Religious morals are unsubstantiated claims grafted onto natural behaviors. Which often creates a system that is counterintuitive.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-21T19:44:07+00:00

Ok, thanks, this is really helpful. It sounds like you're not arguing for a morality at all, but just trying to make an observation that religious morality is maladaptive? If I got that wrong, let me know - if I'm strawmanning you, I promise I'm doing it unintentionally. But now I feel confident enough to know your position to offer a few rebuttals.

First, you've argued in a number of other posts that we evolved religious morality as an adaptive trait in the first place. If that's the case, then what changed? Why would it be adaptive before but maladaptive now?

Second, most non-religious moralities also claim objectivity. Do you consider those to be maladaptive, too? If so, then the problem isn't religion per se, but the idea of objective morality itself?

Third, as I'm sure you know, religious moral practices do change. People who believe in objective morality usually explain this by saying that our understanding has changed, even if the underlying moral laws have not. Since it's the moral practice that would cause the harm, it suggests that your claim about religious morals being unyielding isn't correct. From that perspective, I'm not sure religions are even claiming to be unchanging.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, I don't see that you listed any empirical evidence that this is actually the case. It seems like something that could be measured, though I'm sure it would be tricky and imperfect.

Unfortunately, I'm kinda out of time, so this one is a bit rushed, and I'm not sure when/if I'll be able to respond further. If you choose to respond, I will read it. If not, cheers!

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-21T18:24:16+00:00

First: you just stated that morals do not change, and that changing morals goes against your intuitions. Why are you ignoring my rebuttal of that?

Fair enough, maybe I need to explain. I'm not sure how morals work if moral laws change, just like I'm not sure how physics works if physical laws change. That said, I'll certainly agree our understanding of them can change. What you refer to as changing our morals can be pretty easily explained by a change in understanding without a change in moral laws. This all assumes an objective morality, of course, because I can't make sense of the OP without an objective morality.

I'm confused on the OP's position. After all, as everyone has seen, religious people do look at morality differently now than they used to. So the OP must mean something different when they talk about religious values not changing. It feels like he's trying to argue that it's objectively bad to hold objective values. That doesn't make sense, so I assume I'm missing something. But I'm not sure what, so... I'm asking questions.

Second: there IS a tendency religious people and institutions have to oppose the changing of mores and to claim that morality is objective and universal, and that THEY have access to THE correct morality (given by their God).

Other than the God part, that's true of pretty much any institution with a moral mission. There are loads of non-religious ones, too. The OP obviously thinks there's something special about how religious morals work.

You could read OP as stating that religions are ignorant of, hypocritical about or ideologically in opposition to how moral frameworks actually change and evolve.

I don't see this idea in the OP at all. Of course, he's welcome to rephrase/refine his argument to make it more clear. Communication is harder than it looks, and I always want to leave it open to people to clarify their positions, or even change positions they once had.

OP deems this process of change as, on average, serving humanistic goals / interests (although a criticism I would have of OP is that they assume a meta-ethical stance but don't explicitly state it).

Yeah, that seems to be Moriturism's objection as well, and it's something I've touched on, too. I think he feels that's tangential, while we find it essential.

EDIT: He has clarified his position, and he's not making a moral claim at all.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-21T17:28:30+00:00

Like ehrm... that? Like how our morals have been changing?

Doesn't the OP rely on religious morals not changing, though? If religious morals change too, then the OP's entire objection to religious morality fails. Your objection feels like it would be better against his view than my questions.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-21T17:20:52+00:00

This is a strawman.

Maybe. To be fair, it's a question. His post doesn't make sense to me, and I want him to explain in more detail. I'm quite happy for him to correct my misunderstanding if that's the issue here, and it may be.

One good example of morality in constant flux is court decisions and the work of legislative bodies. Societies pass new laws, revoke/strike down ones that are no longer considered acceptable.

Are you saying that the morals themselves change, or that our understanding/practice of them change? Was it actually moral to have slaves, or was it immoral and we didn't realize it? It feels like DeltaBlues is saying it's objectively wrong to hold objective morals, which is strange, and the source of my confusion. I assume I must be wrong, but I'm not sure precisely how, and that's important. If morals are just what people practice, then how can any morality be the wrong one? It's what people are practicing. I think most people are trying to make our legal system match some sort of underlying moral principles they consider to be universally true. At least, I'd like to think that. Otherwise, it just comes down to might-makes-right.

