Moral Argument for God

I meant it to sound harsh. .. I was responding to Catholic Scientist 's post that morality does not exist in non humans and that our self invented self imposed morality somehow makes us superior. I was commenting on the fact that WE are animals.
I was commenting on the fact that non humans do not sit around and worry about questions such as "why am I here" or
"what is the meaning of life?". This is what Neitzche meant by humans being neurotic apes. When I said non humans do not lie I meant in the sense of being true to themselves and they're nature, rather than inventing a code of behavior called morality to justify whats good and whats evil. Those are human concepts.
I was commenting on the fact that modern man is so far removed from nature in the sense that we do not understand what it means anymore to be a predator, or what it means to interact with nature rather than isolate ourselves from it in big homes and big cars all climate controlled.The world goes by our car windows in a blur no time to appreciate the journey we are to caught up in the rush of getting to where we are going. We buy our meat wrapped in cellophane and we have made our life so convienant and passive that it is killing us. Obeisity is epidemic in the US. We rush to eat, we rush to work, we rush rush to sit on the couch and tune out of our reality in favor of a reality show or sitcom or playstation game.I just can not believe this is how humans were meant to live and it is pretty apparent if you look around you. edit typo and replace a bad word.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 07-20-2005 04:13 PM

I understand your opinion but I simply disagree with it, and I do understand what an instinct is. How powerful an instinct is and how much behavior is dependent on it isn't something that we're going to conclude here. I happen to believe that the animals are closer to mindless automatons than they are to being human. Here's a definition from dictionary.com for instinct that I agree with:

quote:

---

1 : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
2 : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

---

About your dog experience...Why do you think that your dog did anything other than what her instinct was? What makes you think that this is what the instinct would be? Thats what it looked like to you, and you've personified the dogs actions. I think she reacted just how her instinct was, with no rational decision being made. Her instict could simply have been,with no assessing or rationalizing needed, that: about altruism This tale differs because the animal did not allow itself to die. The soldier/mt. climber both kill themself to save others. This dog, while allowing itself to be injured, did not allow itself to die. The same goes for your dog. The dog was protecting you, its pack, and therefor protecting itself, but I do not think it would die for you.I'm not saying animals can't be altruistic, but there does seem to be a difference in how far they will go when compared to humans, who will go all the way.

These are extraneous morals that would differ between individuals and and societies, that coexist with the fundamental, underlying morality that I believe humans share.I don't see what my opinion of homosexuality has to do with this thread. But, whatever you're doing with your partner, if they don't like and don't want you to do it, then doing it would be immoral.

The Bible seems to support the idea that there is a universal underpinning of good as a substance. In Genesis 1 the phrase "and God saw that it was GOOD", appears several times, but the Bible doesn't make any attempt at that time to establish why it was good. The Bible just describes the action of God in objective fashion, and then labels it as good.The only other time that I know of that the Bible attempts to quantify the term Good, is when in the New Testament someone refers to Jesus as "Good Master". Jesus responds to the person with a question "Why do you call me good? Only one is good and that is God himself". I believe that he is actually trying to make the connection for the person tha he (Jesus) is refering to himself in the third person when he talks about God as good.If there is no supreme being or grand design then the concept of good and evil make no sense. Hitler was no different than Mother Theresa. Both consumed food and water, converted it to energy, and stayed in motion via what their own accidental dna coding dictated to them.Just like having two comets whose random trajectories place one in an orbit that every 80 years delights humans in the evening sky while the other slams into the Earth and ends all human life. Neither one is good or evil, just acting via the random forces that each has applied to it. No design. No purpose. No consequence.

