What Happens When You Remove Faith

Forgive the dumb question, but what makes a nice person different from a moral person?You may choose to be nice and treat people well, but why?It still comes down to motive. You are nice because God wishes it, or you are nice because you expect that others will reciprocate. Or, you are nice because you are afraid of hell, of afraid of being unpopular. There doesn't seem to be any reason to be nice 'just because'.The ability to empathise is just an ability, it is not a motivation. We have discussed this many times before. What is the motive for following your empathetic conclusions?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well, I disagree too. It's a nice analogy, but experience has shown that it is not accurate.I don't think I would mind if you said that the urge to care for others was still being evolved, but right now I think we are stuck on A #1 ourselves. In fact, in all the religions that emphasize empathy (ha ha) it was already presumed that we were selfish. Love others as you love yourself. Sure most of aren't sociopaths, and most of us will take the path of least resistance, avoiding irritation of others so that we may not be irritated.Most of us still need a jab in the ribs to be really nice...it's more like making us eat healthy even when we don't want to, making us eat even when we are full, and making us eat when we can't stand the food presented.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

For that matter, it is mostly males of every age that account for the majority of criminal behaviour. Hey, wait a minute, I thought you said we hard wired to feel empathy? While I won't argue that, it seems that we are also hard wired, especially males, to not give a darn about what others feel.So what is the problem? Why are young males hard-wired to be so careless? I suppose only older females are the ones who have that empathy gene?Do you see what I am saying? Even with the known consequences of fornication, AND a belief in God as motivators, there are some drives that are so hard-wired that they are irrefutable. Being nice to people, that is a character developement. Morality is learned, remember? Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Sure they are, because we have free will and a high level of intelligence.I don't believe that social interactions are the same thing as morality, however.The point of morality IMO is to develope a way of life that guides and simplifies decisions. It's like creating the perfect balanced diet, and has little to do with what we feel like eating or even the drive to eat.What I believe people are saying is that without God they may go back to eating junk food or whatever comes along and they are in the mood for. Most of us live like that anyway, and most of us make moral decisions spur of the moment. It's only falling back to what is convenient and won't make us immediately sick.We humans are primarily cncerned with ourselves. That is my conclusive belief. Have you ever looked at the many different faces of pride? Is there anything that you can do for someone that can not reflect back to making yourself feel good? The point is to do good to others because it is the 'right' thing to do. You know that, we all know that. Why is it right? I have my answer, which is: all men are a reflection of God and loved by God, and it is the will of God that we respect the life He has created. 'I do right because it is right' is lame-o answer, as is 'it is hard-wired into me' or 'I learned how' or 'I am afraid of the consequences'.But life IS complicated, and a combination of these reasons makes most people fairly decent.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Why do you need to explain why we have morality? Isnt it obviously because we are not instinctually going to do good things? Are you confused? We don't need an explanation for morality. We don't even agree on what is moral. I feel no competition between woo and no woo, it is all part of creation.So, what are your motives for respecting others? To learn about human psychology? Morality does not seek to explain or learn about human behaviour, it is a thing which we create to rectify and utilize the range of human behaviour. The question I asked was 'why'? I am really not looking for a science experiment, I am looking for a way of living that produces people motivated to care for each other. I have not found that any of the books I have read on spirituality or on God-based behaviour modification, have been without great insight. If I look to my own behaviour and follow these guides, I can see real true visible results in the lives of people around me. I don't know what is less woo-woo than results.Being moral isn't complicated. It is not about human social interactions. It is about one's self. It doesn't need explanation, it needs motivation. The scope of the thread was to discuss some motives without God. Of course there are some. I never said there weren't. Being moral really has nothing to do with what 'makes me feel good'. It has to do with what works.

