Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 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! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 196 of 438 (516943)
07-28-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Cedre
07-28-2009 9:16 AM


Positive Evidence
Hello again Cedre,
quote:
Objective morality exist because God exists
Again I ask; where is your evidence?
Throughout this thread you have challenged others to provide evidence for an evolutionary explanation for morality. Turnabout seems like fair play to me; where is your evidence?
What credible positive evidence for God creating morality do you have? If it none, just answer "None". If it is Genesis 2 just answer "Genesis 2" and have done with it.
Others have tried to back up their positions with reasonable evidence. What makes you think that you don't have to? We are not just going to take your word for it you know...
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Cedre, posted 07-28-2009 9:16 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 197 of 438 (516971)
07-28-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Cedre
07-28-2009 9:16 AM


Moral Make-Up
No, it doesn’t make morality subjective, God is an absolutely moral being, and therefore whatever he says is absolutely moral and nothing less.
And whatever God does is also "absoluetly moral and nothing less" right?
So how, given gods record or not practising what he preaches, do we know what is right and what is wrong?
Some kill in the name of God. Some say killing is forbidden by the word of God. The problem with any stance that claims an absolute morality is that even in the unlikely event that such a thing exists nobody seems to consistently know what it is. It is all a matter of interpretation to the point that we might as well ignore it and try to rationally work out how to construct the sort of society we want to live in and the morality that is required to achieve that.
In short we might as well assume that we are complex intelligent social animals who have dispirate wants and desires and then try to work out the best way of all getting along together without wiping ourselves out.
I would suggest a basic foundation of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" as the best approach to this. I would also suggest that as an evolved species we would expect this sort of approach to be evident to some extent in our innate evolved "moral make-up". I would argue that where religious teachings match this approach it is merely an example of a human social construct reflecting man's fairly natural inclinations in this direction.
Edited by Straggler, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Cedre, posted 07-28-2009 9:16 AM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 8:00 AM Straggler has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 198 of 438 (521364)
08-27-2009 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Straggler
07-28-2009 2:47 PM


Re: Moral Make-Up
straggler writes:
I would suggest a basic foundation of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" as the best approach to this. I would also suggest that as an evolved species we would expect this sort of approach to be evident to some extent in our innate evolved "moral make-up". I would argue that where religious teachings match this approach it is merely an example of a human social construct reflecting man's fairly natural inclinations in this direction.
I think that golden rule has been passed down for a long time, and explains a lot of human behaviour - why we take care of people when they're sick, feed others when they are hungry.
The fact we don't always get it right just shows we're human.
I quite like the alternative golden rule though, "do unto others as they would have done unto them".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2009 2:47 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 199 of 438 (521599)
08-28-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Cedre
07-28-2009 9:16 AM


Re: Simple and obvious
He was evil that he would create beings that are able to tell between what is right and wrong, Wouldn’t it have made more sense for him him to have created an immoral world without any morality in it at all, no remorse no pity, no love; if God was evil in fact wouldn’t he wreak havoc on this earth, by the abuse of his power?
This is in fact what one finds if one looks around one in the world.
Consider the all-encompassing suffering in the natural world, with animals eating each other alive and horrible diseases destroying people not lucky enough to be born into an advanced society. If there is a god, he/she/it must be a savage sadist that enjoys suffering (since he/she/it has provided so much of it).
I have said in an earlier post that we owe the morality present in the world to God that is of course, if God exists and I personally believe he does due to the meaninglessness that would so suddenly enshroud our existence if he didn't.
Why do you assume that our existence has meaning above what we ourselves give it? You have fallen for the lies of the flock-fleecers!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Cedre, posted 07-28-2009 9:16 AM Cedre has not replied

  
lingua 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3535 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 07-06-2014


Message 200 of 438 (732546)
07-08-2014 11:14 AM


Other more convincing arguments
as mentioned previously, altruism, which is the root of morality, can be argued to have an evolutionary benefit. also morals are different in each culture, i double Christian morality supports Aztec human sacrifices!
a more interesting argument from my perspective is the tendency of all human races to have evolved an innate desire to worship a supernatural entity or forces. To develop behaviors aimed at influencing unseen forces in the hope that they will in turn influence the visible world. How was this trait an evolutionary benefit?
It seems to me that religions evolve with races. They change morality, gods and belief to suit the needs of the people at a given point in history. Take a look at this article on the evolution of the concept of Hell in England for example
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Spam link mucked up and hidden.

  
lingua 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3535 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 07-06-2014


Message 201 of 438 (734009)
07-24-2014 11:52 AM


I hear that Cuba is safe so long as you stay in touristy areas.
It helps if you can get a Spanish interpreter too
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Spam link mucked up and hidden.

