Looking at the history of the Church I don't see a clear tendency toward better morality. Sure, some people find in Christianity a reason for being charitable etc, but at the same time there's been, and still is, a LOT of abuse going on. It's hard to say for sure, but I think I agree that in total, the Christian worldview has been a good force - but again, judging by all the abuse, like persecuting heretics and molesting children, it seems clear to me that we should credit people, not the religion itself, for the good things that have been done in its name. It seems to me that it's easier to use a religion like Christianity for good, than it would be with Islam, for example. But then again non-religious people don't seem to be as morally deprived as many believers think. It's not Christians who've largely ended the persecution of gay people in the West, for example.
If human morality were given from God, I would honestly expect it to be better, and not as subject to change as it clearly is. It's easy to see when looking back in history, all the things we (including Christians) would readily condemn and oppose, which we have totally changed our moral intuitions about today. How we raise our children, treat sexual minorities, heretics etc. Perhaps the most striking change is in how we see animals. I wouldn't be surprised if in a hundred years Christians will lament how we used to mistreat animals. Which would be a good thing, but it's kind of strange that if this great morality came from God, why it wasn't there in the first place.
The thing about things "feeling" better or more right just being a sensation we have, well that's true for all of us, regardless of why we have that sensation or where it came from. I mean, give someone a shot of oxytocin and it will make them more ready to bond with others, regardless of whether or not they are Christians. Destroy a guy's frontal lobe and he'll get problems with self-control, no matter what his religion might be. Whatever you experience isn't detached from your brain. The real question is if our brains relate to or reflect some sort of higher purpose. I don't see convincing evidence for that.
I'm not sure the idea of panpsychism is necessarily related to the multiverse. It's true it doesn't strictly "answer" anything, but then other physical laws don't either. Just because we find some physical law at work doesn't mean we can know exactly why it exists in the first place.
What do you mean when you say human morality should be much better? You speak as if you recognize a standard in which we should conform to and yet you reject that very standard and the ability to do so. God did create our intuitions, and they are not as good as they could be, but that is because they are corrupted.
What I mean is that if God is the author of something, I would expect it to be perfect. Especially something like morality, which is the foundation for saying that anything at all is better than anything else. Biblical inconsistencies aside, what would the ultimate, uncorrupted morality be?
Truth and purpose aren't the same thing though. I don't see how it's self defeating?
Not sure if I understand you here. But I'm not building on some supposed "objective" morality, because like I said, I don't believe it really exists. I realize that I can't ultimately point to anything other than "because I believe so", but then neither can you, right? My "I believe so" is just like your "I believe in an invisible God who says so" and in any case you're still stuck with the "does God say it because it's good or is it good because God says it" problem - I mean, how do you even know that anything at all is good. Your intuitions are corrupt by your own admission.
If God created our intuitions then they should perfectly fulfill His intentions for them. I think that our moral intuitions point toward God's nature, so that is what perfect morality refers too. You said that you have a moral standard, but that it's not objective or ultimate. I do think that you consider it better than other standards which you shouldn't, but that isn't what I want to draw attention to. I want to draw attention to the fact that you are operating under the belief that you can rightly speak about what your moral intuitions refer to. In making conclusions about your moral faculties you are affirming your intellectual faculties. But how can you affirm your intellectual faculties any more than your moral faculties? This is what I mean by going in and out of the door. You step out of your world view into mine when you pick up intellectual faculties, to speak about how you don't have moral faculties that are objective. There is no good reason why you should have intellectual faculties at all, so if you have them, which you seem to believe that you do, then you should attribute a source to them that would make them likely.
If so, does that mean that if you were to achieve perfect morality, you would act like God does?
Evolution. That's a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for our sense of morality, and why it's changing and why we care more about those close to us etc etc.
Whether or not we are able to discern the truth about something doesn't say anything about whether or not there's some higher purpose to it.
Does that mean that anything God does is good by definition?
True. If God is really there and then disappears or dies, it would indeed be horrible.
You act as if there is anything wrong with genocide. However the only way it could actually be wrong is if there is an objective moral standard which you don't believe exists. The people, which are the object of your moral objection, were not wiped out, they were given several hundred years to change, and were ultimately judged for their actions in the land. Morality requires justice. But what can you say of any of these events? Can you say that it 'should not be' because a chemical reaction occurred in your brain? Not only can you not say that a chemical reaction results in a should, you deny that there is any should at all, whether to commit genocide, or not commit genocide. Yet inside you feel genocide is wrong, which is to live in insanity, where all of our perceptions of the world are contrary to the way the world actually is. Sanity is another thing that we lose.
Understandable, and I can relate. I spent several years in a sort of agnostic limbo when I lost faith, and it was dreadful. But there are other ways to find the purpose, hope and peace that I used to think were impossible without God. But if your faith makes you happy, I'm all for it
Understandable, and I can relate. I spent several years in a sort of agnostic limbo when I lost faith, and it was dreadful. But there are other ways to find the purpose, hope and peace that I used to think were impossible without God. But if your faith makes you happy, I'm all for it
The provided video presents a direct simple challenge.I don't comment on videos from non seekers, and I don't play games.Sure. But then:
Please defend your faith then
And if you should decide to proceed, let me forewarn you.... If Yahweh does exist, then it may not matter what I think. His actions may simply be 'right', by way of 'might makes right.'?.?.?.?.?
True, I have no grounds to say it's "objectively" wrong to murder. But then neither have you, because when you say it's because God says so, you're pointing to a commandment, not an obvious apparent moral law. Morality would be whatever God says, not what appears to be inherently moral. And we see the consequences of that kind of thinking in religious societies - Jehova's Witnesses is a good example. People will excommunicate their own family members, which will obviously go against their own moral judgments, but they still believe it's right because God says so (or so they think).
No, there are examples of whole tribes, including obviously innocent children, being slaughtered for no sin of their own.
You and I both believe genocide is wrong, but you get the additional problem of having to defend a supposedly moral God committing obviously immoral acts. I really don't feel I've lost insanity along with my faith. In many ways, the world has stopped being insane.
Again, no difference between you and I there. I believe some things are right and wrong, as we all do, whether we like it or not. But it's you who have to believe that theft is good, if that's what God happens to command.
The "purpose" of my mental faculties is, when push comes to shove, survival. We're programmed, as it were, to do whatever it takes to spread our genes, which explains both selfishness and compassion. It's why we can sacrifice ourselves for our kin while also thinking that we are more valuable than dogs.
How do you know God's actions are good?
