Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality without god
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 91 of 1221 (678111)
11-05-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by GDR
11-03-2012 4:55 PM


Ultimate Standards
There is no ultimate standard, but it seems to me that is what we should expect of a just god.
I agree. It's not what we should expect of a wise God.
There are two frames of reference when using terms like "moral" or "just."
The first is very human-centric, it's whether or not we find any particular thing moral or not according to our own moral system (whatever that may be).
The second is in an outsider-sense, judging whether or not something is moral when compared against a set of specific regulations.
(Of course, my use of the word "wise" can also fall to this same equivocation... I just used your quote as a springboard to further explain my own ideas. Used it like a dirty rag. Hope you don't mind... )
For an extreme example, we can consider an Evil God.
This Evil God is actually the one-true-God that actually exists. Evil God's absolute moral standard says that killing babies is moral. Not for some "unknown to us" reason, just for no reason at all, just because He is God therefore He sets the ultimate, moral standard.
Now, it is simple to identify that when people kill babies, they are acting just and moral according to Evil God's absolute standard.
But, it takes a bit of analysis (not too much, in this extreme example) to identify that killing babies is actually unjust according to our own human, personal moral system.
I actually don't have a problem in acknowledging an ultimate, absolute moral standard (in the sense of it simply existing). It may very well exist and we have yet to find a way to identify it.
My point is that even if it did exist and was completely identifiable, it wouldn't matter. Because what does actually matter is our own, human, personal moral system.
Some people tend to think that their personal moral system already is some "absolute standard" from God. Although when asked to describe it, they don't seem to be able to describe anything concrete at all. Just vague comments about it being "in the Bible" or "on our hearts" so we don't have to worry about it. Of course, it's just a rationalization they've come up with so that they don't need to think about it... because it isn't easy to think about. Others, even worse, don't care for even the simplest moral analysis and will accept the absolute standard (whatever it may be...) simply because it is absolute. These people are scary. They do not function on the level of concepts or ideas, simply definitions. They actually think they can be moral through definitional semantics soley by aligning with an ultimate, absolute standard (whatever that might include...).
Now, lets say we do understand the concept of being moral, and we find the subject to be important. Maybe we want to be a better person, or even just a good person. Since the important concept of morality is our own personal moral system, it becomes very important to know, specifically, what our own personal moral system is. This involves understanding "good" and "bad" and identifying a way to tell the difference. It is not an easy thing to do, but it is absolutely necessary to get through if the idea of "being good" is important to you.
The only absolute moral idea I acknowledge, is to remain open to alternative moral plans that may offer a better way for achieving "being a good person" better than my own current system. If such an idea can be described and understood, then I can grow my current system into a better version. (Also known as the "I can be wrong" clause)
The beauty of this system is that the idea of a perfect God who "cannot be wrong" and does know the best moral system "to be good" doesn't even disappear! If such a God exists, we would easily be able to analyze their system, compare it to our own, see that it is, indeed, superior... and make any changes such that our own personal moral system aligns with our understanding of it.
And best of all, we would understand why we aligned with the abosolute moral system instead of just doing it out of some simplistic sense of following orders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by GDR, posted 11-03-2012 4:55 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by GDR, posted 11-05-2012 3:49 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 92 of 1221 (678112)
11-05-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dogmafood
11-03-2012 2:59 PM


