|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without god | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Looking at various dictionaries it does come down to behavior.
Right. It doesn't matter why the person acts socially as the morals of his society have taught him is proper.In fact, most morals have reasons way beyond the interest or understanding of the person who is raised up to exercise those moral behaviors. In other words, the morals are unwritten rules usually, not in Law books or the Institution of Law and Order. They are usually found in the Institution of Religion.That is why invoking God as the reason is so important. The reason may be too subtle or arcane for little kids or grown adults to understand. Hence the OP here is that Morality is very difficult to institute without invoking "God said so." And when one considers whether a god mandate is necessary for himself, in order to be moral, he must not assume that for others some appeal to an authority, like God,is not necessary.Little kids especially may very much need to believe God is watching and the morals are set down by him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 369 Joined:
|
I really can't accept that murder is a moral answer ever . Well I agree. But tell me this, do you consider the death penalty murder? I don't, but perhaps you do. But then here we are just being arm chair quarter backs trying to decide rather the God of creation made good call or not. And many centuries after the fact to boot. I believe that the character of God is one of both love and of justice. Therefore I can by faith trust that whatever He did, does or will do will be vindicated in the end rather we see it now or not. Those areas that I don't understand why, I will just have to trust that my Father knows best.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I believe that the character of God is one of both love and of justice. Therefore I can by faith trust that whatever He did, does or will do will be vindicated in the end rather we see it now or not. Those areas that I don't understand why, I will just have to trust that my Father knows best. Well the problem with that attitude is that you could hold it towards anyone, even a being of ultimate evil. "I believe he is good, therefore I will believe that the things he does are good --- no matter what he does." Then when you watch whoever-it-is eating a baby while stomping on kittens, you can just say: "Oh, that must be good, because he's doing it." It's a willful suspension of your moral sense. And when you have to willfully suspend your moral sense in order to do something, that's usually a sign that it's a terribly bad idea. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
justbeingreal writes: I believe that the character of God is one of both love and of justice. Therefore I can by faith trust that whatever He did, does or will do will be vindicated in the end rather we see it now or not. Those areas that I don't understand why, I will just have to trust that my Father knows best.
Dr A writes: Well the problem with that attitude is that you could hold it towards anyone, even a being of ultimate evil. "I believe he is good, therefore I will believe that the things he does are good --- no matter what he does." Then when you watch whoever-it-is eating a baby while stomping on kittens, you can just say: "Oh, that must be good, because he's doing it." It's a willful suspension of your moral sense. And when you have to willfully suspend your moral sense in order to do something, that's usually a sign that it's a terribly bad idea. Except that is not how it works. Christians trust God in a way we would never trust anyone else, and we do so because we know He is good, both from the testimony of the Bible, and the testimony of believers down the centuries as well as believers we know personally, and our own experience since we came to believe. We know Him to be supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, unlike any other being. We deduce His goodness and faithfulness from all that and know that whatever we don't understand is due to our own ignorance and that ultimately we will understand it, as justbeingreal said. The idea that anyone would do this with anyone other than God is unrealistic. We may never be able to persuade you of course. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II. 2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: We may never be able to persuade you of course Nor me - and you can change 'may' to 'will'.There's a few reasons why that kind of language will not persuade a rationalist. Firstly its just contentless rhetoric. Those of us that have noticed that the emperor has no clothes will never be convinced of his dress sense until we see some actual trousers - what his taylor is saying about it is irrelevant because we can see that he's lying. Secondly, that particular kind of grovelling, pious, irrational gibberish tells us that the person using it is, to be polite, rather deluded. It works from the pulpit when directed at those that already believe it - to anybody else it's just embarrassing.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's sure going to come as a surprise when you discover that we aren't the deluded ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Except that is not how it works. Christians trust God in a way we would never trust anyone else, and we do so because we know He is good, both from the testimony of the Bible, and the testimony of believers down the centuries as well as believers we know personally, and our own experience since we came to believe. But "the testimony of the Bible" in fact suggests that he's stupid and vicious. So, assuming he existed, would experience. This is where you have to suspend your sense of morality, and settle down to excusing practices that would horrify you if you weren't committed to special pleading on behalf of your chosen deity.