  
Wyrdly
Junior Member (Idle past 3440 days)
Posts: 3
From: London
Joined: 10-01-2014


Message 202 of 438 (737908)
10-02-2014 4:50 AM


This is a fascinating old thread, and sorry to revive it so late on but I didn't see anyone cover my issue with the argument
fyi - i believe in evolution and creation (not the biblical version).
Perhaps altruism evolved as a survival trait which causes the development of morals within a culture.
Morals vary from culture to culture proving there is no inherent universal morality.
What is moral according to one religion (human sacrifice of Aztecs, worship of statues in Hinduism) is immoral to another (Christians and Muslims).
Morality is determined by the authority of the traditions from which they emerge,
The ultimate moral authority is always a God or an earthly representative of deity such as divine emperor or pharaoh. In the absence of religion a society derives its morality from another source (the only eg. i can think of is the state in communist countries)
Since a party or its leader a human, their authority is fallible and the foundations of the morality they create are questionable. In the absence of a god what reason do i have to behave according to anyone's so called morality?
'Without God everything is permitted.' - Dostoyevsky
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset to remove spam signature, which was deleted from profile

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by vimesey, posted 10-02-2014 6:07 AM Wyrdly has not replied
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2014 8:04 AM Wyrdly has not replied
 Message 205 by Stile, posted 10-02-2014 9:26 AM Wyrdly has not replied
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2014 9:45 AM Wyrdly has not replied
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2014 10:56 AM Wyrdly has not replied
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2014 10:56 AM Wyrdly has replied
 Message 209 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2014 11:00 AM Wyrdly has not replied
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 10-02-2014 12:06 PM Wyrdly has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 203 of 438 (737910)
10-02-2014 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wyrdly
10-02-2014 4:50 AM


Since a party or its leader a human, their authority is fallible and the foundations of the morality they create are questionable.
I don't dispute this - we should always be ready to question authority - but I do dispute your implied corollary - that divine moral authority is infallible. Even if we were to assume, for argument's sake, that God exists, where do I find his authority ? In a book written in the bronze age, by men, or in the pronouncements on that book by men (and some women) today. By your recognition, those guys are fallible, so there is no greater basis for religious authority over secular, in terms of morality - because the interpretation of religious authority necessarily filters through us unworthy humans. (And that, of course, is without even beginning to address which book and which God's or gods' priests to believe).
In the absence of religion a society derives its morality from another source (the only eg. i can think of is the state in communist countries)
Actually, what happens a lot in liberal democracies is that by some form of common consensus (the enactment of laws in an elected assembly, or the evolution of common laws in a democratic judiciary), morality evolves and becomes adopted into law by a wider society. It's not perfect, but it is a morality by broad consensus. On the whole, even given its imperfections, I like that a lot - certainly a whole lot more than abasing myself before some unknown, perfect entity, who reckons that I'm a fallen and pretty reprehensible being, whom he deigns to love, and purports to tell me what's right and what's wrong. (And who also told his followers to stone someone to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath etc, which is stuff I reckon is rather hard to defend by any measure of morality).
In the absence of a god what reason do i have to behave according to anyone's so called morality?
The same as mine and everyone else's - your conscience; and failing that, the coppers. We live in a very secular society - and others in much more secular ones - and we don't see them descending into pits of immorality, lawlessness and evil.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wyrdly, posted 10-02-2014 4:50 AM Wyrdly has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 204 of 438 (737913)
10-02-2014 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wyrdly
10-02-2014 4:50 AM


Welcome to the fray Wyrdly,
fyi - i believe in evolution and creation (not the biblical version).
Fair enough. You are not alone in that.
Morality is determined by the authority of the traditions from which they emerge,
Actually it appears to be more derived from the culture/s, as it changes and becomes modified as the culture changes. While people may profess their morality is due to their religious views, when questioned in detail they will admit to moral beliefs that differ from the religious dogma.
... In the absence of a god what reason do i have to behave according to anyone's so called morality?
To add to what vimesey said, enlightened self-interest: it is moral to treat your neighbor as a friend so that he treats you as a friend rather than an enemy you are always fighting (which is a waste of time and resources) and then you can share tasks and resources.
We are a social animal and so our basic (evolved) moral behavior is derived from what benefits the social group you live in. As conscious beings we have expanded our social group from family to larger and larger groups -- cities, nations, species, life ...
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Edited by RAZD, : ..
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wyrdly, posted 10-02-2014 4:50 AM Wyrdly has not replied

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


Message 205 of 438 (737922)
10-02-2014 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wyrdly
10-02-2014 4:50 AM