Golden Schmolden
First off, I would like to say that I am smiling the entire time I'm writing this post. The fact that I'm (going to be...) quibbling over such a small detail of morality means that the major stuff is agree upon so it really don't matter either way. But I like details, so here's my thoughts:
Good parts from your post I agree with:
Dogmafood writes:
My life will be better if your life is better.
...
Christ's brilliant message was that we are all part of the same tribe.
The part I want to quibble over:
(Jesus Christ) recognized that kindness and the golden rule are the wellspring of happiness, contentment and a better quality of life.
I don't think the Golden Rule is the best option for moral systems. I think it's good... but I think it can easily be better.
My understanding of the Golden Rule:
Do unto others as you would have done unto you...
Love your neighbour as you love yourself...
Basically... treat other people as you would like to be treated.
I think it would be even better (and simpler) if we just treated other people as they want to be treated.
Simple example: Gay Marriage.
I'm a guy. I'm not gay. I like girls. I married a girl.
If I wanted to treat others as I wanted to be treated (guys marry girls)... I could easily argue that I should be against gay marriage.
However, if I wanted to treat others as they wanted to be treated... obviously I would be for gay marriage (as long as it's their choice).
Of course, the easy way to get around this is to say "I like making my own choice about who I marry" therefore, I should want to treat others the same way and I would be for gay marriage according to the Golden Rule. But this takes a certain level of thought and analysis that some folk just don't seem to be capable of.
My point is that the possible confusion can simply be removed by putting in "treat others as they want to be treated" instead of the selfishly-centric general Golden Rule in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dogmafood, posted 11-03-2012 2:59 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2012 2:32 PM Stile has replied
 Message 102 by Dogmafood, posted 11-06-2012 8:37 PM Stile has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 93 of 1221 (678129)
11-05-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dogmafood
11-05-2012 12:35 AM


Re: Lack of Standard
Dogmafood writes:
However, when I understand the ToE and it's time span and I watch as it provides explanation after explanation for the intricacies of our behaviour. When I accept the relative age and size of the universe. After it becomes clear that real knowledge is ours for the finding. Then it becomes clear that the bible is just a collection of what we knew at that point in time. Simply what we wrote down first in an effort to combat the absurdity of life.
I don’t see that it is relevant to figure time into the equation. Time is just the way that we understand change and as we only have the one time dimension we are limited to viewing things in one way. For that matter mankind hasn’t been around all that long anyway.
Dogmafood writes:
It seems to me that the God of the bible is a result of our morality. Again, a cultural reinforcement of the fact that cooperation is beneficial. I think the real question is 'would there be a God without morality?' and I think that the answer is no.
Of course I would ask the question the other way around. Would there be morality without God. It is my belief that there wouldn’t be but I can’t know that objectively. Either way I agree that the Bible is largely a result of our morality but it is also a result of man’s search for meaning in life. (Which is not to say that an atheists can’t find meaning in life.)
dogmafood writes:
Now it may be that our morality is evidence for God's existence but that looks like a loop to me.
It is a loop no matter what conclusion we come to.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dogmafood, posted 11-05-2012 12:35 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dogmafood, posted 11-06-2012 9:14 PM GDR has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 94 of 1221 (678132)
11-05-2012 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Stile
11-05-2012 12:25 PM


Re: Golden Schmolden
My point is that the possible confusion can simply be removed by putting in "treat others as they want to be treated" instead of the selfishly-centric general Golden Rule in the first place.
So if a guy wants you to blow him ... ?
If I want you to send me a large check ... ?
That rule would oblige you to respect the desires of other people as well as their rights.
(I seem to vaguely remember that there was a book written by a guy who decided that he'd spend a year saying "yes" to every request that was made of him. I forget how that turned out. Does anyone else know anything about this?)
Of course, the easy way to get around this is to say "I like making my own choice about who I marry" therefore, I should want to treat others the same way and I would be for gay marriage according to the Golden Rule. But this takes a certain level of thought and analysis that some folk just don't seem to be capable of.
Yes, well, that doesn't invalidate the rule, does it? It means that some people are idiots.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Stile, posted 11-05-2012 12:25 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Stile, posted 11-06-2012 8:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 95 of 1221 (678142)
11-05-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Stile
11-05-2012 12:06 PM


