Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
77 online now:
Pressie, vimesey (2 members, 75 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,071 Year: 5,183/6,534 Month: 26/577 Week: 14/80 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality without God is impossible
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 121 of 306 (872910)
03-06-2020 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Phat
03-06-2020 1:42 PM


Re: An External Morality
Phat writes:

Wait a minute! Are you (jar) telling us that sheep become sheep through their own effort and decisions?

Absolutely. Don't confuse behavior and forgiveness.

Phat writes:

Why should I be responsible for my own human nature?

You are not responsible for your own human nature; you are responsible for your behavior.

You are once again conflating issues.

Phat writes:

Its Gods job to steer me in the direction I am to walk.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood...

Read it. Understand it. God did not suggest which road to take, the speaker chose.

And that made all the difference.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Phat, posted 03-06-2020 1:42 PM Phat has taken no action

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4076
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 122 of 306 (872912)
03-06-2020 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by GDR
03-05-2020 5:06 PM


Re: A Universal Morality
Cool.

I think we're pretty much on the same page. I'll stop badgering you. Even though every time you say "absolute" or "ultimate" when talking about morals/purpose... it irks me
I know what you mean - and I know we've had this conversation before... and perhaps again another day, even.
It just irks me

My note on the CS Lewis quote, just because I sometimes like to ramble:

CS Lewis writes:

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality-for them to be true about.

It's almost all good, except for one part:

You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others.

This sentence, and the entire phrase, would be very correct if it didn't include the bolded part.
The bolded part is unnecessarily snuck in there by CS Lewis in order to reach the conclusion he wants - that something has to be "independent of what people think."

Let me use an example of something simpler to explain:

We compare distances using a ruler.
The ruler is "something different from either" of the 2 things one is trying to compare.
The ruler, however, is not "something independent of what people think."

The ruler is simply "another think that people have invented/thought about."

We invented all rulers.
Every last one of them.
We (humans) drew every line on every ruler that we have ever identified.
We drew them to what we needed: an idea of "distance" that we can use to compare other things to.
Sometimes this is miles, inches, feet, centimeters, acres or "from the tip of my elbow to the tip of my fingers."

The point is - it is necessary for the measuring-tool to be "independent of either thing being measured."
It is not, however, necessary for the measuring-tool to be "independent of what people think."

It is not even possible to have a ruler that is "independent of what people think" since people thought up and invented all rulers!

It's the same with morality.

You can have a Real Morality that's perfectly useful for measuring different morals against each other, as long as it is independent of either of those ideas.
Like "Good is helping people, Bad is hurting people - as defined by the person affected by the action."

There is no need for it to be "independent of what people think."
Such a requirement's existence only has a single purpose - to manipulate the "less discerning" into accepting the greater baggage of the promoter (CS Lewis.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by GDR, posted 03-05-2020 5:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2020 3:51 PM Stile has seen this message
 Message 128 by GDR, posted 03-06-2020 5:06 PM Stile has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 123 of 306 (872913)
03-06-2020 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Stile
03-06-2020 3:45 PM


Re: A Universal Morality
Lewis sabotages his own point there. If it’s independent of what people think it can’t be a product of consciousness - because that’s thought. GDR’s argument falls to that point, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Stile, posted 03-06-2020 3:45 PM Stile has seen this message

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4076
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 124 of 306 (872914)
03-06-2020 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dogmafood
03-05-2020 7:51 PM


Re: A Universal Morality
Dogmafood writes:

What is the difference between instinct and choice?

An instinct is something we do without thinking about it - a reflex.
Like pulling your hand away from something that caused pain.

A choice is something we think about, and then pick - an intelligent decision.
Like seeing puddle and weighing if your shoe is thick enough to step in it and not get wet or just go around the puddle and not risk it at all.

Please note, it is not the action itself that makes something an instinct or a choice, it is the thought process:

Pulling you hand away from something that caused pain certainly could be a choice - if you identified the pain, thought about moving your hand or not moving your hand, and then decided to move your hand.

Stepping into a puddle with a show that's thick enough to not get your feet wet certainly can be instinctual - if you stepped into the puddle without considering options and without specifically picking the action.

You point out that choice can override instinct but the reverse is equally true.