Wyrdly writes:
This is a fascinating old thread, and sorry to revive it so late on but I didn't see anyone cover my issue with the argument
Necromatic recovery of old threads is not discouraged around here.
Staying on topic and keeping topics organized is a much higher priority.
Feel free to delve into the depths and see what you can pull back!
And welcome to EvC, it's nice here with lots to see. Hope your stay and enjoyment of the site is a long one.
'Without God everything is permitted.' - Dostoyevsky
Is there anything of the atrocities of history (or present day) that make you think certain things are actually "not permitted" in some higher-plane?
It would seem to me that there's nothing preventing people choosing to do whatever they choose to do.
That may not sit well with our ideas of fairness or justice. But, well, reality has shown itself to be consistently uncaring about our individual feelings on all matters.
Since a party or its leader a human, their authority is fallible and the foundations of the morality they create are questionable.
What is it about a God that would make their authority unquestionable?
Such a God sounds very... abusive.
In the absence of a god what reason do I have to behave according to anyone's so called morality?
Your own personal decision, of course. Just like everyone else.
What do you think is a "better morality"?
1 - Trying to do good things because God tells you they are good and you should do them.
2 - Trying to do good things because you personally want to do things that are good.
To me, one sounds like doing chores and the other sounds like being a nice person. What do you think?
If there really is no God we can rely on... this would only make morality less of a consideration for people who are already bad people anyway. If they're already bad people getting away with whatever they can... what difference would this make?
Without a benevolent, caring, all-powerful God watching over everyone... personal morality is more important and more powerful to the individual who wants to do good things just because they are good. Because then there's no other source for good things.
The problem with the argument you're making is that you're turning anyone who follows God and does good things into a weasel... simply doing certain things God says to do in order to get on God's good side.
If anyone follows God but just does good things for the sake of good things... then people who don't follow God can also do good things just for the sake of good things... and the worries of your argument are no longer applicable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wyrdly, posted 10-02-2014 4:50 AM Wyrdly has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 206 of 438 (737924)
10-02-2014 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wyrdly
10-02-2014 4:50 AM


In the absence of a god what reason do i have to behave according to anyone's so called morality?
Empathy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wyrdly, posted 10-02-2014 4:50 AM Wyrdly has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 438 (737933)
10-02-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wyrdly
10-02-2014 4:50 AM


In the absence of a god what reason do i have to behave according to anyone's so called morality?
I'm always personally amazed that people, and in particular Christians ask such a question.
There are plenty of selfish reasons to practice good behavior including not wanting to be ostracized or locked up, and wanting good behavior in return. Much of morality involves nothing much more than treating others as you yourself would like to be treated.
In the absence of God, do you really think that everyone would decide to drive on the wrong side of the street or to eat their own children? Really?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wyrdly, posted 10-02-2014 4:50 AM Wyrdly has not replied

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


(1)
Message 208 of 438 (737934)
10-02-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wyrdly
10-02-2014 4:50 AM


Since a party or its leader a human, their authority is fallible and the foundations of the morality they create are questionable. In the absence of a god what reason do i have to behave according to anyone's so called morality?
Well, people telling you what God thinks about morality are also fallible and their claims are also questionable. This must be the case, because as you note they tell you different things:
What is moral according to one religion (human sacrifice of Aztecs, worship of statues in Hinduism) is immoral to another (Christians and Muslims).
Quite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wyrdly, posted 10-02-2014 4:50 AM Wyrdly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Wyrdly, posted 10-27-2014 12:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 209 of 438 (737935)
10-02-2014 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wyrdly
10-02-2014 4:50 AM


I posted this on another thread, I didn't get a satisfactory answer:
Dr A writes:
One question I've been itching to ask these religious people who think that you can't be moral without God, and that mere human laws and customs are insufficient to constrain us ...
Well, I'd like to ask them this.
When was the last time you committed a sin? Lust, anger, pride, covetousness ... right, within the last half hour, wasn't it?
And yet you believe that your actions, even your inner thoughts, are watched over by a judgmental God who damns sinners to Hell.
Now, tell me this. When did you last commit a felony?
The fear of a merely human police force does in fact constrain your actions far more than your stated belief in the inexorable vengeance of a wrathful God. So why can you not believe that the same is true of me?
Now, this is aside from the fact that I do have a sense of right and wrong. But the people who say we need God to make us moral phrase this belief in terms of expected punishment and reward. Then again I would like to ask them --- which punishments really keep them in line: the inexorable judgments of a supposedly omniscient God, or the relatively ineffectual actions of the police?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wyrdly, posted 10-02-2014 4:50 AM Wyrdly has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 210 of 438 (737938)
10-02-2014 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wyrdly
10-02-2014 4:50 AM


Wyrdly writes:
The ultimate moral authority is always a God or an earthly representative of deity such as divine emperor or pharaoh. In the absence of religion a society derives its morality from another source (the only eg. i can think of is the state in communist countries)
I don't think that's true. I'd say the ultimate source of morality is the individual. As St. Paul said in Romans 2:14, the Gentiles instictively obey "God's law" because of their consciences. When living in a society there is an additional social layer, the "collective conscience".
Individuals and groups project their own morality on gods in an attempt to give some authority to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wyrdly, posted 10-02-2014 4:50 AM Wyrdly 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