Re: Ultimate Standards
Stile writes:
There are two frames of reference when using terms like "moral" or "just."
The first is very human-centric, it's whether or not we find any particular thing moral or not according to our own moral system (whatever that may be).
The second is in an outsider-sense, judging whether or not something is moral when compared against a set of specific regulations.
I agree with separating the two. In the case of how we view what we do ourselves when it comes to things moral, it isn’t so much what we do it is what drives us to do it. A simple example is honesty. Is it important to us that we be truthful whether anyone else knows or not, or are we able to overcome our conscience when we tell a lie when we are confident that no one will know?
In regards to our outsider-sense I think that it boils down to the fact that some things are more egregiously self-centred than others and so it is obvious. Much of how we view others though is based on the culture.
Stile writes:
(Of course, my use of the word "wise" can also fall to this same equivocation... I just used your quote as a springboard to further explain my own ideas. Used it like a dirty rag. Hope you don't mind... )
I take it as a compliment.
Stile writes:
For an extreme example, we can consider an Evil God.
This Evil God is actually the one-true-God that actually exists. Evil God's absolute moral standard says that killing babies is moral. Not for some "unknown to us" reason, just for no reason at all, just because He is God therefore He sets the ultimate, moral standard.
Now, it is simple to identify that when people kill babies, they are acting just and moral according to Evil God's absolute standard.
But, it takes a bit of analysis (not too much, in this extreme example) to identify that killing babies is actually unjust according to our own human, personal moral system.
And yet as humans we have been able to justify and frequently, and in a some cases justified it by saying that god wanted it done. If God exists the question is discerning what His attributes are. I think that we would agree that mankind is evolving morally when we look over long periods of time. I think that if God exists it would be logical to assume that our morality would have a trajectory that pointed in the direction of His desired morality for us.
Stile writes:
I actually don't have a problem in acknowledging an ultimate, absolute moral standard (in the sense of it simply existing). It may very well exist and we have yet to find a way to identify it.
Again, I just don’t see it as being absolute. Maybe in some rare instance a moral case can be made for killing a baby.
Stile writes:
My point is that even if it did exist and was completely identifiable, it wouldn't matter. Because what does actually matter is our own, human, personal moral system.
I think it would matter, because if it was completely identifiable we would lose a lot of the ability to freely choose. If it isn’t an absolute then we are left with our hearts free to sort out our morality.
Stile writes:
Some people tend to think that their personal moral system already is some "absolute standard" from God. Although when asked to describe it, they don't seem to be able to describe anything concrete at all. Just vague comments about it being "in the Bible" or "on our hearts" so we don't have to worry about it. Of course, it's just a rationalization they've come up with so that they don't need to think about it... because it isn't easy to think about. Others, even worse, don't care for even the simplest moral analysis and will accept the absolute standard (whatever it may be...) simply because it is absolute. These people are scary. They do not function on the level of concepts or ideas, simply definitions. They actually think they can be moral through definitional semantics soley by aligning with an ultimate, absolute standard (whatever that might include...).
I don’t have a problem with that. I believe it is from God but not that it’s an absolute.
Stile writes:
Now, lets say we do understand the concept of being moral, and we find the subject to be important. Maybe we want to be a better person, or even just a good person. Since the important concept of morality is our own personal moral system, it becomes very important to know, specifically, what our own personal moral system is. This involves understanding "good" and "bad" and identifying a way to tell the difference. It is not an easy thing to do, but it is absolutely necessary to get through if the idea of "being good" is important to you.
The only absolute moral idea I acknowledge, is to remain open to alternative moral plans that may offer a better way for achieving "being a good person" better than my own current system. If such an idea can be described and understood, then I can grow my current system into a better version. (Also known as the "I can be wrong" clause)
The beauty of this system is that the idea of a perfect God who "cannot be wrong" and does know the best moral system "to be good" doesn't even disappear! If such a God exists, we would easily be able to analyze their system, compare it to our own, see that it is, indeed, superior... and make any changes such that our own personal moral system aligns with our understanding of it.
And best of all, we would understand why we aligned with the abosolute moral system instead of just doing it out of some simplistic sense of following orders.
I think what you describe is pretty close to how I understand morality from a Christian perspective.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Stile, posted 11-05-2012 12:06 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 11-06-2012 9:15 AM GDR has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 96 of 1221 (678242)
11-06-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2012 2:32 PM