True - but irrelevant to the issue that if one overrides instinct with choice - then you can't "say for sure" that the choice they made was for the reason you want it to be.

I am sure that you would agree that my dog is a creature driven by instinct and yet does she not choose to obey my command?

I would not agree.
Dog's may very well have "more instinctual actions" than people in a general sense.
But to say that dogs are universally "driven by instinct" is silly - as you showed with your example of your dog choosing to obey your command.
Any pet owner (of likely any pet) will tell you that there are at least "some" choices that the animal is capable of.
It may very well be that there's no such thing as any "universally instinctual creature" at all - but maybe there is. I'm just not prepared to attempt to draw a line at this point (and it's also irrelevant to the issue at hand.)

Your instinct is to survive and your choices are subservient to that.

Your proof is?

Without the proof - you have nothing, and I'm right.
With proof - you are right, and I am wrong.

So - where's the beef?

(Hint: current leading-edge research in this area is "indeterminate" - I'm doubting that you've had better luck.)

No doubt we can choose to override that instinct but then where are we?

We are making decisions based on the reasoning we used. Which isn't necessarily "survival."

Dogmafood writes:

Stile writes:

A 35 year old identified genius does not make decisions "in the same way with the same machinery" as a 35 year old village idiot.


Yes they do. One is just better at it than the other one and we decide which one is better based on how well their choices benefit their personal condition. Of course we are not all using the same brain and all brains are not equal but they all work the same way. They are all subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics.

Again - your minor point is correct (but irrelevant) and because of that, your larger idea is void.

Yes - all brains are subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics.
But no - not all brains work the same way - because of different levels of physical machinery and methods based on experience.

This is the entire science of "mental health" and "cognitive functionality."

Two people likely don't even have the same colour of hair.
Hair is not all that complex.
Brains are very complex.
Brains are much, much, much more varied (and providing of varying results) than hair.
Hardly anyone "thinks the same way" as anyone else.

I don't know how to make it clearer than that.
If you continue to refuse to admit this point - I can't go any further.

Suicide is meant to end one's own suffering and self sacrifice is meant to avoid the suffering of another. Both directly related to an instinct to avoid pain.

Related? Sure, I'll agree with that.
But this next step of "always because of?"

No. I can't agree.
Simply because I can't read other people's mind's (especially after they've died) - and I know that when other's attempt to read my motivations for actions - they're almost always wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dogmafood, posted 03-05-2020 7:51 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dogmafood, posted 03-07-2020 10:25 AM Stile has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 125 of 306 (872916)
03-06-2020 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Tangle
03-06-2020 1:59 PM


Re: A Universal Morality
Tangle writes:

This is actually THE point of the discussion and it's why you're resisting it.

I am trying to demonstrate to you that morality is an internal, biological function like all others. You prefer to think of it as an external influence on us - your 'still small voice'. I have physical evidence that it is the former, you have a superstitious, mystical belief that it is the latter.


I am saying that we all have cultural memes but I do add that there is also a God meme amongst all the cultural ones. We are subject to a multitude of influences or memes. The God meme is a matter of belief as to whether it exists or not.

Tangle writes:

But we know what is wrong because we have learnt that it is wrong and most of us also know it physically because our emotional state rebels against it - this is our empathetic functioning - we can't help but feel it. I wonder why you continue to deny this? Morality is a combination of social learning and internal emotional states. No god necessary.

You may well be right. However, we don't know whether a god is necessary or not. Things just are the way they are and we have know way of knowing whether a God meme exists or not. We have simply come to other conclusions.

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 119 by Tangle, posted 03-06-2020 1:59 PM Tangle has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 126 of 306 (872917)
03-06-2020 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jar
03-06-2020 12:19 PM


Re: An External Morality
jar writes:

Nonsense.

Read your Bible for what it actually says. I agree that you don't have to believe it.

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 116 by jar, posted 03-06-2020 12:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 03-06-2020 5:22 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 127 of 306 (872918)
03-06-2020 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Taq
03-05-2020 4:54 PM


Re: Two Good References
Taq writes:

Last I checked, Jesus didn't write the gospels.

...but He is quoted a lot.