Mother Theresa and Ghandi are examples to most of us that our moarlity is not all it could be.It was sort of a rhetorical question when I asked about being greedy. All things can work to benefit us, and I don't see anything different in looking for rewards here or eternally.My point was, and I was not contradicting myself, that we don't do things 'just because they are right'. On the individual level, of course, we do that sometimes by reflex and long training in the motives of past generations. Altogether, we do 'right' based on what other people at one point felt out and decided was good for some REASON. There was no scroll that fell from the sky listing what was right.I was asking what exactly is the reasoning behind love of neighbor, BESIDES greed and the possible benefits to ourselves? Because, morality is not about greed. As you can see from the next posts, people get a little bothered by the thought that they are only doing good because it has benefits. We don't help others out of selfishness, no! Not in any way consciously.Ok, so how do you know 'right' exists? Isn't it just a trumped up view we have of certain behaviours, and always changing?'I do right because it's right' is lame-o because it essentially says nothing.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Again, I was being sort of sarcastic.Anything can produce good results or make us feel good.Morality is supposed to be selflessness. So why the feeling that everyone is doing things for survival and reward?I believe those things come to us, because we are living how we were meant to live, and all things fall into place. I also believe that there is an underlying reason for why things are 'right' and the results of the actions are inevitable.It is like a jigsaw puzzle maybe. All of the pieces go into place because they fit, but at the same time you can't help creating the picture that was intended in the puzzle. Even without the box to look at, you can still build it. You can't help making the same picture as everyone else, whether or not you acknowledge that there is a picture. Whatever satisfaction comes from matching pieces is not the over all plan of the mission.

Do you remember, or do you not? Turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor is NOT about an in group. half of the parables Jesus told were about loving the outcast, the Gentile, the sinner. ANYONE can love an in-group. That's not morality. For the sake of this converstion, I don't think we need to dwell on what is or is not moral. So, you want to scientifically discover what is moral? Come on, would you respect a person who told you that they were moral because it was hard-wired into them, or because society wanted them to be? Lucky you. Hm. Cooperation allows us to live together in harmony. We could harmoniously cooperate to do what was immoral. I don't believe that morality is dependant on a group. I think that morality concerns what we do NOW, regardless of what got us to this point. What exactly are you trying to understand? What do you need to know so badly that hasn't been answered already in 'love thy neighbor'? And how is one person's version of loving more woo woo than the next? What did Ma Theresa do wrong? Did she understand human nature, or did she not?No one is talking about making God sad. Morality is about making ourselves sad. No, I think that morality is not about others. It can be judged by others, and applied to others, but it is essentially the etiquette of the soul. It is a thing that you can only do by looking to yourself, and discerning your own selfish and prideful side. If you look well to yourself, all of the rest will follow. Let me know when the results of the studies come in, so that I may figure out how to live life as a good person. NATOR!!!! Do you really think we can wait around for curiousity and scientific enquiry? Morality is about how you live life now, as an ignorant person, as an uneducated person, as a HUMAN. It's not a science.

You have still not answered the question of why loving people is moral. I wonder why.Basically science has started with the philosophy that loving others is good. Is that the 'hard-wired' part?Can you break down some of the parts you see in morality?Not everyone who is atheist is also science minded.I should be able to ask you point blank, no matter who you are, 'why are YOU moral' and receive an answer from personal conviction. Many teachers including Jesus have suggested that a large ingroup is of prime importance. I should like to know why you have chosen to embrace this thought as well. Ok, so that was a mere directive. Nevertheless, without this directive, we have no basis for our discussion, because science can't study a non-existant morality. What does 'teaching the concepts of morality' mean? These things are f*ed up based upon what? Oh, I know, that mere directive you mentioned. Guess what? That 'love thy large ingroup' idea is a philosophy that is relied on exclusively when you make moral determinations.

It's not wrong. It is the brunt of most spiritual writing actually. Is pride motivating our good deeds, even possibly corrupting them? A tough call that only the individual can make, but very important.Consider the kindly old lady, and the charitable functions widow. Both pop up in stories as opposing epitomes. One is of boredom and boastfulness, the other of honesty and practiced patience. Jesus had similar characters in the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee.I do not believe that human nature lies. We are disgusted by false motives for goodness. This indicates that in spite of the accidental and sometimes dangerous satisfaction we get from our actions, that we also recognize that doing good for praise or reward, or the mental image of our benevolent selves bent over backwards, detracts somehow from the intrinsic purity we associate with morality. Even the deed itself is affected. No one wants the flowers that were meant last night for the girl who dumped you. No one wants the gift you took out of your closet collection of duds.In general, as you say, the deed can still be a good one, but it is very hard to judge the morality of a person based on externals. If you concur with this thought, you will see why I repeat that morality is personal, and not social.
Laws are set in place to eliminate to a degree this personal aspect, and law can only make a determination of an action, not a person.