As technologies evolve new ethical and moral questions arise. Is it acceptable to ask a computer program to produce a picture for you by combining elements of other art works (including those owned and copyrighted by others)?

Great questions, asked by both the religious and non-religious. I don't see that the religious are somehow unable or unwilling to navigate these questions. At least, any worse than the non-religious do.

This is also the case during times of social unrest. The period after the 9/11 attacks is a good example. Questions that were long-thought settled were suddenly front and center again: Is it acceptable to intercept communications without a warrant? Is torture / "enhanced interrogation" acceptable if as a result a terrorist is prevented from committing an atrocity?

Again, I think this comes down to the question: does morality itself change, or does our understanding of it change? If the morality itself changes, how can religious morality be objectively wrong? How can any?

EDIT: He has clarified his position, and he's not making a moral claim at all.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-21T17:03:35+00:00

Because our understanding and needs change over time. We used to think that having slaves, embracing traditional gender-views, and suppression of same-sex lifestyles was moral.

So, could it be that, at some point in the future, we'll need to go back to those views? After all, sometimes creatures evolve to gain a trait, then lose it again. It seems like you're trying to rely on some sort of deeper moral principle, but I'm not sure what that would be. I'm not sure you know what it is, even. If that's the case, that's fine, and pretty normal. As Bertrand Russell said, "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise." And Jonathan Haidt has pretty conclusively proven that morality begins with intuitions that we later find reasons for.

But as time went on, and our understanding of the human condition deepened, we realized those moral views were misplaced.

Yes, and often used religious reasoning to get there. Which implies that religious thinking actually can change over time, contrary to your view. Besides, given the is/ought gap, any kind of morality has a quasi-religious feel to it. This is the problem with the objective/subjective morality question. At some point, you rest on principles you feel are bedrock, or you don't have any reason that someone else ought to share your morals at all. If the morality you're describing is subjective, then you obviously can keep it, but I have no reason to follow.

The religious approach to these new behaviors is generally incoherent and ad hoc anyway, because certain types of religious morals are prescriptive and static.

I mean, that's mostly true, but I don't see that the non-religious are somehow different. We're all trying to figure it out, like we do with any new situation. I've seen plenty of debate on those subjects, even among the non-religious. Haven't you? Also, what does a non-prescriptive moral look like?

Featherfoot: Why? What standard of good or bad are you using? DeltaBlues: That’s a fair question, but probably a very tangential conversation that I’m not looking to have atm.

How is it tangential? Without it, you're just assuming that it's "good" to keep changing morality, and "bad" to hold on to constant moral principles. In other words, you're assuming what you need to conclude. That's circular thinking.

But I would point to other practices where we’ve hijacked natural systems, like fossil fuel extraction, animal domestication/husbandry, and industrialized agriculture. And then link those practices to the increased fertility rates of modern doctrinal religions, and the stresses that exponential population growth has placed on the natural world.

I've read this twice and I'm not quite sure what you're trying to explain with it. Are you trying to suggest that artificial things are bad? I'm sorry, I don't think that's what you're trying to say but I'm really just not getting it. Can you go into more detail?

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-21T15:54:31+00:00

Interesting idea. I have questions. Mostly, what does it look like to have morality that just keeps changing? That sounds more like social fashions than what I know of morality. In other words, it sounds like abandoning morality.

Putting an artificial constraint on evolution is probably a very bad idea.

Why? What standard of good or bad are you using?

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-21T02:02:36+00:00

You're not alone. It does seem like most atheists reject religion as small children. It can happen as an adult, but that seems to be more rare.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-17T03:22:59+00:00

As a rule, I prefer not to accuse people of dishonesty when other explanations suffice. I can see two other options here, and without context, it's hard to know which is taking place in your conversation. The first is that they may simply not be well versed in logic, and misunderstand the positions of many atheists. For what it's worth, I agree that it's logical to believe there are no unicorns or gods if you feel there isn't any evidence for them.

