|
Author
|
Topic: Morality without God is impossible
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 4.7
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 331 of 472 (912699)
09-23-2023 1:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 328 by GDR
09-23-2023 11:02 AM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
Yes, it was accepted but did that make it ok? Make it ok to whom? To them? Slavery was normal to them. They didn't give a good god damn. Was jelly on their toast good, bad, indifferent? They didn't give a damn, GDR. Of course today the practice is abominable, but that doesn't count. The slavery bit not the jelly part. That's ancient history back there and no matter how hard and deep your anguish there is no path from there to here for your whispering god.
But that misses the point. The road from slavery to abolition was one of human evolution not some susurrant deity. That is the major point not to be missed. Edited by AZPaul3, .
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 328 by GDR, posted 09-23-2023 11:02 AM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 333 by GDR, posted 09-23-2023 3:06 PM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 332 of 472 (912703)
09-23-2023 3:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 330 by Tangle
09-23-2023 12:18 PM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
Tangle writes: What?? You talk about 'the still small voice of god' and 'sacrificial love' and other religious gobbledegook. I show you that apes do it too and all-of-a-sudden, it's no longer a personal, human god-whispering thing and you're all right with that!? I'm confused. I have no reason to doubt that animal life can be impacted with it as well. They are conscious creatures. We can see that when humans interact lovingly with pets it changes their character and I have no reason to think that if God still small voice is a ubiquitous feature in our world that it couldn't have an affect on life other than humans.
Tangle writes: The question is simply were they wrong 2000 years ago when slavery was the norm?They were neither right nor wrong; they were following the rules of the society they had built. We say they're wrong now because one section of society was exploiting and harming another. But we do the same now just in different ways. In Christian America we allow impoverished black ghettos. In Catholic Europe we try to prevent the immigration of persecuted and war damaged people. In Hindu India they have a class system that includes the Delta "untouchables". In Muslim Afghanistan they prevent women working and force them to wear Hijabs. And so on. I think we can now make objective decisions about morality. I think it is perfectly possible to state that something is an immoral act, that something else isn't and that something is more moral than something else; we just measure harm. A country that harms the fewest people in the fewest ways is more moral than one that doesn't. By that standard we say slavery is wrong. It was always wrong, but people at the time did not see, or want to see the harm and if they did, they didn't think it mattered. We forget - or actually have no comprehension of - how short and brutal life was in those days. It was objectively wrong, but they weren't enlightened enough to see it. I understand your point that they were neither right or wrong as that was simply a part of their culture. However you also seem to agree that slavery itself was wrong regardless of the cultural understandings.
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 330 by Tangle, posted 09-23-2023 12:18 PM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 334 by Tangle, posted 09-23-2023 3:30 PM | | GDR has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 333 of 472 (912704)
09-23-2023 3:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 331 by AZPaul3
09-23-2023 1:54 PM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
AZPaul3 writes: The road from slavery to abolition was one of human evolution not some susurrant deity. That is the major point not to be missed.
..and you know that how? I don't question that we are heavily affected by our particular cultures, but that doesn't also negate the belief that there is a universal right and wrong that always existed outside of cultural influences.
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 331 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2023 1:54 PM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 335 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2023 4:51 PM | | GDR has replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.8
|
|
|
Message 334 of 472 (912705)
09-23-2023 3:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 332 by GDR
09-23-2023 3:02 PM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
GDR writes: I have no reason to doubt that animal life can be impacted with it as well. They are conscious creatures. We can see that when humans interact lovingly with pets it changes their character and I have no reason to think that if God still small voice is a ubiquitous feature in our world that it couldn't have an affect on life other than humans. Wow. So animals have souls too? Where is the biblical source for this? Isn't there something about man having dominion?
quote:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
God made only man in his image. This is new, are you sure you're not just making this up?
I understand your point that they were neither right or wrong as that was simply a part of their culture. However you also seem to agree that slavery itself was wrong regardless of the cultural understandings. I, like you, know they were wrong. But we're both modern people with modern values. Our values weren't their values. We judge them from here, not there. If we judged them from there we would almost certainly not feel the same. But of course, no-one asked the slaves. I have no idea what they felt. Some may well have felt lucky, some certainly wouldn't. They probably all thought it was their fate regardless. The Muslims involved in the recent horrendous flooding in Libya where at least 20,000 people died but whether they survived or died down to fate - the will of Allah. Edited by Tangle, .
