Where does morality come from?

[eleos1954]

Not according to the bible.

Dictionary.com
noun
noun: faith

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
   
   antonyms: mistrust
2. 2.
   strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
   synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine
   "she gave her life for her faith"
   • a system of religious belief.
     plural noun: faiths
     "the Christian faith"
   • a strongly held belief or theory.
     "the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe"

How Christians use faith and how your bible defines faith more fits the second definition.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Heb 11:1.

Faith is assurance in something simply because you hope for it and are sure of things you cannot see. This can be used to believe anything. I hope that Bigfoot is real and I am confident it exists even though I have never seen one. This is from gotquestions.org about faith:

"Thankfully, the Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is “trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.”

The bible also says without faith (or belief without sufficient evidence) you cannot please god or be saved. Why do so many Christians then try to prove that god exists?

Why do so many atheists try to prove that God doesn't exist?

a strongly held belief or theory.

it's called the THEORY of evolution and to believe it takes faith to believe it

 

[RBPerry]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

Morality has many facets and many atheists are very moral people. Morality is not just a God given moral compass, but both philosophical and psychological. So what area of morality are you referring, moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral sensitivity, moral responsibility, moral motivation, moral identity, moral action, moral development, or moral diversity?

Remember the BTK killer, he was a deacon in his church, however his moral compass definitely didn’t work. My point is morality covers a lot of areas.

 

[Kylie]

Not so ... there are many many MANY scientists that believe in creation/God, studying in all areas of science and have and do discover many things ... faith does not preclude nor define ones intelligence nor does it dismiss the curiosity of the how and why.

Of course, I should point out that scientists are generally less religious than the general population.

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html

Religious beliefs among scientists

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Why do so many atheists try to prove that God doesn't exist?

I have never tried to prove god does not exist. I have never said god does not exist. I don't believe god exists.

it's called the THEORY of evolution and to believe it takes faith to believe it

Please go and look up and understand what a scientific THEORY is. If you do you will see how silly your statement is.

 

[Kylie]

Why do so many atheists try to prove that God doesn't exist?

Why do so many Christians try to prove evolution doesn't exist?

it's called the THEORY of evolution and to believe it takes faith to believe it

Please read this website. It's not very much. Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

 

[Ken-1122]

So if there are objective morals then there has to be a moral lawgiver such as God as they have to come from beyond subjective human thinking.

If morality comes from something beyond human thinking, what method do you use to verify what you are being told is the truth?

As God's nature is all good He is the source of objective good and this is given to us in His moral laws for which we are obligated to follow.

If your are unable to decipher right from wrong, how do you know what God says is right?

If objective morality does not come from God then it has to be explained why something is ultimately right or wrong and why we ought to do good and not do evil?

That’s why it’s important for humans to know right from wrong rather than depending on an outside source to give instruction concerning the issue.

Otherwise, for humans, if there is no objective right and wrong then there is no argument against someone who kills your family or takes your possessions.

Actually there is; it’s called Subjective right and wrong. Right and wrong must come from human understanding, otherwise there is no right or wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why do so many atheists try to prove that God doesn't exist?

Probably for the same reason so many Christians try to prove that he does.

it's called the THEORY of evolution and to believe it takes faith to believe it

Actually there is a lot of evidence that points to the theory of Evolution. Modern medicine; even modern agriculture is based on the reality of Evolution. IOW if this theory were false, modern medicine and modern agriculture would not work. The fact that these things do work should tell you there is a lot more than faith involved when it comes to Evolution

 

[stevil]

Not so ... there are many many MANY scientists that believe in creation/God, studying in all areas of science and have and do discover many things

I certainly don't have a problem with scientists that use the scientific method and discover evidence based things.
I have no issues with a scientist believing or not believing in gods.
As long as they set their beliefs aside and use the method.

The study of science is the same ... the difference is ... one either comes from a point that it was designed and tries to understand the how and why ... or ... one comes from the point of gazillions of happen chances as reasons for the how and why ... and neither has 100% physical proof of either.

No. Science is very different. It doesn't pre-suppose, it doesn't try to find the "why". It does look for the how though, not by questioning the gods, or by looking to ancient text, not by asking for a "sign", but by hard work.

The universe is extremely vast and is beyond our ability to study it throughly ... but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't .... of course we should and we do and faith does not exclude that pursuit of understanding.

As long as people don't just conclude "god did it". I understand that Christianity is a very broad umbrella term and there are Christians who are actually interested in science and some Christians who go out of their way to deny science.

 

[stevevw]

The only difficulty see with that argument is that it creates the false dichotomy that moral precepts either come from God or that they are the product of "subjective human thinking." or even personal whim.

It is not really a false dichotomy but rather a logical conclusion at least as far as there is a God who is good by nature as the moral lawgiver if there are objective morals. Because if there are objective morals then they have to come from outside humans and from an entity capable of love and being all good. Only God fits that criteria.

 

[Speedwell]

It is not really a false dichotomy but rather a logical conclusion at least as far as there is a God who is good by nature as the moral lawgiver if there are objective morals. Because if there are objective morals then they have to come from outside humans and from an entity capable of love and being all good. Only God fits that criteria.