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 Taq, posted 03-05-2020 4:54 PM Taq has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 128 of 306 (872919)
03-06-2020 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Stile
03-06-2020 3:45 PM


Re: A Universal Morality
Stile writes:

Let me use an example of something simpler to explain:

The problem with your explanation though is that your example is something tangible and physical, whereas what Lewis is talking about is intangible and non-physical.

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 122 by Stile, posted 03-06-2020 3:45 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 03-07-2020 2:10 AM GDR has taken no action
 Message 146 by Stile, posted 03-09-2020 8:46 AM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 129 of 306 (872921)
03-06-2020 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by GDR
03-06-2020 4:57 PM


Re: An External Morality
Nowhere does it say one example of resurrection is different than the other examples.

Nowhere does it say that one example of Ascension is different than the other examples.

You need to provide at least reasoning for your assertion unless it is again just what you believe.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by GDR, posted 03-06-2020 4:57 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by GDR, posted 03-06-2020 7:06 PM jar has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 130 of 306 (872923)
03-06-2020 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by jar
03-06-2020 5:22 PM


Re: An External Morality
jar writes:

Nowhere does it say one example of resurrection is different than the other examples.

The resurrected Jesus appears in locked rooms, is often not recognized at first etc. He appears to have the ability to exist in either our Earthly dimension or God's heavenly dimension.

Cretainly you are free to reject that but it is what the Bible actually says.

1 Cor 15 writes:

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;


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 129 by jar, posted 03-06-2020 5:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 03-06-2020 7:10 PM GDR has replied
 Message 133 by ringo, posted 03-06-2020 7:49 PM GDR has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 131 of 306 (872924)
03-06-2020 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by GDR
03-06-2020 7:06 PM


Re: An External Morality
But that is also a great example of how the tale grew as all folk tales grow. Just as with the Great Commission or Travels with Paulie the story is enhanced and made more unreal with each repetition.

But it still has absolutely NOTHING to do with morality or whatever a God meme might be or external sources of morality or universal morality.

Edited by jar, : wrong key


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by GDR, posted 03-06-2020 7:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by GDR, posted 03-06-2020 7:29 PM jar has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 229 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 132 of 306 (872925)
03-06-2020 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
03-06-2020 7:10 PM


Re: An External Morality
jar writes:

But that is also a great example of how the tale grew as all folk tales grow. Just as with the Great Commission or Travels with Paulie the story is enhanced and made more unreal with each repetition.

I get it. You don't believe the Bible, so why do you keep telling Phat to just read what the Bible says.

jar writes:

But it still has absolutely NOTHING to do with morality or whatever a God meme might be or external sources of morality or universal morality.

It wasn't intended 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 131 by jar, posted 03-06-2020 7:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 03-06-2020 7:59 PM GDR has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19616
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 133 of 306 (872926)
03-06-2020 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by GDR
03-06-2020 7:06 PM


Re: An External Morality
GDR writes:

The resurrected Jesus appears in locked rooms...


It doesn't actually say that though, does it?

John 20 says the room was "closed". (I would guess thst locks were fairly rare in those days.) And it just says Jesus appeared in their midst, nothing about walking through walls. There's no reason to conclude from what it actually says that He had any new voodoo super-powers.


"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by GDR, posted 03-06-2020 7:06 PM GDR has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 134 of 306 (872927)
03-06-2020 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by GDR
03-06-2020 7:29 PM


Re: An External Morality
I believe the Bible actually says what is written.

And I understand your intent is to move the goal posts.

The fact is that the Jesus resurrection stories like the Great Commission and the Pauline conversion are exaggerated and embellished with each iteration. That is a classic trait of folk lore rather than history.

I keep telling you and Phat and others to read what is actually written in the hope you will come to understand the creation of the various Bibles.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by GDR, posted 03-06-2020 7:29 PM GDR has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 135 of 306 (872930)
03-07-2020 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by GDR
03-06-2020 5:06 PM


Re: A Universal Morality
quote:
The problem with your explanation though is that your example is something tangible and physical, whereas what Lewis is talking about is intangible and non-physical

That’s a “problem” that makes Lewis’ argument look *better*. Lewis’ argument is even worse than Stile’s example.

The real problem is that you want Lewis to be right - even when he obviously isn’t.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by GDR, posted 03-06-2020 5:06 PM GDR has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022