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 332 by GDR, posted 09-23-2023 3:02 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 336 by GDR, posted 09-23-2023 5:41 PM | | Tangle has replied |
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 335 of 472 (912707)
09-23-2023 4:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 333 by GDR
09-23-2023 3:06 PM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
..and you know that how? The usual requirements religionists cannot seem to fathom: Evidence. Nothing but natural processes seen in the history of slavery in any era ever and the lack of anything obviously supernatural anywhere ever.
... but that doesn't also negate the belief that there is a universal right and wrong that always existed outside of cultural influences. Yeah it does. Seems it was only universal for the last 200 years, having had no effects on our creation of slavery in the prior 200,000. Your 'universal' wasn't. Isn't. Yes. We created slavery. We humans, so subject to this universal right/wrong, invented slavery under its influence. That is BS. Edited by AZPaul3, . Edited by AZPaul3, .
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 333 by GDR, posted 09-23-2023 3:06 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 337 by GDR, posted 09-23-2023 5:49 PM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 336 of 472 (912708)
09-23-2023 5:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 334 by Tangle
09-23-2023 3:30 PM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
Tangle writes: Wow. So animals have souls too? Where is the biblical source for this? Isn't there something about man having dominion?
I see the term soul as being synonymous with consciousness. Isaiah does talk about the wolf laying down with the lamb although I do understand that as metaphorical. Paul writes about the renewal of all things. Here is another Genesis 1 quote. quote:
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So yes, mankind is called to rule over other forms of life. We can see in the teaching of Jesus that rulers are to serve as servants with mercy and compassion. Personally, I am something of a hypocrite in this area as I should probably adopt vegetarianism but that doesn't seem to happening. 
Tangle writes: I, like you, know they were wrong. But we're both modern people with modern values. Our values weren't their values. We judge them from here, not there. If we judged them from there we would almost certainly not feel the same. But of course, no-one asked the slaves. I have no idea what they felt. Some may well have felt lucky, some certainly wouldn't. They probably all thought it was their fate regardless. I get it that likely they didn't see anything wrong with it. However, that's not the point. We both agree that it is wrong now and was wrong then whether people 2000 years ago realized that or not. From what I have read their were slaves who volunteered for the position as they had no other means have having food on an ongoing basis, but there were also those who became slaves when their nation was overrun by some other nation. It was also judged normal that female slaves would be used sexually by their masters. It was a mixed bag.
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 334 by Tangle, posted 09-23-2023 3:30 PM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 339 by Tangle, posted 09-24-2023 5:15 AM | | GDR has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 337 of 472 (912709)
09-23-2023 5:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 335 by AZPaul3
09-23-2023 4:51 PM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
AZPaul3 writes: The usual requirements religionists cannot seem to fathom: Evidence. Nothing but natural processes seen in the history of slavery in any era ever and the lack of anything obviously supernatural anywhere ever.
So you have no evidence. I look at what we do know in saying our sense of morality evolve but I also see it likely that there is more than just what evolves through human influence. The one with the power owned slaves. However, it boils down to a matter of faith or belief for both of us.
AZPaul3 writes: Seems it was only universal for the last 200 years, having had no effects on our creation of slavery in the prior 200,000. Your 'universal' wasn't. Isn't. Yes. We created slavery. We humans, so subject to this universal right/wrong, invented slavery under its influence. That is BS. Sure, but it was humans like the Christain Wiberforce who ended 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 335 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2023 4:51 PM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 338 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2023 7:59 PM | | GDR has replied |
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 4.7
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 338 of 472 (912711)
09-23-2023 7:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 337 by GDR
09-23-2023 5:49 PM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
Sure, but it was humans like the Christain Wilberforce who ended it. (from wiki info) Wilberforce headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for 20 years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807. In 1315, Louis X, king of France, published the first anti-slavery decree proclaiming that "France signifies freedom" and that any slave setting foot on French soil should be freed. Add to that 400+ years another 50 and a devastatingly bloody war and we have the final success in the USofA of what was supposed to have been a human-species-wide universal good since forever. Only 200,000 years late. Your universal good murmur in the human consciousness was ineffective at best. Totally bogus most evidently.