Re: Golden Schmolden
I don't understand.
I was comparing a basic understanding of The Golden Rule with an updated version. Your examples are also issues with The Golden Rule, so I don't see the point you're trying to make.
Dr Adequate writes:
So if a guy wants you to blow him ... ?
But even using the Golden Rule, I like getting blowjobs, so I should give everyone else blowjobs without asking them about it?
If I want you to send me a large check ... ?
Again with the Golden Rule, I like getting large checks, so I should give large checks to others all the time?
I never said that my replacement rules (or even The Golden Rule itself) should be the only rule.
I just said that my form of it was a more thoughtful and better version for when the rule should be used.
Yes, well, that doesn't invalidate the rule, does it? It means that some people are idiots.
Exactly.
I never said The Golden Rule was bad, in fact I said that it was "good." I just said that my proposal was better as it would also remove the confusion for "the idiots."
People who aren't idiots don't really need lessons on morality in the first place, they've already shown they're capable of thinking and analyzing.
My point is that if you're smart enough to be able to apply The Golden Rule, then it would be even better if you went further and applied my version of it.
I even acknowledged that if you're smart enough to understand the difference between "I like straight marriage" and "I like my personal choice of straight marriage" then you already apply my proposed rule anyway.
If I like chocolate ice-cream, is it better for me to force everyone else to have chocolate ice-cream (strict Golden Rule)? Or better for me to let everyone else choose whatever option they like (my proposal)?
Of course the answer is it's better to let everyone choose whatever option they like.
You don't seem to have added anything other than to suggest that moral systems should include more than a single simple one-liner.
If that's the point you're trying to make, I certainly agree. I just thought it was obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2012 2:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 5:12 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 97 of 1221 (678247)
11-06-2012 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by GDR
11-05-2012 3:49 PM


Absolute Control
I don't really have a point of contention at this time, I'm just a bit confused and would like to ask some questions in order to try and understand your position.
I was attempting to explain how even if God did make Himself freely available to us, and did show us an absolute "moral charter" (somehow...), it's still our choice to follow that charter or not. That is, we can judge the charter as moral or not ourselves (like if it happens to be telling us to kill every baby we see or something equally silly) so therefore it doesn't really matter.
Your response seemed to indicate that you kind of agreed with me (the last part of your message) but you also hinted that the presented "moral charter" might have some sort of control over us? I'm just interested in exploring that view.
GDR writes:
Again, I just don’t see it as being absolute. Maybe in some rare instance a moral case can be made for killing a baby.
I agree that "maybe in some rare instance a moral case can be made for killing a baby" (although I do not like to type it ).
And in this sense, I understand what you mean by "I don't see it as being absolute."
What I meant was that the absolute moral code would exist (if presented by a God) as the "moral charter" I mentioned above.
In this sense, if the moral charter said "Always good to kill babies, let no baby leave your sight alive, ever" ...then such a statement would be "absolute" in the sense that it's objective and provided to us by God.
The fact that you and I don't agree with it is what I'm calling our "personal moral system" (or "choosing with our hearts," if you prefer) which is allowing us to judge the provided moral charter. This doesn't remove the absolute-God-given-objective charter. It's still there, it's still written, it's still from God (albeit an Evil God), it's still objective. I will still burn in Hell (or whatever punishment the Evil God may have for disobedience) for not killing babies.
GDR writes:
Stile writes:
My point is that even if it did exist and was completely identifiable, it wouldn't matter. Because what does actually matter is our own, human, personal moral system.
I think it would matter, because if it was completely identifiable we would lose a lot of the ability to freely choose.
I don't understand how we would "lose the ability to freely choose."
If Evil God came down and showed the absolute, ultimate moral charter that included killing babies as a good thing to do... I could still choose not to do it. I may very well have to deal with Evil God's punishment... but where am I losing my freedom to choose to not kill babies?
If it isn’t an absolute then we are left with our hearts free to sort out our morality.
Are you trying to say that if Evil God actually had such an absolute moral charter, than I would start killing babies and there's no such thing as free-will?
Or are you trying to say that if Evil God provides the charter, and I choose not to follow it... then the charter isn't "absolute" anymore and this shows the Evil God to be false?
Or are you simply saying that the existance of free-will alone simply eliminates the possibility of an absolute moral charter right off the bat? Even if it is "given straight from the hands of God Himself"? ...I think this is what you're saying, but the "absolute moral charter" (in my example, anyway) would still exist. It doesn't get eliminated, Evil God still exists, His moral charter still exists, His punishments/rewards still exist. They're just useless (as I said initially).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by GDR, posted 11-05-2012 3:49 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by GDR, posted 11-06-2012 12:00 PM Stile has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 98 of 1221 (678265)
11-06-2012 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by GDR
11-02-2012 7:15 PM