Well, then I must ask, how do you define instinct?Because the way you describe it here, instinct implies some level of descision making. After all, the animal has to make a choice what is a threat and what is not. Her instincts might tell her one thing, but she has the capability of learning to differentiate. This tells me that some level of rational mind is a t work.Remember, I am not saying that animals reason on the same level as us, mearly that it's a matter of degree. They may not do calculus or philosphy, but they do make descisions and negotiate problems.Another dog story (you may have noticed I'm a dog lover ):My dog Tes liked to get into the trash can in the kitchen. We would get home and there would be garbage on the floor and we would scold her accordingly. Eventually this stopped. But trash kept turning up outside! None in the kitchen where she would leave it before.The can wouldn't be overturned either.One day I caught her doing something very peculiar, she was rooting thrugh the trash, got a clump of it. Kicked it out the kitchen door into the yard!How can this be mearly instinct? There has to be some sort of conscious mind, devising plans, and making descisions.Can instinct encompass descision making?

There's another reference that seems significant.Genesis 3:22 (NASB) Clearly this suggests that God has knowledge of an independant moral standard, rather than simply proclaiming his own will good.

quote:

---

If there is no supreme being or grand design then the concept of good and evil make no sense. Hitler was no different than Mother Theresa. Both consumed food and water, converted it to energy, and stayed in motion via what their own accidental dna coding dictated to them.

---

Now ths makes no sense to me at all. Fundamenally you seem to be denying both the ecistence of morality as it is commonly understood and human will in favour of a view as humans as machines. Machines that either operate in accord with a "grand design" or the will of a "supreme being" or contrary to it. I have to say that such a view point would need to be argued - it certainly cannot be assumed.

I don't think that quote implies an absolute moral standard any more than a relative one. I do think that it is an attempt by the folk at the time to express the idea that there is good and not good and that humans have a responsibility to do good as opposed to not good.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If there is no supreme being or grand design then the concept of good and evil make no sense.

---

I keep reading this statement being made over and over, but I have yet to read a convincing argument for it.

To CA and the others, Im realy interested in the Animal consciousness/instinct debate weve been having. But we should open a different thread. If your all up for it, say Ay. hehe

I think that it does express the idea that human knowledge of morality is the same as God's. Yhus while it doesn't necessarily imply an objective moral standard it does imply that Divine Command Theory is wrong.

Wholly false. Note that atheists can fully define for themselves what good and evil are, and have fully functional and valid moral systems, without any belief in God.Whether I believe in God or not, I know that torturing and killing millions of people is evil. The fact that God would agree with me or even exists is irrelevant to that knowledge. Your description would only be valid if both Hitler and Mother Theresa were non-sentient machines. Comets are not sentient, or even alive. They have no awareness of the consequences of their actions. Human beings fully know that, if they shoot another person, that person will likely die. The knowledge of consequences is what makes us responsible for our actions, and responsibility for our actions is what allows for the concept of good and evil. The concept of God is extraneous to those simple facts. One can believe in Him, and be good, or not believe in Him, and still be a good person. It’s simply an application of Occam’s Razor* — morality and the concept of good and evil can be described in the simplest terms without a supreme being. This means that God, whether He exists or not, is irrelevant to discussions of morality.* - Please note that Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is typically the correct one) does NOT mean the explanation with the fewest words or even the explanation easiest to understand. It means the explanation without any extraneous terms. I’m sure many here know this, I’ve just seen too many examples of Occam’s Razor being misused.