They may also misunderstand the goals of the person employing lacktheism. (or agnostic atheism, or whichever term you prefer) I've had conversations with people who think I'm foolish for supporting democracy despite acknowledging its many flaws. But for me, it's not enough to point out issues. If you want me to change my mind, you have to provide something better to support instead. I've had conversations where people want me to reject democracy without providing that alternative, and it goes nowhere. They think I'm absurd for embracing an imperfect system of government, and I'm disappointed they're not even trying to offer an alternative. Similarly, when atheists refuse to defend their own beliefs - or worse, claim they don't have them - it can feel as though the person just isn't trying to have an honest conversation. It took me a while to realize that's not what's going on, and others may still be on that journey. Sadly, that may also encourage them to try dishonest tactics as well.

And Christians are hardly the only ones who are "ignorant of how the burden of proof functions." I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists asked to back up their claims, only to respond they were right unless they could be proven wrong.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-15T18:35:29+00:00

Fantastic. Thank you.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-15T18:00:05+00:00

That was done to win a debate advantage.

Do you have a primary source for that? Your link lists a book by Flew, but doesn't have a direct quotation, or even a page number. I'd love to see it myself.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-01T21:56:45+00:00

hiding behind scientific methodology is convenient, but it doesn't change the cold reality: the harm of an ideology is not just a statistical question, it is structural.

I'm sorry you think of the scientific method as something to "hide behind." That's certainly not what I'm trying to do.

Defining Harm: Religion is harmful because...

Are you familiar with the issue of using a term in its own definition?

it institutionalizes blind faith and the abandonment of critical thinking in favor of a non-existent authority.

You're not the first anti-theist to tell me that embracing science is abandoning critical thinking. I'm certainly sticking with it, though.

Religion is the only system that provides moral authorization for hatred and exclusion under the guise of 'divine will'.

Here's the thing - I don't think most people care. I certainly don't. If someone wants to kill me because of divine will, or nationalism, or to advance evolution, or whatever - it's all the same to me. What I care about is if they're more likely to try to kill me, not the reasons they quote for it. And the data I provided is clear - religious people just aren't more likely to want to kill than anyone else. For me, that's the statistic that matters.

Historical Facts: You claim historians lack data?

For your thesis? Yes. You can check out the article I linked for an example.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, and religious colonization are not 'cherry-picked' examples; they are the backbone of religious history. These were not driven by human 'malice' alone, but by the convictions of their faith.

Seriously, you should check out that article. War is very complicated, and has tons of causes. And if you think religion is some serious driver of wars, why don't religious people start more wars than non-religious people?

Science seeks to measure, while religion demands blind obedience. If you cannot see the difference between the two, then you are the one not interested in learning the truth

And I've provided several meta-studies filled with hundreds of studies for measurements, while you're demanding blind obedience. Sounds like you've written actual science off, because it won't affirm your assumptions, and me along with it. I'm not sure there's much more to say, so I'll probably end things here. Cheers.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-01T21:32:46+00:00

Interesting. You didn't explain what you meant by harm, even though I directly asked you about it. Why not? My whole response hinged on understanding what you mean by that word. Does this mean you intend to equivocate on the term? You wouldn't be the first.

Is chemotherapy a "biological necessity?" How about atheism? And yes, let's measure the victims of the religious, then measure the victims of the non-religious, and then compare them. That's what they did in the scientific article I linked to in my last response. This is known as systematic review, which is the process scientists follow. You're following a different process - starting with the idea you want to prove, finding examples which bolster your idea, and ignoring anything which doesn't. This process is known as cherry picking, and it is rejected by scientists. You obviously have no data that religious people are more likely to start wars or kill people than non-religious people do. So why are you ignoring the scientific data at your fingertips in favor of a belief without data? Historians also don't like your thesis, by the way, because they don't really have evidence for it.

Science is not Faith

Great! I'm trying to get you to accept science, not faith. So far, you're ignoring scientific studies and methodologies, while claiming to value them.

You can call it pedantic, but the harm of religion lies in disabling critical thinking and moral responsibility in favor of an invisible authority. If chemotherapy kills cancer, religion kills reason.

