Thanks AJ Philips. [Loved your translation of the New Testament by the way, you know when you had two 'Ls' in your surname.]

JP, if this is a thought experiment at some point you need to show that you are thinking beyond demonstrating a failure to square the circular reasoning.

"Atheism logically implies amorality – unless of course you can somehow point to some objective standard of morality in a godless universe."

You have been given reasons and evidence why it is not true that atheism logically implies amorality. But your "unless of course you can..." challenge offers a chance to man up to the burden of proof of the positive claim by -

Asking you to 'somehow point to some objective standard of morality' in a theistic universe.

But since vaguely pointing in the direction of an abstract noun will not advance your argument can we proceed directly to your demonstration of this objective standard or even some example that is testable on this side of a supernatural realm, please?

Think of it as a chance to practise 2 Peter 1:5 "And besides this, using all diligence, add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge,"

Doh! the joke doesn't work when the corrected version [Loved your brother's translation of the New Testament by the way, you know when you had two 'Ls' in your surname.] isn't followed by a 'post revision' button push.

.

Dear JP,

.

You wrote :

« Problems arise though when atheists make up conflicting moral standards. If one atheist holds that abortion is immoral and another atheist holds that abortion is moral, where can they go from there? … If atheism is true there is no objective basis for any standards of morality. »

Atheism is not alone in that, JP. It is equally true for religion.

There is a growing cleavage in religion between conservatives and progressives on the one hand and fundamentalists and moderates on the other. None of the world’s current religious denominations are immune to the phenomenon.

There is no such thing as an “objective basis for … standards of morality” within the various religious denominations and sects. All “standards of morality” are purely subjective. They vary from one denomination to another, from one sect to another and internally within each denomination and sect.

The largest single religious denomination in 2015 is still the Catholic Church. Bloomberg recently published an article outlining some of the internal cleavages that resulted in the downfall of Benedict XVI that Pope Francis has inherited and is now desperately struggling to resolve.

Reforming such a mastodon is unprecedented. With a world-wide population of 1.2 billion, assets of $7 billion plus a priceless art collection and a vast range of diversified activities including schools, hospitals, charitable organisations, banking etc., the task is probably impossible to achieve during the pontificate of Pope Francis.

As demonstrated recently, the Curia (central governing body) resists reform and the Pope’s visit to Calabria last year where he told the local members of the Mafiosi, the ‘Ndrangheta, that they were excommunicated, has not facilitated the task.

The Catholic Church has a long association with the Mafiosi whose members are very religious. The local branch in Calabria, the 'Ndrangheta, is one of the wealthiest international crime organizations in the world, with an annual turnover of 53 billion euros ($72 billion), much of it from the global cocaine trade.

The Mafiosi as a whole has not been excommunicated, just the 'Ndrangheta.

Morality has been restored :

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-05/pope-francis-reforms-a-vatican-bank-steeped-in-dan-brown-intrigue

.

There is not and cannot be an objective morality. It used to be a simple matter for our remote ancestors. Members of the tribe shared the same basic morality with some individual differences. This was uncomplicated because there was one basic shared identity.

In the current world it is much more complicated, but our morality is still tribal. It is based on the tribes we identify with. Our morality is largely determined by an amalgam of our identities – ethnic, religious, national, our work associations, our political leanings etc. To this mix we add the influences of the books and periodicals we read along with the ideas we get from other media.

In the current world it is unusual to have a single identity. We may not even have a single identity in our religion. I am not sure what my daughter believes, but I know what she does. On Sunday morning she goes to the Unitarian Church where she sings in the choir. On Sunday afternoon she goes to a Buddhist sangha. On Friday night she lights the candles to usher in the Jewish Sabbath. In addition to her personal contacts she reads and thinks about the various connections of the three religious communities she is involved with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arden,_Delaware tells about the community she lives in.

“Arden is a village and art colony in New Castle County, Delaware, in the United States, founded in 1900 as a radical Georgist single-tax community by sculptor Frank Stephens and architect Will Price.”

She is very socially conscious and turned down opportunities for high paying jobs to be a school librarian and run reading programs for ‘culturally deprived’ children.

I think she is most admirable and most moral. She has amalgamated all her various identities to be the person she is.

We no longer live in tribal isolation the way our hunter gatherer ancestors did. Even if our amalgam of identities is simpler than that of my daughter we will have contact with different groups who have different moral standards. The different moral standards may be a source of conflict.

Continued

What is needed is a metamorality. That is a morality that transcends all the different moralities in this world so that interactions between different groups can be peaceful.

The metamorality must recognise that other groups having different moralities from ours have a sense of rightness for their morality similar to the sense of rightness we have for ours. However, the problem in constructing a metamorality is the rigidity of dogmatic religion. Dogmatic religion maintains there is an objective morality, and it is determined by the ‘truth’ embodied in their religion. With that attitude there can be no compromise. Groups not sharing the ‘truth’ embodied in the belief system of dogmatic religion are beyond the pale. I suspect that JP believes that his particular sect has that ‘truth’. All would be well if the rest of the world could be aware of that ‘truth’ and accept it. Unfortunately, there can be no compromise with that kind of attitude. Our metamorality must encompass compromise so we can live with other groups.

Atheists are generally aware that standards of morality are the products of human society and therefore do not in general try to impress their morality on others. Since atheists do not have a formal creed there is no all-embracing morality to put on others.

Such tolerance is lacking in dogmatic religion. They send out missionaries to put their mumbojumbo on others. Some religionists are open enough to accept that other groups of people have other beliefs, and there is no objective standard to determine which belief is the ‘true’one. Bishop Spong recognises that his ‘truth’ is his truth, and not something that must be imposed on other people.

http://johnshelbyspong.com/publicsite/index.aspx is his website.

However, I fear JP feels that he (I’m pretty sure he’s male.) has the truth which others should accept. That is a most dangerous idea

JP,

Maybe you understand now what I meant when I said that making God a being like us, only much greater, invites all sorts of silly criticisms based on carrying the anthropomorphic model of God - useful for a a naive understanding of the concept - ad absurdum.

Also, I think it is true that religion as belief in the mysterious, supernatural, can exist and existed without an ethical/moral dimension that is so explicit in Christianity and Islam (and to some extend also in Judaism, if I understand it correctly). Rodney Stark, whom I like to quote here (see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#154255) put it thus:

“Some have identified the sixth century (BCE) as the Axial Age in recognition of the pivotal shift in religious perception that occurred along an axis from the Mediterranean to northern China. Even more remarkable than their number … is that all these faiths discovered “sin” and the conscience, as each linked morality to transcendence. Contrasted with the prevailing conceptions of immoral and amoral Gods, this was revolutionary.” (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264888).

I am not an ethicist, but I think what our atheist friends here have in mind is what Catholics call (God’s) natural law that is in-built in our human nature (evolved through evolution, if you like). You can distinguish in everyday life between good and bad, the same as between truth and untruth without having to invoke an e.g. Christian extension of these terms to basic world views presuppositions. Politicians will argue about what is good for us and what not, the same as scientists about what is true and what not about reality, without having to believe in an absolute Truth or absolute Goodness, that we Christians associate with God.