Are there evil planets? Are there evil stars? Is there evil dark matter? Are there evil galaxies? Are the 4 fundamental forces of gravity, magnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces evil?They are neither good nor evil. They are just there as a hap- hazzard result of an accident called the big bang. If you look at it from the perspective of the universe as a whole, there is no good or evil. Everything just is.The planet Mars is a big chunck of real estate from my perspective, but from the perspective of a universe that has 600 billion, billion stars and who knows how many orbiting planets, Mars is insignificant. Compared to the size of Mars, I am insignificant, and even amoung my own kind, Mars plays a bigger role in human society than I do. So to look at the universe and everything in it including humans from any other perspective other than that of the universe as a whole is illogical since it itself is an accident and we are just minute accident portions of the greater accident.Morality, happiness, intellegence, self awareness and everything else are just phenomena of the electro chemical activity generated by the 4 forces over billions of years after the big bang. Nothing more. Just phenomena. Not universal truths.To look at the universe from a human persepctive is the same as looking at it from an asteroid's perspective. Both are of equal insignificance.Finally, to look at it from any other perspective involves a supreme being or creator/designer. Gods perspective lends to purpose, organization, fundamental rules and truths, a plan, utility and reason. When looked at from God's perspective, the order of the creation lends itself to discover that humans are not insignificant but instead that they are special and unique. And therefore, universal morality and good and evil make sense because they came from the designer and were built into the design of the human. They were not randomly occuring due to electro-chemical interactions with enviorment and survival.The difference between fundamental morality and good and evil from the grand design verses big bang chance perspective is like driving a vehicle.When you get into a vehicle and drive to work, there is order, purpose, a plan, a goal, rules, and a desired forseen outcome. This is like grand design, so things like stop signs, speed limits, maps and highway lines mean something.The chance evolution perspective for universal morality is like a bumper car ride at an amusement park. There are no rules, speed limits, goals, winners, scores, a plan or order. Just random bumping and at the end, the cars are just as mixed up, so stop signs, speed limits, maps and road lines would mean nothing.

Yaro-Whether or not your dog has made a rational decision is off topic so I'll stop, so if you want to start a thread I'll reply, but I'm not going to start one.I do think that, in general, animal consciousness is important to the moral argument for god. Because, if humans are no different from animal, then either animals do have morality or humans do not. We can equate humans to animals by either lowering humans to the animal's position, or by raising animals to the human's position.As: I agree that we are animal, non-humans do not have morality, and that having morality makes us superior. Being superior, because we have morality and consciousness, to the rest of the animals suggests, to me, that there must be a god. I posted the definition of instinct that I agree with already. I don't see how the way I described it implies some level of decision making. And, the animal does not have to make a choice on what is a threat because their instincts provide them with the reaction to what might be a threat. I would say no because I think instincts happen on a subconscious level.....
more later, out of time

Yes. I agree with this and the (not-quoted) preceeding. Yes, and no. As you said, it is a mater of perspective.First off, an asteroid has no consiousness, a human does. Therefore there is much significance to our existance. That is, significance to us. After all, in order to signify anything you need a concious entety to signify to.Now, in the grand cosmic scheme of things, I suppose we aren't that big of a deal. But who cares about that, we are alive here and now. And our experience of reality is very important to us and our happiness. How does this follow? Suppose I wanted to look at the universe from the perspective an ant, a swallow, an amazonian indian. The meaning of life would probably change significantly with each one, assuming god, why do we need his perspective of things? Were doing just fine down here without it. These are assertions. Can you prove that if there was no God there would be no reason? I am an agnostic atheist, yet I consider myself a reasonable person. But this is the thing, God or no, we are very significant! If god does not exist, we are still significant. Because we are significant to ourselves, ultimately that is all that matters. There is no universal morality. Morality changes based on who we apply it to and who is applying it. As stated before we do not apply the same morals to animals we do to ourselves, likewise we don't apply the same morals to other cultures as we do to ourselves. Morality is an objective construct established by society to maximize happiness and eliminate suffering (yes, I know not all societies are very good at this, but it's the intent anyway). Why is this idea discomforting to you? Assume it was, what implications does this have for you?Will you go out rape steal and murder?

quote:

---

I was commenting on the fact that modern man is so far removed from nature in the sense that we do not understand what it means anymore to be a predator, or what it means to interact with nature rather than isolate ourselves from it in big homes and big cars all climate controlled.

---

IMO civilized man not just modern man is and has been like a cancer on this planet.Some of the problems in the OT were probably brought on by poor management of environmental resources.I think the problem started when civilized man deemed himself superior to the rest of creation.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France