So you have no evidence. Do I have to detail the process that a natural process takes? We know how moralities work. We know how they evolve. This is a big field in philosophy. If you want scholarly papers ** on the subject I'll look but we both know what those will say. All the processes identified in morality development and dissemination look naturally occurring. That is evidence whether you care to acknowledge it or not. No spooks were evident. Yes, that is another whole big bunch of data points in evidence, one for each opportunity where your supernatural intervention coulda/shoulda/woulda occurred but didn't. That's kind of an infinite set of evidence against you. Now, good news, all it would take to destroy ALL of this irrefutable evidence is one, just one, verified ** instance of a supernatural occurrence. Got any? ** Science, baby! Hard physical evidence.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 337 by GDR, posted 09-23-2023 5:49 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 341 by GDR, posted 09-25-2023 7:07 PM | | AZPaul3 has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.8
|
|
|
Message 339 of 472 (912713)
09-24-2023 5:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 336 by GDR
09-23-2023 5:41 PM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
GDR writes: So yes, mankind is called to rule over other forms of life. So man was created in god's image and has dominion over the animals. How does that result in animals having souls? It seems to me that the creation story separates man from the 'beasts' and makes mankind chosen and special. If you believe that animals have souls you create an entirely new religion - animals in heaven? Animals in hell? All 'kinds' or just some? If so which? And on and on. You seem to be inventing your beliefs as you go along.
I get it that likely they didn't see anything wrong with it. However, that's not the point.
But that's exactly the point! What we think right and wrong is at any one point in time is what morality is.
We both agree that it is wrong now and was wrong then whether people 2000 years ago realized that or not. The only objective yardstick of morality that I have is harm. 2000 years ago slavery was not an absolute harm, as you've pointed out it was a mixed bag. Killing people - the absolute harm - is not always judged wrong. We have wars and state executions, both justified by moral arguments that people disagree on. There is no freehanging absolute morality available to us. Our ideas of right and wrong vary by individual and by time and culture. We may think now that some forms of slavery in the Roman empire was objective wrong but that's not relevant if we wouldn't have done so then.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 336 by GDR, posted 09-23-2023 5:41 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 342 by GDR, posted 09-25-2023 7:32 PM | | Tangle has replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.2
|
|
|
Message 340 of 472 (912717)
09-24-2023 11:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 329 by GDR
09-23-2023 11:06 AM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
Slavery was not the norm 2,000 years ago. That is a eurocentric and Judeo-Christian-centric view of history. Slavery is a complex term. It entails many different situations. Many that we cannot understand as we are in a totally different socio-economic era. To compare ideals and morals across millennia is a fool's errand.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 329 by GDR, posted 09-23-2023 11:06 AM | | GDR has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 341 of 472 (912726)
09-25-2023 7:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 338 by AZPaul3
09-23-2023 7:59 PM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
AZPaul3 writes: Do I have to detail the process that a natural process takes? We know how moralities work. We know how they evolve. This is a big field in philosophy. If you want scholarly papers** on the subject I'll look but we both know what those will say. All the processes identified in morality development and dissemination look naturally occurring. That is evidence whether you care to acknowledge it or not. No spooks were evident. Yes, that is another whole big bunch of data points in evidence, one for each opportunity where your supernatural intervention coulda/shoulda/woulda occurred but didn't. That's kind of an infinite set of evidence against you. Now, good news, all it would take to destroy ALL of this irrefutable evidence is one, just one, verified** instance of a supernatural occurrence. Got any? ** Science, baby! Hard physical evidence. I have never claimed to have hard physical evidence. What hard physical evidence do you have that precludes any outside influence. What hard physical evidence do you have for why we should care about people of very different cultures, religions, or forms of governance? Why should we care about other life forms? You can say it evolved, but it is only individual belief that any evolution involved is 100% the result of the human mind. For both of us it is belief without hard physical evidence
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 338 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2023 7:59 PM | | AZPaul3 has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 342 of 472 (912727)
09-25-2023 7:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 339 by Tangle
09-24-2023 5:15 AM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
Tangle writes: So man was created in god's image and has dominion over the animals. How does that result in animals having souls? It seems to me that the creation story separates man from the 'beasts' and makes mankind chosen and special. If you believe that animals have souls you create an entirely new religion - animals in heaven? Animals in hell? All 'kinds' or just some? If so which? And on and on. You seem to be inventing your beliefs as you go along. My personal belief, for what that's worth is consistent with quote from Paul I used earlier. It is about the ultimate renewal of all things. I know you disagree, but I see our consciousness, (soul if you like) as the real us that functions through our physical body, and continues on after this life. That would include animals. I have no idea about the concept or hell for animals or humans for that matter. I simply believe in a God of perfect justice and that this life will have an impact on the next.