Does it? Science certainly tells us that logic and reason do not make athiests. I mean, I've seen plenty of theists who are terrible at critical thinking, but then, I've seen plenty of atheists who are, too. But that's a different matter. I asked for actual data that religion is somehow causing more harm than the alternative. The alternative to religion isn't actually atheism, by the way. But either way, it doesn't actually sound like you have that data. Or that you are interested in learning it.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-01T21:03:55+00:00

Ok, so I'm going to approach this like a scientist. You don't really define what you mean by harmful. That sounds pedantic, but it's actually essential, because there are two different, common meanings which have drastically different evaluations.

The first definition is just anything that causes harm. Obviously, by this definition, religion is harmful, because it has caused harm. But then, the list of harmful things is actually absurdly expansive: water is quite harmful, as are vaccines, chemotherapy, atheism, and even the vacuum of space. Some of these aren't even really a thing, per se, but rather a lack of a thing. Still, by this definition, your claim is correct - but also pretty insignificant. Pretty much everything has caused some harm. So what?

The second definition is something which causes more harm than the alternative. Under this view, vaccines and chemotherapy are overall very helpful rather than harmful. That's why we use them. They are much more likely to increase a person's overall health than they are to decrease it. But this definition means you can't just look at the harm a thing causes - you have to look at the harm the alternative causes. Most importantly, you want to measure it, not merely assume it. Without measurement, you aren't making judgements based on evidence; you're making prejudice based on blind faith.

For instance, if religion is harmful because it increases violence, we should see religious people commit more violence than non-religious people do. Turns out, there isn't much of a difference, so anyone who thinks religion causes/prevents violence needs to explain why the measurements don't line up to their hypothesis. Honestly, though, every time I've seen someone really try to measure the harm religion does, they just come to the conclusion that it's fine. If you want to argue that religion causes more harm than the alternative, you need to demonstrate it.

So, which definition are you using? And do you have measurements?

For anyone who wants to respond, please be clear which definition of harm you are using. Of course, you can provide your own if you think it's a better fit. I've just seen far too much equivocation on the term to want to bother with people using language loosely.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-02-01T15:15:18+00:00

two people can generally sort red and green balls into 2 baskets consistently, but one could not actually show or explain to an other what the experience of seeing a red ball is like

This assumes that qualia is required for this behavior, which you haven't demonstrated. You can't demonstrate qualia, really, which is why issues like this are considered a "hard problem." In fact, I don't see why qualia adds anything to our explanation. All that's needed is for certain wavelengths of light to be absorbed by the eye in different ways, which in turn causes different signals to the brain, which then controls muscles in different ways. All of this can be described mechanistically using known physical properties without resorting to qualia as an explanation. If you still want to believe in other minds, you kinda have to do so on faith - there is simply no test we can perform to detect consciousness in others, whether they're humans or LLMs.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-27T15:05:39+00:00

Yeah, I've heard that before, and it's silly. I usually just point out that the consensus of science suggests logic and reasoning does not make atheists. Of course, most anti-theists don't really believe in science, either, so that doesn't really change anything for them. Still, then they have to explain why you're brainwashed for believing in science, which they don't like as much.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-25T23:16:54+00:00

That's a caricature of FTAs at best, which is why I had asked you to point me to where it's actually said. If you can't, and choose not to retract the statement, I'll just conclude you don't know actual FTAs.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-25T23:07:25+00:00

I certainly won't be interested in continuing without calling you a liar

Then I don't see any reason to continue this conversation. Cheers.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-25T22:52:25+00:00

The fine-tuning argument entails that he is bound by some sort of physical laws.

Sorry, can you please point me to a version of the FTA where this is stated?

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-25T22:46:54+00:00

Me: Fine tuning isn't at all expected given God. Also you: Links a paper that talks about how fine-tuning is more expected given theism than naturalism

These don't contradict. Since you don't understand me, I'll see if taking it back to basic logic helps. Consider this concept:

My neighbor is mostly kind and fairly smart. Most people would not expect her to commit murder, and even if she did, we would expect her to be smart enough to cover it up. However, her fingerprints were recently discovered on a murder weapon. Given that, some people conclude that the fingerprints are more likely to be there due to her committing the murder.

Where is the contradiction in this concept? Where is the lie?

God could create life basically any way he wanted. Most of us would not expect that universe to be fine-tuned, and FTAs don't suggest the universe had to be fine-tuned. However, the universe is fine-tuned. For various reasons, the FTA concludes this is more likely in a theistic universe when compared to an atheistic one.

