I’ve had this discussion with atheists many times through the years. And the problem is that most times they assume people can choose morality without belief… Because they’re living in a Christian nation and absorbed the Christian values by osmosis. If they grow up in a non-Christian nation that already practices barbarity… They will find those practices normal. And then they will begin to rationalize them, because their morality is fleeting and subjective, and typically based on what is “normal”, not what is actually right.
She pitches a softball, but it is still important to swing and hit it as hard and far as you can. Her argument works on many because it appeals to emotion and it appeals to self-justification (pride).
IMO, the quickest and sharpest point here is to apply the exact same logic behind "evolution makes morality real and true" to conclude that "evolution makes religion real and true." Atheists love to claim that the cross-cultural ubiquitousness of belief in higher powers is the (very ironic) product of evolution. If being a product of evolution makes something real and true, as they argue it does for morality, then why does it not also make religion real and true?
Strong takedown of the is-ought gap in secular ethics. The poker analogy lands because it captures how subjective value systems can look coherent internally but collapse under scrutiny. The piece on Viltruimites raises the real issue, if survival drives morality then brutality becomes just as defensible as compassion depending on evolutionary wiring. One angle to push further is whether grounding obligations in divine command theory solves the arbitrainess problem or just moves it.
The greatest flaw in Lillith's explanation of "evolutionary" cooperation among humans.....is the reality she and all of us experience daily.
Were she correct in her assumptions, how could she possibly explain a world rife with violence between nations, citizens, and even members of individual communities and even families?
Clearly empathy and altruism are NOT survival mechanisms handed from generation to generation in our DNA.
Reality contradicts her premises because were they correct, we'd likely see greatly diminished levels of violence rather than accelerating levels.
"Likewise, saying morality arises from an evolutionary trait like empathy doesn’t mean morality is real, it just means you can explain why humans might believe in morality. Who cares about that? This can’t get you real values or obligations."
To say humans "might believe in morality" is a weird way of wording it. Humans have expectation of how we should behave towards each other and the name for those expectations is "morality". There no might about it. That's the word we use for that thing that we all experience.
Evolution provides a very plausible explanation for why, as social creatures, most of have some broadly similar expectations.
You prefer the idea that these expectations are, in some hand-waving fashion, precisely defined and sourced from a divine being but you've got little to no evidence of that divine sourcing. We're all well aware of the inconsistencies in morality both between individuals and between cultures.
I can see some appeal to trying to persuade everyone of the merits of your morals on the basis of their divine origin but you have little or no evidence of that you are sourcing them correctly. Your grounding is built on sand.
You are making the same mistake just about all Christians make - If God did not create morality, then where did it come from?
The presupposition, here, is that morality is real whether God creates it or not. Lilith explains, succinctly, how morality came about when a group of mammals began living in communities. The reason these traits evolved is that they gave those groups, and ultimately our species, a huge survival advantage in a highly competitive environment.
Let's be clear here. That does not make it real in the same sense that Christians believe.
There is a confusion here between a set of behaviours that were coded into us by evolution millions of years ago and the mental model we call 'morality' that modern humans utilise in order to make sense of how humans behave and interact with each other.
"All of these different worldviews and starting places will cause one to act in different ways towards other people.
Which one is “right?”
There is no right.
This is the problem."
No, if objectively morality does not exist, that is simply the way it is. That is the challenge we need to face in order to create a world where everyone can thrive and make full use of their potential.
"But the key point is that she already starts with concern for the well-being of others.
As I already said, this is all completely arbitrary, because anybody can start anywhere. Someone else can start from hatred for others and then reason that other people should be harmed. They can then use their experience, based on that starting value, to hurt other people even better."
That is correct. People can and do start in a different place, as we have seen over history right up until today. Once again, with objective morality, that is the challenge we face, to persuade as many as possible that, focusing on well-being is a worthy goal that will be to all our benefit.
He finishes with this:
"Why would I have a responsibility to other people if atheism is true. There’s nothing with real authority saying I do, so why do I?"
Because it is in the interest of you, your family and your community to build a global society where everyone can thrive to the best of their ability.
Do you really need an authority to tell you to do that, Can you really not figure it out for yourself?
"Is it because Lilith has a reason based on her personal values for why I should? Maybe I have different values. My values are that Lilith should keep her personal arbitrary values… to herself."
This is what she said:
"People can still recognize right and wrong through reason, experience, and concern for the well-being of others. In this view, morality is not dependent on divine authority but on our responsibility to one another as human beings."
Do really believe that is not a worthy cause? Seriously?
That sounds pretty good to me. You appear to despise it is because your god would have no role to play and for no other reason.
Hoping that your particular God gave you the right answer and all you have to do is to persuade everyone to believe in him, will end up being a distraction and a further cause of world strife.
In effect, this is just another straw man argument.
"If you believe, like I do, that humans really do have obligations, that evil is real and that it’s really true that things like child sex trafficking are wrong, you should completely reject what Lilith argues… just like I finally did."
Great post 🏆🏆🏆
I’ve had this discussion with atheists many times through the years. And the problem is that most times they assume people can choose morality without belief… Because they’re living in a Christian nation and absorbed the Christian values by osmosis. If they grow up in a non-Christian nation that already practices barbarity… They will find those practices normal. And then they will begin to rationalize them, because their morality is fleeting and subjective, and typically based on what is “normal”, not what is actually right.