The idea that anyone would do this with anyone other than God is unrealistic. Except that people have in fact done it for beings other than your god. For example, for their gods. Or their nations. Or even their favorite politicians. Or, of course, themselves. "Let's not judge them by their actions" (so people in effect say) "but by taking their goodness as a premise." Me, I think that if there was a God, and he was good, this would be a conclusion that we could draw from his actions, the same as we can with people who actually exist and are good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Amazing how right a person can think he is while being so wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GrimSqueaker Member (Idle past 3719 days) Posts: 137 From: Ireland Joined: |
Ok I've tried to illustrate my position twice before now with a demonstrative example and clearly my own use of language has fallen short, so please allow me one more go. But bare in mind I am aware that this will be a simplification, try to go with the Geist and not pick up on irrelevant points.
My premise : People, both culturally and individually decide what is more, no supernatural agent is required - further more rules do no equate to morals and a deed preformed under duress etc is lessened morally if not entirely devoid of moral value. Background; If we can break down the theistic argument to a few very simple points;- God knows best - God has a higher moral standard than us - God lays down rules for humans to follow - From these rules we get our morals - These are absolute morals, totally correct and unquestionable even if we disagree or don't understand If we can accept that these are close to a theistic stand point great, lets move on. My Hypothetical; Imagine that god adds an 11th commandment, "Thou shall rape" (similar to the evil version of the king James bible "Thou shall commit adultry" commandment) Is this new rule moral? Does rape become Moral because it is in the rule book? My Proposal; Rules do not equal Morals, although many rules are derived from the morals that we have developed together within our own cultures as highly evolved social animals
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Better. You aren't making a case for your premise though. The theistic arguments you present are irrelevant to your argument and the hypothetical is still useless. What evidence do you have that rules do not equate to morals, especially if they are based on morals? What rules are you talking about? I've been talking about what is considered right behavior, not necessarily a legal system. What evidence do you have that a deed performed under duress is devoid of moral value? There is moral and there is morality. Then you add moral worth. You seem to be taking a Kantian approach to moral worth.
Kantian Ethics Moral worth only comes when you do something because you know that it is your duty and you would do it regardless of whether you liked it. How many morally worthy acts does it take for one to be considered a moral person? Does one wrong action break the deal? IMO, deeming an act as morally worthy is an attempt to keep score. But for what purpose?
The Universal Moral Code How To Determine Moral Principles Without Religion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GrimSqueaker Member (Idle past 3719 days) Posts: 137 From: Ireland Joined: |
Specifics of morality aside the topic in question is "Morality without God" - that last example was more geared toward that argument -
If god decreed an (another) immoral act moral would that make it so, rape being used a athe case in point
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
Amazing how right a person can think he is while being so wrong. The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
So not much for providing supporting evidence for your premise. Good to know. Just useless hypotheticals.
quote:If the thread is about Morality without God, why ask about God? The premise you presented has nothing to do with God. Sorry you didn't actually want to debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
The operative word there is "was". The Law was considered moral by the people who devised it. However, it is not considered moral by people of conscience today. BUT,... the Law was the list of what was moral. That's the problem with prescribed morality. People who accept the prescription don't internalize the morality; they don't understand the morality and/or immorality of the prescription. Thus, we have people trying to justify outrages like slavery because it "must" be moral - even if they themselves can't understand how it could be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
kofh2u writes:
Not at all. I accept the Bible for what it says, instead of trying to re-interpret plain language to be more palatable. If the Bible tells people to treat their slaves well, then I take it as condoning slavery. (And don't be confused by the word "servant". The practice described in the Bible is definitely slavery.)
You believe you fully understand the Bible and have found it wanting and erroneous and wrong. kofh2u writes:
The behaviour that the Bible describes is wrong for any person of conscience. If you're saying that I refuse to put a book ahead of my own conscience, you're right.
Nothing will persuade you either.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024