"Nothing is intrinsically right or wrong in a purely material universe."

From the universe's point of view only, JP.

Is it right or wrong for you to use an antibacterial handwash? From the microbes point of view!

The CAG permits apologists to argue that the nature and morality of God is absolute and reflected in biblical actions such that the killing of untold numbers of innocent children, of both the born and unborn variety, in the Noahic flood was inherently moral.

Is this right or wrong?

You can only live by killing other living things and eating them. Is this right or wrong, either from the universal or a personal point of view? Saying "either the universe unintentionally and for no purpose spontaneously happened into existence or it was deliberately brought into being by something greater than human beings." is a false dichotomy and does not stop humans having to decide their ethics in 'either' case.

As far as I am aware all cannibal societies have been theistic. Even other theists might argue such morality as wrong.

I am an atheist and would argue that cannibalism is wrong with no consideration of beliefs about universal beginnings required.

However, even Uruguayan rugby players have faced dire circumstances in which it could be defended as a personal situational ethic.

Dear JP,

Your points are well taken.

Of course democracy does not imply universal values. A constitutional democracy doesn’t even imply majority values. The US first amendment prevents restriction of freedom of speech or religion even if a majority wants it. Of course the constitution can be amended, but that is not an easy process.

Since I don’t think we live in other than a material universe I regard it as meaningless to talk as though we can choose different kinds of universes. However, even if one believes that universal values are handed down by some big daddy in the sky there is no agreement on what those values are. An appeal to religious values only works if most people agree to those values. There are no universal values.

I think morality is just a method we have worked out to live in society. From what I have read of the pre-Jewish and pre-Christian religions there was in many of those religions no connection between morality and religious belief. One worshiped and made sacrifices to the gods to gain their favour. Morality was determined by philosophy or convention. I have no reason to think that the ancients were any less moral than those who follow the religions of today.

However, you seem to be saying that we must either believe in God or suppress our dissent to that belief to have a decent society. One of my values is embodied in the scientific method. To not follow where the evidence leads is intellectually dishonest. I cannot accept that God is other than a human invention. Therefore honesty compels me to be an atheist.

Values are decided by agreement. If Hitler had won the Holocaust might be condemned, but it would excused on the grounds that it was necessary for German hegemony. John Howard called it a ‘black armband’ view of Australian history to acknowledge the slaughter of the Aborigines. Our nation was to an extent based on that slaughter. If the Nazis had won the Holocaust would probably be similarly regarded.

George –

I appreciate your warning about not putting words into atheists’ mouths. I hope I am not guilty of misrepresenting the logical outcomes of atheism, which is really what I have been endeavouring to do. If I have erred I am sure there are plenty of atheists here who will set me straight.

Wm Trevor –

you say that I have created a false dichotomy by saying "either the universe unintentionally and for no purpose spontaneously happened into existence or it was deliberately brought into being by something greater than human beings." If you can suggest further alternatives to explain how everything came to exist I would be interested to hear them.

I agree with you that just because a person holds religious beliefs that does not mean they can avoid making ethical decisions. And certainly OT passages where God either takes or requires people to take the lives of children are very, very challenging for Christians to reconcile.

However, the critical point is that within a Christian world-view ethical discussion makes sense, even if you disagree with the conclusions that are drawn. Conversely, if atheism is true ethical discussion makes no sense at all. There is no right and wrong in a godless universe, which even Dawkins acknowledges. That is not to say that individuals can’t choose to call certain things such as cannibalism “wrong”. But if another atheist chooses to say that cannibalism is “right” in any circumstance there really is no way for them to take things further. They each have their preference and there is no standard against which their preferences can be measured.

davidf –

what do you make of those whose values are in opposition to yours? Are they “wrong”? Why? Because you say so?

You say you “have no reason to think that the ancients were any less moral than those who follow the religions of today”. My point is that in a godless universe it is meaningless to talk about anyone being “moral”. There is no particular way anyone ought to act hence no one can be moral or immoral.

Well, I tried to, JP.

<<...I am sure there are plenty of atheists here who will set me straight.>>

But you just continued to assert the same nonsense to others without explaining to me why my points weren't valid. Somehow I don't think you're very willing to be set straight about anything much at all.

.

Dear JP,

.

You wrote to George :

« … if atheism is true ethical discussion makes no sense at all. There is no right and wrong in a godless universe … »

The origin of ethics or morality is a matter of conjecture.

Indications from the study of primitive tribes by social anthropologists are that what we call ethics (or morality) had its origins in ancient tribal customs.

According to Claude Levi-Strauss, the incest taboo existed even before there was anything that could be described as culture. He declared that “nature’s sovereignty over man” ended with the advent of the incest taboo (The Elementary Structures of Kinship 1949).

The Finnish sociobiologist, Edvard Westermarck, opined that moral rules originated as emotional tendencies of the tribe to feel approval for conduct that caused pleasure (kindly emotion) and disapproval (resentment) for conduct that caused pain (Ethical Relativity 1932).

It appears that morality and religion, having originally developed independently, gradually blended together. However there are known exceptions :

The Bambala ethnic group of the Congo does not believe that the gods or spirits punish wrong-doing.

The Indians of Guiana follow a code of conduct and practise Animistic religion but there is no connection between the two.

American Indians have a conception of a god that does not include moral good.
.

There appears to be no reason to believe that it is unethical or immoral not to share the world-view of those who worship deity and believe in the supernatural. Nor is there anything that indicates that “if atheism is true ethical discussion makes no sense at all”.

Ethics (or morality) does not find its origins in religion. It is a human concept inspired by the principle of the efficiency of nature, complemented and codified by the various human societies as acceptable moral conduct. As such it is evolutive and open to discussion by the members of the community in accordance with the relevant national laws.

Interestingly, nature also appears to have doted us (and why not other animals as well?) with an innate sense of justice :

http://www.livescience.com/51261-toddlers-have-restorative-justice.html

.

Dear JP,

You wrote: “My point is that in a godless universe it is meaningless to talk about anyone being “moral”.”

Your point is nonsense – no matter how many times you repeat it. We live in a godless universe. There is no reliable evidence for the existence of a God. It is merely an unsupported assertion that a God or belief in a God is necessary for morals. In fact whatever evidence there is supports the idea that atheists are better behaved, more ethical and more moral than those who have belief in a deity or deities. Perhaps the reason is that atheists are dealing with reality and therefore better able to cope with the universe we live in.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results contains the corruption perception index.

The least corrupt countries are:

1 Denmark
2 New Zealand
3 Finland
4 Sweden

The most corrupt countries are:

172 Afghanistan
173 Sudan
174 Korea (North)
174 Somalia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_by_country lists irreligion by country

Denmark 83%
New Zealand 67%
Finland 69%
Sweden 88%
Afghanistan 3%
Sudan 9%
Korea (North) No data
Somalia not listed

Moral behaviour would seem to be indicated by a low degree of corruption. Irreligion correlates with a low degree of corruption.

Correlation does not mean causation. However, the fact is that there is a positive correlation between irreligion and lack of corruption. I suspect in most if not all indicators of moral behaviour and irreligion there is a positive correlation.