Morality without God

While there are indications of a genetic component to sexual preference, there is no "gay gene". Behaviors and preferences are complex traits usually involving several genes and heavily influenced by environment. It is like there is no gene for preferring steak to pork though there may be a genetic component for even such a preference. So one does not choose to have a particular taste, affinity for a specific color, whatever though the preferences may be influenced by ones genes.

Mr. Only, Maybe we're born gay, maybe we're not - there is no conclusive evidence either way. However, extrapolation from other better understood human traits would imply otherwise. It is very important however, to understand the difference between "being born" with a trait and it "not being a choice". I was born brown haired, dyslexic and green eyed. I am now good at maths, which was never a choice I made but none-the-less a result of a combination of genetics and environmental factors. In all likelyhood, sexual preference is controlled in a similar manner.Some circumstantial evidence for this view can be obtained from comparative studies of different cultures. Throughout history there have been examples of cultures that have widely practiced bisexuality - and, in short order, replaced or been replaced by cultures in which homosexuality was taboo. It is extremely unlikely that there was any significant shift in genetic distribution within these timescales. It leaves us nowhere. Like every other question of morality that you care to mention, science does not offer an answer.

Mammuthus:I have to admit that I’m a bit intimidated about posting a response. You obviously have a far better understanding of genetics than I do. But still I want to respond, if for no other reason than to learn.You say:I know some genetics and do have a basic understanding of such things as polygenic inheritance, pleiotropy, and linkage groups. As such, I agree that behaviors and preferences are indeed complex (and that the environment may have an influence on some of them)but sexual preference...I’m not so sure? How? Do you have any idea how the environment affects sexual preference? Are you saying that I could have gone the other way if during my early development the environment to which I was exposed had been different? I’m not trying to be a smart-ass, I’m really curious as to how the environment can lead to someone either being a heterosexual or a homosexual. Could someone that has a predisposition to be gay develop instead into a heterosexual if their environment is correct?
Or are you referring more to the individuals’ internal environmentfactors that may affect when certain genes are turned on and off? For example, things that could affect hormone release during development. But again, since these are not really under control of the individual, their sexual destiny is predetermined. And in that sense, they were born gay.You also state:While this is true, we also make no moral judgments on food preferences like this. Or do we? Is eating veal immoral? Anyway, that’s not my point. My point is this: we can argue that genes are in some way or another the root cause of everything associated with a living organism. But when it comes to how we act in societywell these are the things upon which we pass moral judgment.

Mr Jack:You made some valid points but I still have a question or two.You say:Ok, maybe this is true...but why did they practice bisexuality? Was it because they were genetically predisposed to such behavior, or was it because it was the accepted norm in their society? In other words, did those that engaged in this behavior do so because they were sexually attracted to members of both sexes, or was it because they were expected be engage in bisexuality? It makes a big difference.You say: But I’m not trying to answer moral questions with science, I’m trying to see if a belief in God is necessary to have morals, and arguing that morals without a belief in God is preferable, if we instead use science to answer questions about human behavior.

What if you were absolutely 100% convinced that it was GOD telling you this? Would you obey? Would it be right? I don't care what he's said in the past, GOD shows up in your living room, hits you with the holy ghost whammy and you Know its him. Do you obey?This is a strange question. You say you don't care what God said in the past, but what God said, what God was, is still what He is. God has already spelled out His view of morality. For Him to tell me to do something directly against what He has already said to be moral would merely show that whomever is talking to me is not Him.

Morality to me derives from within and exists regardless of existance of the supernatural or not. Your thoughts?Aha! The answer to the original post! Thank you. I now understand much of what has been written here, (apart from the homosexuality as genetics vs. choice posts. I really don't know of any studies that have looked at that as of yet. If anyone knows of some, please tell me.) The difference between morality for christians and non-christians isn't morality vs. lack of, it's simply a different source. Again, thank you for this post.

Its a simple hypothetical question. GOD pops up, convinces you that he's the guy, and commands you to smite and rape your mother, do you obey?Please note that for this scenario, you are 100% absolutely positively convince that its him. Try not to dodge the question.

---

*not an actual doctor

Not really, if the Bible is any indication. After forbidding killing, He ordered his followers to acts that could only be described as genocide.

quote:

---

For Him to tell me to do something directly against what He has already said to be moral would merely show that whomever is talking to me is not Him.

---

But you said that God is the source of morality.This means that he is not bound by it and can change it at any time.Therefore, if God said it was moral to do X (even if it is immoral by the old moral standard), it would be a moral thing to do, yes?

Flies Only, I can't answer those questions since we have only the historical record to go by. However I will say this:1. it is highly unlikely that there was a big genetic difference between cultures that practiced bisexuality and those that didn't (the time scales are just wrong).2. They did it as a form of recreation - some cultures going so far as to treat sex with their wives as an unpleasant duty to be got out of the way before they returned to the more pleasant recreation of buggering young boys. This strongly implies that they enjoyed it, whether this was a sexual attraction or simply a form of sexual release is not clear (by analogy, are you sexually attracted to your hand?). I'm not seeing the difference. If you look to decide whether a behaviour is moral or not on the basis of science's answers to questions about human behaviour then you're asking science for answers on moral questions and it won't give them.It may be able to give a verdict on whether the reasons behind the moral judgements you reach have any validity or not, but that still does not tell you whether the verdict you reached is 'correct' or not.

quote:

---

I have to admit that I’m a bit intimidated about posting a response. You obviously have a far better understanding of genetics than I do. But still I want to respond, if for no other reason than to learn.

