If God doesn't exist what establish rules of good?

Question

A lot people answer with society does or our evolutionary history does. It is true that society often through history have displayed different rules of Good/Evil or Good/Bad. Evolution can explain a good amount of it as well. But nonetheless it doesn't explain or even come nowhere close to explaining everything.

What about humanities demand for fairness for being treated just, for acknowledging through reason that when someone does something bad they should be punished or the power of forgiving someone and compassion. We have a lot of evil in us as well, that cannot be justified as well. There are a lot of contradictions in our behavior.

If our actions rose from what benefits us, then why do they contradict so? For example (I survive better if my friends does well because he would be willing to share ect. ect., but when he does better than me, I might get jealous and get angry about it). It seems contradictory in nature. I cannot see how life can make any sense in the slightest sense without some mystery governing us.

I can never see science answering all the questions because the questions reach infinite. Some people don't believe in magic but I consider the world I see everyday to be magical. Just because something has a reason behind it doesn't mean I still can't find magic in it. For example, I think gravity is a pretty magical thing. I think many notions of physic are magical and mysterious. I think Newton's law raise more questions than they explain.

I strongly believe if you look behind things you will find something that will blow the human mind away and I like to think of that as God.

Answer 1

I do believe there is an absolute moral code for humanity.



It is this: What is harmful to yourself, you ought not do to others.



It was sighted by Jesus as the primary moral imperative (Mathew 7:12). Although he may just have been cribbing off of Rabbi Hillel (who, if we trust bible scholars' timelines, died when Jesus was about 12 to 14). Rabbi H said the same thing Jesus would later say (that is the summation of all the law and the writings of the prophets). It's in the Mahabharata. Buddha says it, Lao Tzu says it, and Confucius says it. There are Islamic versions, Native American versions and versions from a variety of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. For instance, Thales, the father of Greek philosophy, said it 7 centuries before Christ. And I love the Shinto version, “The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form.” If nothing else, even if it doesn't represent an absolute morality, such an impressive consensus should allow us to use it as if it were an absolute moral standard. Especially as it requires no eternal threats, nor promises of heavenly reward in order to operate, just enlightened self-interest.



Game theory shows that using a strategy based on a such a code leads to viable long term success: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat



Moreover, evolutionary biology and game theory mathematics overlap, and show that such behavior can confer adaptive benefits on a population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Theory_of_Games

Answer 2

Wade, Nicholas. 2007. Scientist finds the beginnings of morality in primate behavior. New York Times, Science section, 3/20/2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

Of all the arguments that fundamentalists resort to in their defense

of the Bible, none is more ridiculous than their claim that the Bible is

necessary for people to know how to live moral lives. They arrive at this

conclusion through a series of assumptions. Their first assumption is

that God exists, and onto this assumption, they pile another one:

morality (and they even make it an absolute morality) emanates from the

nature of God. Then, of course, they assume that their God, in verbally

inspiring the Bible, revealed absolute morality to mankind. Hence, man

must rely on the Bible to know what is moral and immoral. They envision

life without the Bible as a moral chaos reminiscent of ancient Israel

before the time of its kings when "everyone did what was right in

his own eyes" ([ref001]Judges 21:25).

The whole superstructure of this argument is built upon another

assumption that is incredibly cynical on the part of a group that delights

in condemning the pessimism of philosophies that question the existence of

God. This assumption is that man is incapable of making moral decisions

without divine guidance. In other words, man must have God's help or else

he just can't determine for sure what is right and what is wrong.

That view of life is about aspessimistic as any that can be imagined,

Answer 3

"What about humanities demand for fairness" It's called reciprocation. If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. However if you scratch my back and I don't reciprocate, you are less likely to scratch my back again. This is part of our evolution, being a pack animal, working with other members of the pack is beneficial for us through reciprocation. Likewise a selfish individual that acts unfairly has an initial advantage over others that are acting fairly however if caught out risks the wrath of the other pack members (this is why criminals take calculated risks, subconsciously weighing up expected gain with risk of getting caught and expected negative outcome if caught) We are all at risk of this weighing up, everyone has a price. Consider that an immoral act would get you $1,000,000 but your risk of getting caught was almost nil and if you were caught, you would be fined $1. There are very few people that would pass up the temptation. This is programmed into us at a genetic level. We see this behaviour in nature in animals that are supposed to not even have souls and no moral values at all.



"might get jealous and get angry about it." Look at reciprocation above. If you have helped your friend attain his success and he did not reciprocate, then you may feel resentful, however, if he did well from his own hard work and went on to share his success with you despite not having any assistance from you, you would not feel resentful but more likely to help support him in future.



"I think many notions of physic are magical and mysterious" - Let me answer this from one of my favourite Arthur C Clarke quotes - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Just because you do not understand something does not make it magic. It may look like magic but that is not necessarily the case.



Even if we find a question we cannot answer, there is no reason why we should use God as a default answer. What is wrong with "I don't know yet." If I am faced with something I do not know, I spend a little time researching it. I suppose the lazy option is to just accept God rather than trying to understand. e.g. "I don't know what gives rainbows their shape so God must make them that way" The answers are out there but it's lazyness that stops you from typing it into Google.

Answer 4

Built in species survival skills. For example, a mother lion who defends her cub does so because of the hormones in her body that guides her to do so not because of a soul. Similarly, all animals including humans have similar mechanisms for species survival. Morality is a perhaps a more evolved and abstract advancement from these instinctual processes leading to a greater ability to sympathize and empathize. Thus, even atheists who don't have a religion still help out the poor, environment, etc.

Answer 5

First, I don't think that the genocidal god of the Bible could have anything reliable to say about morality.



Read the new book by Sam Harris, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values". In it Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values to dismantle the most common justification for religious faith -- that a moral system cannot be based on science.



Morality, Harris argues, is actually an undeveloped branch of neuroscience, and answers to questions of human value can be visualized on a “moral landscape” -- a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks and valleys correspond to human states of greater or lesser wellbeing. Different ways of thinking and behaving -- different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of government, etc. -- translate into movements across this landscape. Such changes can be analyzed objectively on many levels, ranging from biochemistry to economics, but they have their crucial realization as experiences in the human brain.



Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, cultural relativism is simply false - and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our “culture wars,” Sam Harris delivers a game-changing argument about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation.

Answer 6

Moral values evolved in a process similar to physical evolution. The tribe that works cooperatively and treats one another justly and honestly has greater cohesion, and is therefore better able to cope with threats to its survival. Of course, this says little or nothing about its interaction with other tribes, but that eventually can be seen to have similar advantages. Warfare costs lives and treasure, while trade profits both parties. And in this context, trade in ideas is at least as important as trade in goods.

Answer 7

We require each other for survival. With or without "established rules" we still maim and kill eachother as well as protect and love eachother, we are no different then the rest of the animals. It's a natural instinct.

Answer 8

You like to rant a lot. That much is clear.



As a whole though, your point of view invokes too many needless assumptions. Morality is relative. Deterministic changes in understanding over time are inevitable.

Answer 9

1

Answer 10

Which God?

Answer 11

One word : Society.



Isn't that simple?... -.-





In Hitlers time I would GOOD to kill jews. In our time it is GOOD to not give gays rights. It's all subjective bs.

Answer 12

it's called the golden rule, if you wouldn't like something done to you dont do it to others.

Answer 13

evolution