This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Do we need objective morals?

VeniVidiVici123's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by VeniVidiVici123

Some really interesting ideas here. I thought I was pretty explicit in my rejection of objective morality, however, Thoughtful Theist seems to have gathered a different impression from my first post. Objective morals don't need to come from anywhere; especially not a "God". As I said in my first post, we decide what we think is right or wrong, good or bad, lawful or unlawful.

Thoughtful Theist is in my opinion correct to say that using objective morality as a reason to believe in the existence of a "God" is "flawed reasoning", however, he/she then goes on to do just that!

Our morals/ethics/laws have developed over thousands of years because we are social animals. Natural selection, sexual selection and kinship selection were all that were needed, combined of course with our incredibly complex and powerful brains, for human beings to come to develop what we label "morals", "ethics" and "laws".

The argument that objective morals (which don't exist) point towards the existence of "God" is similar to the "God of the gaps" argument which most theist and relgious zealots gave up on years ago because it doesn't answer anything. "Morals came from God"- Where did God come from? " The universe was created by God before the big bang"- Who created God? "Oh, God is beyond time and space and is undefinable"- These are not answers, they don't actually MEAN anything.

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:55:01 UTC | #950067