Because it is a compilation of many scriptures, Many parts contradict themselves. Example: Killing is bad but killing in the name of god is good.
    The law of excluded middle
    Atheism: Again, because it is so simple, there is no middle.
    Religion: Because it is so vast, it contains a lot of middle ground. Example: Taking is bad, giving is good, giving more is better.
    Uniformity of nature
    Atheism: A snowflake can be an example of uniformity of nature. Because the water drop they came from rose and fell as one but separate from others determined the factors that made it uniform in appearance but can be vastly different from the one it lands next to. No god required for natural uniformity.
    Religion: Claims that things can not be uniform without being formed by god. Do they claim that their god carved out every snowflake?

  • You just shouldn't have an argument supported by "god said" and "the bible said".

    1. Morality has it's roots way back when we lived in tribes. Large groups of people realized they could benefit from cooperating with other tribes, thus using altruism to achieve their goals together. We've evolved with receptors registering good stimuli to keep doing whatever action we did to get that short dopamine rush and keep getting that good stimuli. And bad stimuli made us reject them and avoid them. Using this as a basis, some forms of objective morality may have developed, yet as societies grew more complex, right and wrong became more hazy as gray-areas turned more clearer. It is in societies where we can create our own morality, but those damn old receptors won't quit to whisper what is right and wrong (excluding anti-social or other mentally ill people).

    2. Well, we can think more logically thanks to our neo-cortex. Although a very recent development (from an evolutionary viewpoint), it has allowed us not only to think ahead, but also to process emotions better. Logic is just as man-made as religion is. We observe reality, note that it obeys consistent physical laws and realize how to use this knowledge theoretically. All we humans do is apply foresight to these observations and thereafter define it as logical.

    3. Given that Earth was here far before us humans, however we view nature and depending on where on Earth we live, some of us will see patterns that others don't. Mutations and diseases can kill off entire species of plants and animals, extinctions has occurred many times over and many areas of the universe are extremely hostile to humans (and perhaps life overall, but who knows). All it is is molecules in motion and the reactions they give off, and it's those resulting reactions which creates whatever we decide to call nature.

    Nonetheless, I can't really see how atheism has anything to do with these things. Maybe morality, maybe.

  • Without an ultimate standard of good

    There can be no moral duties or values beyond those which society teaches us. If the Nazis had won WWII and brainwashed or killed anyone who disagreed with the Holocaust, would anyone think genocide or racism were good values to hold? No, no-one would. We objectively dislike these abominiations because they are contradictions of God's will, which only he can instille in us, this example is proof of that.

  • Atheism cannot explain morality, logic, and nature

    Atheism has no ontological ground for objective morality. If morality is only what has been allowed per society, then child-sacrifice and cannibalism have never been wrong practices.

    Atheism make logically absurd arguments. Example, they try to explain away fine tuning with a multi-verse, which only assumes that there is a multi-verse, and yet fail to explain why our universe is fine tuned.

    Atheist are blind to the testimony of nature.

  • The Laws of logic are immaterial

    Atheism can't account for morality, the laws of logic, or the uniformity of nature, because atheism assumes we are just matter, and so it can't account for immaterial abstracts.

    Atheism can't account for morality, because why can't I just kill people and then kill myself? I would get away with it, there would be no justice.

    No Justice=No morality.

    The laws of logic are immaterial and absolute, they are not made of atoms, and can't be products of our brain because they would be relative then.

    God is also immaterial and universal, so the laws of logic must be a byproduct of His mind.

    No God= No logic, no morality, and no uniformity of nature

    No God also= no universe, because there would be no logic, and nothing to create a universe, so without God no universe, ameen

  • Atheists (or evolutionists) Believe in These Things, but Have No Justification (or reason) for Believing in Them

    1. Morality

    Evolutionists (atheists) believe in the concepts of right and wrong. The problem is that evolutionists have no reason to believe in morality in their worldview. In the evolutionary worldview, right and wrong are only electro-chemical reactions in the brain. If there is meaning in the concepts of right and wrong, evolution can not be true. Right and wrong is founded in Genesis and are Christian concepts. When an evolutionist is moral, they are being irrational, because he is borrowing biblical concepts that are contradictory to his worldview. The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of al things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3). All things belong to God (Ps. 24:1), and so God has the right to make rules. In a biblical creation worldview an absolute moral code makes sense. But if the Bible were not true, and human beings were the product of mindless chemical processes over millions of years, there should be no universal code of behavior.

    2. Laws of Logic

    The ability to reason requires the use of the laws of logic. So, a rational worldview must be able to account for the existence of these laws. For example, the law of non-contradiction. This law states that any contradiction is false. A cannot be true and false at the same time. For example, the statement " I am eating dinner and it is not the case that I am eating dinner" is false because of the law of non-contradiction. Why is this law true? Why are there any laws of reasoning? As a Christian I can answer this. We are to pattern our thoughts after God, and in a limited way God has revealed to us how he things in his Word. We are made in God's image (Gen. 1:26) so we are to follow his example. The laws of logic are a reflection of how God thinks. God cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13), and all truth is in God (Col. 2:3), therefore truth will not contradict itself. The laws of logic are not made of matter, apply everywhere, and always. They rely on God's unchanging nature and are required for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without God.

    3. Uniformity of Nature

    The future resembles the past because God upholds the future as He has upheld the past, the laws of nature are constant, in other words. Since none of use have experienced the future, the only way we can know the future is like the past is because of God's Word. Everyone relies on this principle. There is order in the universe because God made all things and has put order into his creation. But why would an atheist believe in the uniformity of nature?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.