---

No need to be intimidated...I beat on John Davison
Besides, the genetics of sexuality is not my speciality. I only know that on a few occassions, genetic linkage studies have been done which have implicated specific chromosomal regions as being involved in determining homosexuality and almost all of the studies have fallen apart because they are not reproducible. But if it is a multigene trait with environment involved, one would expect different results depending on the sample tested...that is why complex trait analysis is such a headache.

quote:

---

I’m not so sure? How? Do you have any idea how the environment affects sexual preference? Are you saying that I could have gone the other way if during my early development the environment to which I was exposed had been different? I’m not trying to be a smart-ass, I’m really curious as to how the environment can lead to someone either being a heterosexual or a homosexual.

---

I don't look at it as the environment makes you gay or not gay. It is more like if you have a predisposition towards favoring one behavior or another, your environment (including the amount of sex hormones you are exposed to) could tilt you one way or the other. It is not a fixed response. Here is another example. Mutations in the MOA gene lead to a tendency of extreme violence in mice and in humans. However, not everyone with the mutations will be violent. In a violent environment, a predisposition will get exacerbated.

quote:

---

While this is true, we also make no moral judgments on food preferences like this.

---

But some cultures do. Muslims don't eat pork for example. It is a sin.

quote:

---

My point is this: we can argue that genes are in some way or another the root cause of everything associated with a living organism.

---

I disagree with this. Genes can give you a starting plan, but then environment (including intracellular) has a huge effect. You may have a genetic composition that would indicate you will be six feet tall but because of environment, you turn out to be 5 feet tall. Genes are very important but I don't think you can rule out all sorts of evironmental effects that happen at every level from molecular to social.Perhaps though you should start a new topic on this subject? I think we are dragging the thread off topic.cheers
M

Hi achesst,

quote:

---

Aha! The answer to the original post! Thank you. I now understand much of what has been written here, (apart from the homosexuality as genetics vs. choice posts. I really don't know of any studies that have looked at that as of yet. If anyone knows of some, please tell me.)

---

Sorry about that. It is an interesting subject but the genetics and homosexuality is way off topic for your thread. A new thread should be started so that we can focus on your topic.

quote:

---

The difference between morality for christians and non-christians isn't morality vs. lack of, it's simply a different source. Again, thank you for this post.

---

Could you elaborate a bit? For example, if you personally are confronted with a situation that involves making a difficult ethical decision and you choose to do what you consider the good/moral/right thing to do, do you feel that the decision came from you or from your god? Same question if you decide to do something you realize is probably bad. Are immoral acts only reserved for people and moral acts are all because of a divine being?

Mr Jack: This supports what I was saying. Genetics did not play a role in their behavior. Ummmwhat are you trying to imply herelol? (good one though). But again this kind of supports my claim. They may have enjoyed the end result of the behavior, butt (ha sorry...couldn’t resist) they may have only behaved as society wanted, not as what their genes wanted.
Wait...are you trying to make me decide if the same behavior is immoral under one circumsatnce (they made the choice to behave as such) and not immoral in another (their genes made em do it)? Exactly! Again, the topic is whether or not God is necessary in order for one to have morals. I say He is not and also that (at least as far as the God of the Christian Bible goes) not having Him is perhaps better.
I guess my question to anyone reading this thread would be: Do you consider homosexuality to be immoral..why or why not?

Mammuthus: Yes you doand I soooo enjoy reading those posts. That’s why I am intimidatedbecause I don’t want to suffer the same fate . I have been known to make some classic blunders because I did not think it through before I wrote it down. (see the Noahs Ark and Altitude screw-up I madeI’m still embarrassed () about that one). I would start another thread, but in all honesty I’m not sure how well the debate would go. I have a very limited understanding of this topic myself and would really only be able to ask questions and would not be able to supply very many answers. I’d feel a bit foolish starting a thread topic of which I know very little about. But hey, if the Adims feel that a new thread is warranted
As a matter of fact, I did start a new thread and I responded to things you said here, so if you would be so kind as to at least take a peek at that thread (Proposed new topics), I’d appreciated it.

Don't dodge the question? You've set up a question so far fetched that there's is nothing I can do BUT tell you it would never happen. However, that doesn't seem to be enough for you. You won't be satisfied until I either admit God is immoral, or that I am unthinking and blindly follow. Neither of these answers is correct, as the situation will never occur.
However, I will answer your question on your terms.
1.) This being is God, meaning what He says should be followed
2.) God goes against what God has already said people should do, and tells me to do the opposite, therefore, the being is not God
3.) Unfortunately, saying the being isn't God is not good enough, so I need to find a different answer.
4.) Since this being is the only option for God, this situation would convince me that there is no God.
So there's my answer for you. Is it good enough to say that this fellow isn't God, so there isn't one? Or do I have to say I'd rape and kill my mom to make you happy? Either way, I have consistantly said this situation will not happen, please understand that. Should it come up, the being wouldn't be God. If you say he is the only God option available, I say there is no God. Hope this isn't too much, "question dodging" for you.