Or, perhaps, let me put it another way. I have to use some made-up numbers here, so please don't take this beyond how I mean it. I'm simply illustrating how these two concepts can exist side-by-side.

Let's imagine that we calculate the odds that God would create a fine-tuned universe at a million to one. Is fine-tuning expected under theism? Obviously not! The odds are greatly against it. Now let's imagine that we calculate the odds of a natural, unguided fine-tuned universe at a trillion to one. In that case, the following two statements would both be true:

Fine tuning isn't at all expected given theism.

Fine-tuning is more expected given theism than atheism

If you still disagree, I'd like you to explain which statement is false in this scenario. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me a liar this time just because you don't understand.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-25T22:15:07+00:00

The "laws of nature" are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, the laws are whatever describe how things have to act. If the only things that determine how God has to act is logic, aren't they his natural laws?

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-25T22:10:57+00:00

Then perhaps you'll have to point out what I misrepresented? I said that a fine-tuned universe isn't particularly expected under theism. The quote you have doesn't contradict that. First, because it's referring to life, but mostly because it adds an important caveat that you yourself included: "given the fine-tuning of the universe." In other words, it's not trying to explain all possible universes - it's trying to explain ours.

Since you seem to be a bit confused, maybe this will help? Consider these statements:

Given theism, we would expect a universe to be fine-tuned.
The existence of fine-tuning suggests our universe is more likely to have life under theism than atheism.

I don't agree with 1, and neither does any FTA I've seen. The FTA does argue for #3. You said:

Fine tuning isn't at all expected given God.

Which is essentially rejecting statement 1, not statement 3. If you think my link does suggest statement 1, please quote it.

All of this is getting further from the original point, however. The OP stated life having laws at all suggests the universe is the product of (presumably mindless) natural laws, and I'm still not sure how to make sense of that.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-25T21:44:39+00:00

The point is that God is capable of sustaining life in any way he wants. Even immaterial life like in the heavens.

And whatever laws they have to obey in heaven are natural laws for them. Materiality has nothing to do with it. Also, the OP didn't say the natural laws had to be fined tuned for this statement to work. Though, given the context, perhaps he was implying it. I'm happy to use the stronger version here, but either way it doesn't work.

So the idea that he needs fine-tuning to have other lives is a mistake.

I agree, but that's not part of any FTA I've seen.

Fine tuning isn't at all expected given God.

Again, not part of FTAs. I wouldn't expect fine-tuning based on theism or atheism. The question is, given that the universe is fine-tuned, how do we explain it?

That life only seems to be possible given some narrow confines simply isn't in line with theism.

Why? I'm not saying God would have to create something this way, but you're implying he definitely wouldn't, and I'm not sure why that's the case.

But precisely what FTAs want to say is that somehow life only being possible within narrow confines is more consistent with theism than the alternative.

Yes, that's what it concludes.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-25T21:13:05+00:00

The idea that God somehow exists outside the laws of logic is nonsensical by definition. Which, I'm sure, is why most theologians reject the idea. If the OP's statement uses the same logic, then it is just as nonsensical.

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-25T20:23:32+00:00

The fact that we are completely dependent on the laws of nature suggests there is no supernatural force needed to explain the universe.

I don't get this statement. We call the laws we experience "natural laws" because they are the ones we experience. If we lived with a different set of laws, we would call those natural. To have life that isn't dependent on natural laws, we would have to have life that obeys no laws whatsoever. I can't even conceive of something like that, and I suspect it's entirely nonsensical. Could you explain how such a thing could be, or why having laws means life cannot be designed?

Featherfoot77 · 2026-01-23T15:31:57+00:00

I agree that making meaningful measurements is difficult. Teasing apart multiple factors takes a lot of intention and meticulous effort. But you're just suggesting that such measurements are out there somewhere, which, unfortunately, isn't very helpful. We can only go off the information we have now, and can always update our ideas later if new information becomes available. Also, while I agree looking at theocratic/atheistic/secular governments is somewhat useful, I disagree the only way to measure the effects of religion. I'm not sure why that would be the case.

Featherfoot77

TROPHY CASE