So...No God needed?
It seems to me that you want it both ways. You seem to ask that Christians come up with a definitive view of God and an objective answer to how he wants us to behave but then say that you would object to a Big Brother forcing us to be moral.
Not that I would object to something evidenced giving us an objective moral standard to live by. However, no I would not be good with a Big Brother forcing us to be moral, it should be an individual's choice to try and better the world. Why is a bad idea that Christians should come up with a consistent view of God? If it is because people are different then that simply implies that God is an idea made up in people's minds, which is why different regions of the world have different morals, standards, and gods. As for morals, without this consistency I do not see how people can come to a conclusion on objective morality.
Do the Muslims have the right idea when they murder individuals for their God? Did the Christians have the right idea when they tortured and killed people during the Inquisition? Or did Jesus have the right idea when he said to love everyone? I would like to hear how these ideas can find an objective moral standard, or are there as many objective moral standards as there are religions? Using the different holy books of the world, I am quite sure I could find something that will allow me to do almost anything I want. If this is the case, then it seems like we would be better off attempting to find objectivity in morals through thought and reason, rather than through a multitude of religions that have been fractured and splintered into different groups throughout history.
It is obvious that Christians do have varying ideas on the nature of God and how we are to respond to Him. In a sense that is the point. As humans we make moral choices. Christ is quoted as saying that we are to love others with our heart, mind and soul. If we take that message on board, whether as a Christian or not, then we are then able to be used by God to alleviate suffering in the world. I believe however, that we have the free will to reject that message and focus on loving ourselves.It isn't about what we do, but about what it is in our hearts that drives us. God is not a Big Brother.
Perhaps Big Brother was too strong of a phrase, but when I hear about the giant man in the sky who watches everyone do everything, that is kind of the image that springs into my mind. So, if we take the message of "Love one another" on board, whether or not we are Christian, then we can do good in the world? What need is there for a God in this scenario? If all we must do is take a simple phrase to heart, then there is no need for an ultimate rule giver at all. We know the phrase and everyone is capable of making a choice to live that way. This falls completely into humanity's abilities, nothing supernatural needed. Instead of worrying about which God's rules or how to live by them, we should worry about actually living as a community and finding ways to make Earth better for everyone...Again, no God needed. If this is the case, why look to the supernatural for moral standards, we can find objective morals through analyzing human history and where humans would like to get to.
Within Christianity God is often called Father just as Jesus did. I suggest that this isn't a bad metaphor to go with. A good human father raises his children to think independently and to choose right over wrong. I believe that God is very much like that.
I have heard God referred to as the father. After all, I was raised Catholic. However the statement I have an issue with here is God is raising people to think independantly and choose right over wrong. Many of the Christian faiths are suffering from a large amount of group think (as evidenced by the number of PRATTs that are used to argue online here) and independant thought is not of the highest concern. Also, history dictates that the Christian faith has not exactly chosen right over wrong all the time, which has led to many atrocities (Note: I am including Catholics as Christians, since they both believe Christ was God). It would seem that if God is the father, he is quite incompetent at passing on this message in order to get his people to live by his moral standard....whatever that may be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by GDR, posted 11-02-2012 7:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 11-06-2012 3:21 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 99 of 1221 (678266)
11-06-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Stile
11-06-2012 9:15 AM