Tangle writes: But that's exactly the point! What we think right and wrong is at any one point in time is what morality is. Are you then saying that slavery, or infanticide was moral 2000 years ago? I would contend that it has always been immoral whether the culture saw it that way or not.
Tangle writes: We may think now that some forms of slavery in the Roman empire was objective wrong but that's not relevant if we wouldn't have done so then.
I have often thought of what I would have thought as a plantation owner in the American south 200 years ago. I'm pretty sure that I would have had slaves doing my bidding. However, that wouldn't have made it right IMHOL.
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 339 by Tangle, posted 09-24-2023 5:15 AM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 343 by Tangle, posted 09-26-2023 3:14 AM | | GDR has replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.8
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 343 of 472 (912728)
09-26-2023 3:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 342 by GDR
09-25-2023 7:32 PM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
GDR writes: My personal belief, for what that's worth is consistent with quote from Paul I used earlier. It is about the ultimate renewal of all things. I know you disagree, but I see our consciousness, (soul if you like) as the real us that functions through our physical body, and continues on after this life. That would include animals. It's not really that I disagree - there's nothing there to agree with - you've just created a personal fantasy. You might as well have said “I believe that lawnmowers will be found on mars.” I just don't know what to do with it.
Are you then saying that slavery, or infanticide was moral 2000 years ago? I would contend that it has always been immoral whether the culture saw it that way or not. I'm saying that some forms of those practices were probably seen as immoral even then but some weren't. It's about balancing harms and a culture's view of those harms. It was only in 1967 that private homosexual acts between men aged over 21 was decriminalised here in the UK. Before that we put them in prison because we believed that it was wrong - probably based on a religious belief, but also because of a majority revulsion. We now know that to be wrong. Well most of us do, the unreformed religious fundamentalists - of which the Christian candle2 here is one - would probably still burn them at the stake as an abomination. What we think right and wrong is, is always individual, not universal. We can say now that it was always wrong but that's just sophistry - we didn't know it then, it required an evolution of our society to see the harm; prior to that we thought that homosexuality was a great harm in of itself, and maybe it was? Moral thought is about the societal balancing harms. What you're looking for is what philosophers call 'universal morality'. They've been arguing about it for millennia and getting further and further up their own backsides with it. There's no evidence for it, it's just mind games.
I have often thought of what I would have thought as a plantation owner in the American south 200 years ago. I'm pretty sure that I would have had slaves doing my bidding. However, that wouldn't have made it right IMHOL. Why not? Right and wrong are human invented concepts so what we determine as right and wrong evolves as our society evolves. If there was an absolute or a universal (they're different concepts) right and wrong we all know about them throughout time and they wouldn't change.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 342 by GDR, posted 09-25-2023 7:32 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 345 by GDR, posted 09-27-2023 6:52 PM | | Tangle has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 344 of 472 (912732)
09-26-2023 1:16 PM
|
|
|
This is all I can see happening:
----------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| Square 1 |<------------
| | |
| | |
| | |
---------------------- |
| |
| |
v |
---------------------- |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Rationalize | |
| and | |
| Qualify | |
| | |
| | |
---------------------- |
| |
| |
v |
---------------------- |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Rationalize | |
| and | |
| Qualify | |
| | |
| | |
---------------------- |
| |
| |
v |
---------------------- |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Rationalize | |
| and |-------------
| Qualify |
| |
| |
---------------------- But I have no idea how to avoid it. --Percy
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 345 of 472 (912734)
09-27-2023 6:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 343 by Tangle
09-26-2023 3:14 AM
|
|
Re: The evolution of morality
Tangle writes: What you're looking for is what philosophers call 'universal morality'. They've been arguing about it for millennia and getting further and further up their own backsides with it. There's no evidence for it, it's just mind games. Obviously the problem in all of this is that we start from completely opposite world views. As you being a materialist there is no real possibly of a universal morality. As a theist I am quite open to the idea.
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 343 by Tangle, posted 09-26-2023 3:14 AM | | Tangle has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2