Maybe so, but you have not developed your argument to encompass that level of detail. Never mnd. All I was trying to point out to you was that your dichotomy, that morals either come from God or are the product of subjective human thinking, does not exhaust the possibilities that moral philosophers consider. It makes your argument look weak to ignore other possibilities.

 

[Ken-1122]

It is not really a false dichotomy but rather a logical conclusion at least as far as there is a God who is good by nature as the moral lawgiver if there are objective morals. Because if there are objective morals then they have to come from outside humans and from an entity capable of love and being all good. Only God fits that criteria.

But mortality does NOT come from something outside human thus there is no such a thing as objective morals; they are all subjective.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is not really a false dichotomy but rather a logical conclusion at least as far as there is a God who is good by nature as the moral lawgiver if there are objective morals. Because if there are objective morals then they have to come from outside humans and from an entity capable of love and being all good. Only God fits that criteria.

Objective morals could reasonably be expected to emerge from the evolution of human behaviour, being those morals most conducive to promoting the successful reproduction of the species. Thus, they would be internal to humans, yet derived, in part, from an external force that was not God.

 

[eleos1954]

Of course, I should point out that scientists are generally less religious than the general population.

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html

Religious beliefs among scientists

and so what ?????

How life began (out in the cosmos) is not fully observable, testable or repeatable and never will be.

While critics may disagree with the conclusions of the design arguments, they cannot reasonably deny that they are based upon commonly accepted observations of the natural world. The term ‘science’ commonly connotes an activity in which theories are developed to explain observations of the natural world, the empirical, observational basis of the theory of intelligent design provides a good reason for regarding intelligent design as a scientific theory.

The design inference is not based upon a lack of knowledge (as some would contend), but rather it is based upon our uniform and repeated experience. While we know of no naturalistic cause by which complex and specified biological information can arise from inorganic matter, we do know that in all other circumstances information originates from intelligence. Moreover, many scientists now see evidence of intelligent design in the ‘irreducible complexity’ of molecular machines and circuits in the cell, the pattern of appearance of the major groups of organisms in the fossil record, the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics to support complex life, the fine tuning of our terrestrial environment, the information processing system of the cell, and even the phenomenon known as ‘homology’ (evidence previously thought to provide unequivocal support for neo-Darwinism).

The ability to study our planet and all of it's "inhabitants" and process the data has come a long long way since the introduction of Darwin's Theory due to technological advances.

Nothing wrong with that ... but we do need to be mindful that this is the case .... much based on theory.

The more science advances the more we understand how extremely intricate and complex the things of nature, our planet and the universe actually are ... and that is a fact.

People of faith and those who support the Theories of Evolution do have a common belief ... and that is .... whatever happened to cause life on our planet began out in the cosmos .... and the cosmos is vast and not fully observable, testable and repeatable is beyond our capability. We do pursue it ... and we should. We are now scientifically (in regard to life origin) beyond the "zoo" on earth and out in the cosmos through celestial mechanics (physics and astrophysics).

The real truth (fact) is ..... we don't know how life came to be ... there are only theories ... whether that was through evolution or through a creator .... and those opposing viewpoints will always be the case.

According to many scientists ... the observable Universe contains more than 2 trillion (1012) galaxies and, overall, as many as an estimated 1×1024 stars (more stars than all the grains of sand on planet Earth).

How much factual knowledge (not theory) about the universe do we really have? Not much. The universe is too vast and we are but a grain of sand in it. How much knowledge is there in a grain of sand ;o)

 

[eleos1954]

Probably for the same reason so many Christians try to prove that he does.

Actually there is a lot of evidence that points to the theory of Evolution. Modern medicine; even modern agriculture is based on the reality of Evolution. IOW if this theory were false, modern medicine and modern agriculture would not work. The fact that these things do work should tell you there is a lot more than faith involved when it comes to Evolution

Where does morality come from?

 

[Speedwell]

The real truth (fact) is ..... we don't know how life came to be ... there are only theories ... whether that was through evolution or through a creator .... and those opposing viewpoints will always be the case.

That you offer such a blatant false dichotomy does nothing but illustrate the intellectual poverty of your position.


But putting aside all of that hogwash about "irreducible complexity," the so-called "design inference" is not a theory. You won't have a theory about Intelligent Design until you have characterized a method by which the design gets into the life forms. Without that you have nothing.

 

[Ken-1122]

Where does morality come from?

What does this have to do with anything I've said? Nothing.

 

[eleos1954]

That you offer such a blatant false dichotomy does nothing but illustrate the intellectual poverty of your position.


But putting aside all of that hogwash about "irreducible complexity," the so-called "design inference" is not a theory. You won't have a theory about Intelligent Design until you have characterized a method by which the design gets into the life forms. Without that you have nothing.

according to evolution (not using theory) how did "life" get into the life forms. Without that you have nothing.

They are both theories my friend .... we do not KNOW.

 

[Speedwell]

according to evolution (not using theory) how did "life" get into the life forms. Without that you have nothing.

They are both theories my friend .... we do not KNOW.

There is currently no accepted scientific theory explaining how the first life forms arose. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

 

[eleos1954]

What does this have to do with anything I've said? Nothing.

Morality is derived from both the neural process of the brain and with the exposure/experience to social/cultural environments.

 

[Ken-1122]

Morality is derived from both the neural process of the brain and with the exposure/experience to social/cultural environments.

Again; what does this have to do with anything I've said?? Nothing.