Re: Absolute Control
Stile writes:
I was attempting to explain how even if God did make Himself freely available to us, and did show us an absolute "moral charter" (somehow...), it's still our choice to follow that charter or not. That is, we can judge the charter as moral or not ourselves (like if it happens to be telling us to kill every baby we see or something equally silly) so therefore it doesn't really matter.
Your response seemed to indicate that you kind of agreed with me (the last part of your message) but you also hinted that the presented "moral charter" might have some sort of control over us? I'm just interested in exploring that view.
If humans had absolute knowledge of an all powerful God and absolute knowledge of a moral charter which was decreed by God then, even if we had the opportunity to reject that moral charter, it seems to me that it would probably be in our best interest to adhere to it.
I see it as being about the heart that drives our sense of morality. Our heart is our essence after everything else is stripped away. If we have absolute knowledge then our heart is never really free to choose the unselfish path. I’d suggest that when an atheist gives a thousand dollar donation to a third world charity he is closer to the heart of God than is some Christian who believes that his thousand dollar donation is going to put him into God’s good books, everything else being equal.
Stile writes:
I agree that "maybe in some rare instance a moral case can be made for killing a baby" (although I do not like to type it ).
And in this sense, I understand what you mean by "I don't see it as being absolute."
What I meant was that the absolute moral code would exist (if presented by a God) as the "moral charter" I mentioned above.
In this sense, if the moral charter said "Always good to kill babies, let no baby leave your sight alive, ever" ...then such a statement would be "absolute" in the sense that it's objective and provided to us by God.
The fact that you and I don't agree with it is what I'm calling our "personal moral system" (or "choosing with our hearts," if you prefer) which is allowing us to judge the provided moral charter. This doesn't remove the absolute-God-g iven-objective charter. It's still there, it's still written, it's still from God (albeit an Evil God), it's still objective. I will still burn in Hell (or whatever punishment the Evil God may have for disobedience) for not killing babies.
But there is a moral charter in the Bible. It is in my signature from the prophet Micah and it is also restated differently in Deuteronomy and in the Gospels. We are to humbly love kindness and mercy, and to act justly. That is the Christian moral charter. The thing is of course you can’t command someone to be humble and you can’t command someone to love. Again, it all comes from the heart. The laws of the OT are a fore-shadowing of what it looks like when people have hearts that freely choose love.
Stile writes:
I don't understand how we would "lose the ability to freely choose."
If Evil God came down and showed the absolute, ultimate mo ral charter that included killing babies as a good thing to do... I could still choose not to do it. I may very well have to deal with Evil God's punishment... but where am I losing my freedom to choose to not kill babies?
Sure, we might retain the ability to reject God and accept the punishment but when we choose to accept the charter of either a good god or an evil god we know that it is in our best interest and so we have relinquished the ability to choose without a certainty of the self-interest involved.
Stile writes:
Are you trying to say that if Evil God actually had such an absolute moral charter, than I would start killing babies and there's no such thing as free-will?
Or are you trying to say that if Evil God provides the charter, and I choose not to follow it... then the charter isn't "absolute" anymore and this shows the Evil God to be false?
Or are you simply saying that the existance of free-will alone simply eliminates the possibility of an absolute moral charter right off the bat? Even if it is "given straight from the hands of God Himself"? ... I think this is what you're saying, but the "absolute moral charter" (in my example, anyway) would still exist. It doesn't get eliminated, Evil God still exists, His moral charter still exists, His punishments/rewards still exist. They're just useless (as I said initially).
I’m saying that free will doesn’t eliminate the possibility of a moral charter but I would say that free will does eliminate the possibility of a moral charter that can be followed by the heart alone. A moral charter could give us a set of laws that we could follow like speed limits but that isn’t the point. The point is, do I not kill babies because I might go to prison or do I not kill babies because the idea is absolutely repugnant to me. It is all about the heart.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 11-06-2012 9:15 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Stile, posted 11-07-2012 8:53 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 100 of 1221 (678283)
11-06-2012 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
11-06-2012 11:57 AM


