Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,146 Year: 5,403/9,624 Month: 428/323 Week: 68/204 Day: 10/34 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 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 394 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 438 (739733)
10-27-2014 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Wyrdly
10-27-2014 12:15 PM


Not necessarily depending on the dogma of the religion in question. A metaphorical religion that holds the interpretation of divine law by the priesthood to be sacred is therefore infallible, anything they say is by definition right.
No. What they say is according to them right, but it is not by definition right. If someone says: "I am a priest and divine law says that 2 + 2 = 5, this is my religion", then they are not by definition right. They may be a crackpot.
You are basically responding to my point that human authority is fallible by claiming that divine authority is essentially human.
No I am not. Divine authority is divine. No question. But a human who says that they know what God thinks is human.
From a theological perspective, that argument holds no weight.
Well, I didn't claim that people can't be obdurately stupid. Yes, I can imagine a conversation like this:
Him: God says this.
Me: You say that God says this.
Him: But God says that I'm speaking for God.
Me: You say that God says that you're speaking for God.
Him: No, God says that God says that I'm speaking for God.
Me: You say that God says that God says that you're speaking for God.
Him: No, God says that God says that God says that I'm speaking for God.
... and so on. But unless God turns up and says something himself, then I think I have a point. Because in the end, I am in fact speaking to a human. It doesn't matter how many times he says "God says that God says that God says that God says that God says that God says that God says that God says that God says that God says that God says that ... I'm speaking for God", he doesn't get away from the fact that he's a human telling me this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Wyrdly, posted 10-27-2014 12:15 PM Wyrdly has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 215 of 438 (739766)
10-27-2014 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Wyrdly
10-27-2014 12:15 PM


My point is that empathy not make good. altruism does not = good. To think these things is a very post-enlightenment western perspective.
But to think other things is another perspective.
To think that these other things are things that God thinks is also another perspective.
Maybe there is a God, and maybe everything he thinks is right. But to think that you know what he thinks is just another perspective.
---
I don't know if you've heard of a website called Conservapedia. It's meant to be an alternative to Wikipedia but its contents are meant to be what right-wing conservative American Christians think.
Now, the guy running Conservapedia (Andrew Schafly) wrote on Conservapedia that most of the great composers were German, and put on Conservapedia a list of the top ten composers ever. And even his acolytes asked him: "Mr Schlafly, how can you even say that, surely that's a matter of taste, what if other people who don't share your taste prefer Tchaikovsky over Beethoven?"
To which he replied: Oh, you guys are clearly atheist relativists and such. God exists, and he must prefer some music over others, so it is objectively true that Beethoven is better than Tchaikovsky.
You see the problem with that? Let us admit that God has preferences about classical music. But how is Schlafly meant to know that God agrees with Schlafly's own personal preferences in music? Schlafly says that there is an objective criterion as to which music is good. But then he assumes that this criterion is identical to his own tastes. This is nuts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Wyrdly, posted 10-27-2014 12:15 PM Wyrdly has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 221 of 438 (739822)
10-28-2014 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by mike the wiz
10-28-2014 5:55 AM


This is not merely wrong but irrelevant to the post to which you were replying. Evidently you were "triggered", as the psychologists have it, by the mere presence of the word "selfish" in Cedre's post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2014 5:55 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2014 9:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 227 of 438 (739866)
10-28-2014 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by mike the wiz
10-28-2014 9:32 AM


How is it not relevant?
'Cos of having no relevance.
I am not sure that this concept can be made any simpler.
I read his post? I don't get why you would say this ...
I assumed that you would read a post before replying to it. On thinking it over, maybe I was giving you more credit than you deserve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2014 9:32 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by mike the wiz, posted 10-28-2014 3:54 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 319 of 438 (742690)
11-22-2014 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Colbard
11-22-2014 9:55 PM


Re: Good and Bad
There is no such thing as accountability in evolution ...
There's no such thing as accountability in the theory of gravity. That doesn't imply that the theory of gravity means that people aren't accountable for their actions, it just doesn't mention the concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 9:55 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 328 of 438 (742719)
11-23-2014 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Colbard
11-23-2014 7:13 AM


Re: Good and Bad
We may say we are accountable for our actions if we want to, but we are not under any obligation to be accountable, and neither does anyone have the right to make us accountable to whatever, but in evolution they can do this if they want to, simply because they can, and for no external moral reasons.
It does not make their actions right or wrong, just what they are, because it can be done.
So genocide is just a thing that happens by people who can.
We may not like that, but that's life under competition the necessary element in evolution.
That's life under mutual attraction of objects with mass, the necessary element in the theory of gravity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:13 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 355 of 438 (743192)
11-27-2014 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Colbard
11-27-2014 7:23 AM


This is so different and contrary to earlier teachings on evolution which hammered n the ideas of fight, flight reproduce only scenarios.
Don't be absurd.
Think about this for five seconds, will you. Darwin, and indeed every single other naturalist in the history of ever, was perfectly aware of the existence of social and eusocial species, such as humans, ants, bees, colonies of rooks, schools of fish, etc. The "earliest teachings of evolution" therefore ascribed these things to evolution, rather than denying that they existed.
C'mon, it should be obvious even without you doing any research (which you didn't, did you?) that what you're saying must be untrue. Because it's as though someone claimed "The earliest teachings on astronomy denied the existence of the sun". Without spending one second researching the history of astronomy, you know for certain that that must be false.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Colbard, posted 11-27-2014 7:23 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 358 of 438 (743255)
11-29-2014 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Colbard
11-28-2014 10:16 PM


"Evolution is great, stop talking rubbish Colbard" --- God.
If we're playing Argument From Imaginary Quotation, I win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Colbard, posted 11-28-2014 10:16 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 368 of 438 (743344)
11-30-2014 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Colbard
11-30-2014 12:26 AM


Re: Life and love
Where are you getting your information about God from? Does he speak to you, or do you just make stuff up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Colbard, posted 11-30-2014 12:26 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Colbard, posted 11-30-2014 5:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 373 of 438 (743398)
11-30-2014 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Colbard
11-30-2014 5:47 AM


Re: Life and love
I am generally deaf to spiritual knowledge, so I have to get clues from the KJV, people, nature and life, and work on that.
I'm trying to imagine you getting a clue ... no, I'm not forming any sort of mental image here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Colbard, posted 11-30-2014 5:47 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 418 of 438 (744132)
12-08-2014 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by Colbard
12-08-2014 9:04 AM


What law is the basis for human laws if not the law of God?
Er ... humans? That would kind of explain why you call them human laws.
I mean, for example, you ask first of all where the law against disrespecting our parents comes from. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it comes from our parents. Indeed, we have no secular law enforcing it.
Thou shalt not kill? Well, that's 'cos we all of us don't want to be killed.
And so on.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 9:04 AM Colbard 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