For the reasons I already have explained, I do not.I refrain from giving other examples of morality, because in those we have no common ground. The only area we agree on is the social aspect. My personal moral code includes the way I behave privately and towards God. This is a big part of morality for a Christian. If we look at the Bible, we are asked to love God first, and love our neighbor as ourselves. God and self are definitely included in the goal.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I understand nator. Really.The issue is that whenever you are asked for a naturalistic explanation of morality, you start talking about empathy. This makes me feel that you have concluded that loving others is good. Perhaps it is you who is misrepresenting science. Gosh darn it, you just messed up again! You are using fairness and reciprocity as examples of how higher primates have moral codes. Science can not determine that this is moral, right? The most you can be doing is saying that intelligence produces codes. Without the adjectives for moral behaviour that you have used, it is impossible to determine if lesser animals are producing codes as well.Although I understand that science can't answer what is moral, I have seen enough documentaries to know that scientists DO start with the premise that compassion is so. Birds are extremely compassionate creatures, btw, but I have no reason to think they are moral, or have any code other than instinct. I was hoping to hear 'all men were evolved equally and endowed by nature with inalienable rights' but oh well. I am content to know that something woo woo makes sense even to atheists.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well I guess that is where we don't speak the same language.When I think of morality, I am thinking specifically of things which we have made a determination of goodness upon. I am not thinking of fashions or modes, habits or acceptable slang terms. I am not thinking of ways of communication, or of what is considered polite. I am thinking about what is good.It's not that you are wrong or I am right, but I say what I say because of how I see the connotation of a word.I can not talk about monkey morality without the value judgment of goodness to go with it. I can merely say that monkeys seem to have social rules, and are compassionate. I have no idea how they feel about the goodness of their actions. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Right. That is fine.Now, many animals are very social. All social animals MUST have interaction, obviously. That means that all social animals are treating each other 'well' in so far as the other members of the group are happy and proliferating. The social interactions of finches are constant, they are devoted to each other, and hate being alone. There are benefits to this behaviour, as far as safety, warmth, energy expenditure, and food finding. They will alert each other to a new found supply of food. They will constantly chirp to 'home' a straying bird.Very moral of them.As I see it, you may think about social interactions all day and night, but moral behaviour is one SPECIFIC kind of social interaction based on the premise of Right and Wrong. It is not a nickname for all social behaviour in general.Therefore, scientists can not be saying that some animals are moral without using some principles of morality, i.e., determinations of what is good and evil, which we have created for ourselves.Exhibit A: You can see that what we consider moral is simply a value shared within a culture or a community. It is impossible to escape the fact that, when it comes to monkeys, apes really, all we can do is note that they share the same actions which we ourselves consider moral.Exhibit B. {I have to recheck the source there, sorry.}Here we see that...and rightly so...chimps are being called moral because of predetermined things which we consider moral. I DO believe these things are moral, and therefore I have NO problem with science presupposing that they are moral. But just so that the record is straight, we need to know that moral determinations are being made by science.abe...ok, I can see that if chimps are punishing or neglecting each other based on certain behaviours, that this points to a moral code sort of, regardless of what the behaviour is.../abeEdited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I think some people have caught on to the idea that morality IS about right and wrong. It does not matter what the specifics are, but it matters that we include the terms right and wrong.Generally speaking, when we talk of morality, it is not about how we interact period, but how we interact according to a standard. As I have said, I can accept that apes and monkeys may have a standard, because they will punish or act differentially toward others who do not comply. That is something not found in the behaviour of finches.I am still not limiting morality to the standard of behaviour amoung a culture. It is far more encompassing, with social actions only being a by-product of the person's own philosophy.