Re: So...No God needed?
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
Not that I would object to something evidenced giving us an objective moral standard to live by. However, no I would not be good with a Big Brother forcing us to be moral, it should be an individual's choice to try and better the world. Why is a bad idea that Christians should come up with a consistent view of God? If it is because people are different then that simply implies that God is an idea made up in people's minds, which is why different regions of the world have different morals, standards, and gods. As for morals, witho ut this consistency I do not see how people can come to a conclusion on objective morality.
I agree that much of what individuals believe about God is made up in their own minds. We have a strong tendency to believe in a god made in our own image. My point was that if we were given a definitive moral standard by a god that was unquestionably known it would essentially make that god a big brother telling us how to behave. God as I understand him wants us to have hearts that freely choose to love unselfishly.
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
Do the Muslims have the right idea when they murder individuals for their God? Did the Christians have the right idea when they tortured and killed people during the Inquisition? Or did Jesus have the right idea when he said to love everyone? I would like to hear how these ideas can find an objective moral standard, or are there as many objective moral standards as there are religions? Using the different holy books of the world, I am quite sure I could find something that will allow me to do almost anything I want. If this is the case, then it seems like we would be better off attempting to find objectivity in morals through thought and reason, rather than through a multitude of religions that have been fractured and splintered into different groups throughout history.
I would argue as a Christian that we should use thought and reason in understanding the Bible. Yes, the Bible can be used to justify immoral acts. The thing is that the Bible is not a compilation of books dictated by God but it is the story of God interacting with His creation over a long time frame as told imperfectly by people with their personal and cultural biases. Invariably people have used religion, nationalism etc to justify a power grab. If it wasn’t religion people would just find something else.
It is clear IMHO that the NT writers believed that Jesus had been bodily resurrected. We come to our own conclusions about the accuracy of their beliefs in that regard, but if they were right we can essentially at that one moment in human history God did speak to us directly in justifying Jesus and His ministry.
You suggest that that we can find objectivity in morals through thought and reason and therefore have no need for God. It seems to me that if there is no god, and if there is no fundamental objective morality then all that we can do is subjectively come to moral conclusions, and who is to say who is right. There however does seem to be a fundamental morality built into us. I think that everyone essentially agrees that stealing is wrong. However people steal, and when they do they don’t try and say it is a good thing, but they either justify it or essentially say they just don’t care that what they did was wrong.
We can come to moral conclusions by thought and reason but we cannot tell whether or not we are capable of that because of the nature of the way that God created us or not. We have to come to our own conclusions about whether intelligence and morality is more likely to have evolved from an intelligent and moral first cause or whether it evolved from a non-moral, non-intelligent collection of particles.
I think this reply deals with the rest of your post that I didn't quote.
Cheers

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 11-06-2012 11:57 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 101 of 1221 (678286)
11-06-2012 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dogmafood
10-27-2012 7:38 AM


Re: As A Man Thinks In his heart
What I don't see is this other element that enters the equation and somehow causes people to behave in a manner that they understand to be ultimately detrimental to themselves.
What about self-sacrifice? Isn't that pretty self-detrimental?
The person who jumps on a grenade to save his friend. If the grenade went off otherwise, his friend would die, so he'd be the only witness to the action. He'd suffer no social stigma, he'd be alive and able to procreate (potentially), yet he still jumps on the grenade.
Are you saying that he's immediately calculating the potential happiness (or regret) that would come from living versus the vast maw of nothingness that is death, and he's calculating that there is more benefit in the maw?
That just doesn't make any sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dogmafood, posted 10-27-2012 7:38 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dogmafood, posted 11-06-2012 9:46 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 102 of 1221 (678300)
11-06-2012 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Stile
11-05-2012 12:25 PM


Re: Golden Schmolden
My point is that the possible confusion can simply be removed by putting in "treat others as they want to be treated" instead of the selfishly-centric general Golden Rule in the first place.
I think that it is best left as it is. As Dr A points out, if a person is not able to do the heavy lifting of moral calculus then they are not capable of being a moral person.
Our will to survive is the most fundamental behavioural element that we all share. That is why the golden rule works so well. In referencing the self we ensure that our behaviour is both fair and acceptable. This doesn't try to wash away cultural differences but takes advantage of the fact that we are all basically driven by the same motives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Stile, posted 11-05-2012 12:25 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Stile, posted 11-07-2012 9:14 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 103 of 1221 (678302)
11-06-2012 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by GDR
11-05-2012 2:15 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
I don’t see that it is relevant to figure time into the equation. Time is just the way that we understand change and as we only have the one time dimension we are limited to viewing things in one way. For that matter mankind hasn’t been around all that long anyway.
Well no, we haven't been around that long, perhaps 200k yrs but the bible has only been around for about, what? 1700 yrs. The observation concerning time is relevant because it shows that we were developing our morals for quite a while before God made an appearance. No doubt he was there before we wrote him down but not much before and certainly not before our sense of right and wrong.
If there is a visible mechanism and driver for the development of our morality then I don't see how that supports the existence of the God in the bible. I agree that there could be a God and he could have made us this way but it seems like such an unnecessary assumption.
Would there be morality without God. It is my belief that there wouldn’t be but I can’t know that objectively.
I think that you can know objectively because if we take away the entire concept of God we still have our morals. If we take away our morals, our sense of right and wrong, then there would be no such thing as God. How could there be?
It is a loop no matter what conclusion we come to.
Well I disagree. There is no question that the idea of God serves as a strong reinforcement of moral behaviour. There is no doubt that God showed up long after the moral behaviour was well established. There is no doubt that God has changed since we first started writing about him. The loop only comes after we invent God and project him back to the beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 11-05-2012 2:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by GDR, posted 11-07-2012 10:42 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 104 of 1221 (678305)
11-06-2012 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Perdition
11-06-2012 4:07 PM