She pitches a softball, but it is still important to swing and hit it as hard and far as you can. Her argument works on many because it appeals to emotion and it appeals to self-justification (pride).
IMO, the quickest and sharpest point here is to apply the exact same logic behind "evolution makes morality real and true" to conclude that "evolution makes religion real and true." Atheists love to claim that the cross-cultural ubiquitousness of belief in higher powers is the (very ironic) product of evolution. If being a product of evolution makes something real and true, as they argue it does for morality, then why does it not also make religion real and true?
Strong takedown of the is-ought gap in secular ethics. The poker analogy lands because it captures how subjective value systems can look coherent internally but collapse under scrutiny. The piece on Viltruimites raises the real issue, if survival drives morality then brutality becomes just as defensible as compassion depending on evolutionary wiring. One angle to push further is whether grounding obligations in divine command theory solves the arbitrainess problem or just moves it.
This is great feedback thank you very much.
The greatest flaw in Lillith's explanation of "evolutionary" cooperation among humans.....is the reality she and all of us experience daily.
Were she correct in her assumptions, how could she possibly explain a world rife with violence between nations, citizens, and even members of individual communities and even families?
Clearly empathy and altruism are NOT survival mechanisms handed from generation to generation in our DNA.
Reality contradicts her premises because were they correct, we'd likely see greatly diminished levels of violence rather than accelerating levels.
"Likewise, saying morality arises from an evolutionary trait like empathy doesn’t mean morality is real, it just means you can explain why humans might believe in morality. Who cares about that? This can’t get you real values or obligations."
To say humans "might believe in morality" is a weird way of wording it. Humans have expectation of how we should behave towards each other and the name for those expectations is "morality". There no might about it. That's the word we use for that thing that we all experience.
Evolution provides a very plausible explanation for why, as social creatures, most of have some broadly similar expectations.
You prefer the idea that these expectations are, in some hand-waving fashion, precisely defined and sourced from a divine being but you've got little to no evidence of that divine sourcing. We're all well aware of the inconsistencies in morality both between individuals and between cultures.
I can see some appeal to trying to persuade everyone of the merits of your morals on the basis of their divine origin but you have little or no evidence of that you are sourcing them correctly. Your grounding is built on sand.
So on to the comments referencing Lilith:
You are making the same mistake just about all Christians make - If God did not create morality, then where did it come from?
The presupposition, here, is that morality is real whether God creates it or not. Lilith explains, succinctly, how morality came about when a group of mammals began living in communities. The reason these traits evolved is that they gave those groups, and ultimately our species, a huge survival advantage in a highly competitive environment.
Let's be clear here. That does not make it real in the same sense that Christians believe.
There is a confusion here between a set of behaviours that were coded into us by evolution millions of years ago and the mental model we call 'morality' that modern humans utilise in order to make sense of how humans behave and interact with each other.
"All of these different worldviews and starting places will cause one to act in different ways towards other people.
Which one is “right?”
There is no right.
This is the problem."
No, if objectively morality does not exist, that is simply the way it is. That is the challenge we need to face in order to create a world where everyone can thrive and make full use of their potential.
"But the key point is that she already starts with concern for the well-being of others.
As I already said, this is all completely arbitrary, because anybody can start anywhere. Someone else can start from hatred for others and then reason that other people should be harmed. They can then use their experience, based on that starting value, to hurt other people even better."
That is correct. People can and do start in a different place, as we have seen over history right up until today. Once again, with objective morality, that is the challenge we face, to persuade as many as possible that, focusing on well-being is a worthy goal that will be to all our benefit.
He finishes with this:
"Why would I have a responsibility to other people if atheism is true. There’s nothing with real authority saying I do, so why do I?"
Because it is in the interest of you, your family and your community to build a global society where everyone can thrive to the best of their ability.
Do you really need an authority to tell you to do that, Can you really not figure it out for yourself?
"Is it because Lilith has a reason based on her personal values for why I should? Maybe I have different values. My values are that Lilith should keep her personal arbitrary values… to herself."
This is what she said:
"People can still recognize right and wrong through reason, experience, and concern for the well-being of others. In this view, morality is not dependent on divine authority but on our responsibility to one another as human beings."
Do really believe that is not a worthy cause? Seriously?
That sounds pretty good to me. You appear to despise it is because your god would have no role to play and for no other reason.
Hoping that your particular God gave you the right answer and all you have to do is to persuade everyone to believe in him, will end up being a distraction and a further cause of world strife.
In effect, this is just another straw man argument.
"If you believe, like I do, that humans really do have obligations, that evil is real and that it’s really true that things like child sex trafficking are wrong, you should completely reject what Lilith argues… just like I finally did."
What is your basis for that belief?
Very well said! Thank you!
Proverbs 29:18 “Where there is no revelation*, the people cast off restraint; But happy is he who keeps the law.” NKJV)
* Literally “vision” or “prophetic vision”
Proverbs 29:27 “An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, And he who is upright in the way is an abomination to the wicked.” (NKJV)
"In my egoism, I couldn’t imagine that atheism would be unable to ground or make sense of things like evil or obligations."
And with your great moral clarity you now worship a god who drowned babies in the flood and murdered them at Passover.
Thanks for sharing.