Re: As A Man Thinks In his heart
Are you saying that he's immediately calculating the potential happiness (or regret) that would come from living versus the vast maw of nothingness that is death, and he's calculating that there is more benefit in the maw?
No. In a life and death situation the calculations are mostly subconscious. They are hard wired. If you could hit the pause button and consider the ramifications of jumping on the grenade how often do you think it would happen? I'll bet that the genetic connection would have to be much stronger.
I would try to save my child from a burning building or your child for that matter. I would maybe try to save you but maybe not. I would certainly go for your child under more threatening circumstances than I would go for you. The same reason that I might hold open the door for someone. Empathy. I would sure want someone to come and save me. This is why the golden rule works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Perdition, posted 11-06-2012 4:07 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 105 of 1221 (678353)
11-07-2012 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by GDR
11-06-2012 12:00 PM


Always from the Heart
GDR writes:
If humans had absolute knowledge of an all powerful God and absolute knowledge of a moral charter which was decreed by God then, even if we had the opportunity to reject that moral charter, it seems to me that it would probably be in our best interest to adhere to it.
Why is that?
This is exactly why I proposed the example of an all powerful (Evil) God who advocates killing babies in every and all circumstances.
Feel free to add in that we have absolute knowledge about this God, and that He really does decree that killing babies whenever you see one is always a good thing to do.
How can this be seen as "in our best interest" to adhere to it?
I think we both find the idea of killing babies to be rather horrible. It's also pretty clear that the human race would go extinct in a generation as well...
If we have the opportunity to reject such a system, either with our hearts or our brains... why would you think it would be best to adhere to it?
My point is simply to show that we always choose "with our hearts."
Whether it's this Evil God, or the God-of-the-Bible-that-GDR-believes-in. One may be quite a bit more palatable than the other, even to the point of giving reason to trust in His decisions for difficult to understand situations. However, I still think we're choosing "with our hearts" given the information we know about (whichever) God.
I don't think it's ever a morally good idea to simply follow an all-powerful God's plan just because He's all-powerful (or all-knowing, or both). That's the point of the baby-killing example.
The point is, do I not kill babies because I might go to prison or do I not kill babies because the idea is absolutely repugnant to me. It is all about the heart.
That, I certainly agree with.
It's just that the beginning of your post (my first quote here) seems to me to say that you think it's best to follow an all-powerful/all-knowing God regardless of your heart. Then at the end (my last quote here) says it's "all about the heart."
I suppose I don't understand how you're saying that following an all-powerful/all-knowing God (even giving that we are also all-knowing) is equal to "following our hearts," when we don't even know anything about what our hearts would be following...
To me, knowledge and morality are separate things.
Two men can have the same level of knowledge, one may want to use that knowledge for good things, the other for bad things.
Two Gods (or beings) can have absolute knowledge and/or absolute power. One may want to use their gifts for good things, the other for bad things.
You seem to be saying that knowledge leads one to act morally good? Therefore, if one has absolute knowledge, then they will also be absolutely benevolent as a by-product from that knowledge?
If so, are you able to describe why you think such a link should be assumed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by GDR, posted 11-06-2012 12:00 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024