Can there be morality without God?

[Ana the Ist]

Some say that our system of doing things is not working and what we have been seeing with financial collapses and other breakdowns with families and the justice system are just signs that our way of doing things is wrong.

Some believe that commercialism and the love of money and material things is causing most of our problems. Putting profits before people. So in some ways people who have little maybe truly happy because they dont have all those trappings to delude them into thinking they are happy and better off.

So eventually our system may completely break down and we will find ourselves in a different world with different ways of doing things that maybe more repressive.

I am not sure you can clearly determine why a society is happy and successful. Many will say that the countries you mention as secular are basically built on Christian values. The religious ones you mention who are suffering are normally the poor , uneducated ones and there are many factors why that is besides religion.

But if you break down the factors about what Christianity does in our societies there are stats which show people are better off with a religion and belonging to one. They foster a sense of belonging, support the vulnerable in society and give hope where there is none. They can teach and instill a good sense of morality and there are stats which show there are better outcomes for people physically, mentally, emotionally and financially.
There have been times throughout history where religion has led to good results in society. But basically in a modern secular world and politics you cant have religion ruling things as it will be rejected. Belief has to be something chosen and free will is important if we are to come to that choice.

But you could also look at all the communist countries and dictators that are non religious and there will be many more that are causing misery and suffering. Throughout history secular politics and rulers have accounted for many more deaths and suffering that religion has ever caused. Thats because it is humans who are the ones doing it.

As for the links you posted its a bit funny because I have links that support the opposite for how religion affects people. So I guess you have to assess the source to see if its legit or not. Or maybe stats can be found for both sides of the story.

The other thing with comparing religion to secular life is that a large part of what religion is suppose to be is associated with suffering, poverty, homelessness, mental illness and all the other things that societies have problems with. In one way they are attracting those people and associated with them because they are involved in helping them. So their congregations will have a larger proportion of these people.

But like I said if you break down the workings of religion and what effects it has on people and society the research shows that it has a beneficial effect merely by the fact that it is including all those people who are vulnerable and isolated in society. Mainly because it gives hope and a sense of belonging and promotes a good lifestyle. Members of congregations are subject to continuous positive teachings about good living and being kind to others. That is what they are there for and that is their main mission in life. Most of the time secular society hasn't got time for this. Governments dont put time and money towards these things so its the religious charities mostly that are involved in helping the vulnerable in society.

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-global-poverty

Heres some research from one of the sites you linked which shows that belonging to religion helps a person with their physical and mental health.
Religious Americans are reported to have more robust immune systems, lower blood pressure, and better recovery times from operations, (although these claims have been disputed) (2, 3). Attending church provides many potential health advantages including promotion of a healthier lifestyle, improved stress management, and better social support (4). Such benefits could explain why religious Americans live longer according to some studies
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201302/do-religious-people-really-live-longer
Being married and being involved in religious activities are generally associated with positive effects in several areas, including physical and mental health, economic outcomes, and the process of raising children.
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis
8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life
Puts a smile on your face
Raises self-esteem (if you live in the right place)
Soothes anxiety
Protects against depressive symptoms
Motivates doctor visits
Lowers your blood pressure
Helps you resist junk food
But could make you fat
8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life | Religious People & Prayer | Resist Junk Food & Soothe Depression

Sooo...you don't want to shorten your posts but you'd prefer if I manage my quotes better? Sorry, it's easier for me this way. I post from my phone, so it's difficult to keep separating your essays into manageable chunks. I'll keep doing it as I have been...I put your statements into quotes and separate them from my responses. It shouldn't be that tough for you to recognize your own words...

"Some say that our system of doing things is not working and what we have been seeing with financial collapses..."

I'm not claiming that things are perfect or that they ever will be. I'm just claiming that the world is a better place than its ever been throughout history.

"So in some ways people who have little maybe truly happy because..."

Sure, the poor and the rich have different problems. Personally, I'd rather worry that all my toys and gadgets are disconnecting me from real relationships than worry about finding something to eat or a place to live.

"So eventually our system may completely break down and we will find ourselves in a different world ..."

Let's focus on the here and now. Speculating on what could possibly happen in the future is a pointless exercise.

"I am not sure you can clearly determine why a society is happy and successful. "

Sure you can...in the cases of the nations I cited, they're reaping the benefits of rampant secularism. They've created societies where the basic needs for everyone are taken care of...they trade this for the possibility of a few of them becoming multi-billionaires. If I was put to the same choice, I'd gladly trade everything I'll never be for some peace of mind and economic security.

"you could also look at all the communist countries..."

I'm not aware of any communist nations.... which nations are you speaking of? Not that it really matters, we're discussing secularism vs religion...not communism vs capitalism.

"Throughout history secular politics and rulers have accounted for many more deaths and suffering that religion has ever caused. Thats because it is humans who are the ones doing it."

Isn't it always "humans doing it"? It doesn't matter if the reasons are secular or religious...humans are the only ones warring with humans. I'm afraid you've got it backwards... religious politics and religious rulers have killed so many more people than secular politics and rulers that it's not even close. I can't even think of any secular politics or rulers that existed before the modern era, and even then they were in the minority by a huge number until after WW1. That's going to place nearly all the war and genocide prior to the 1920-30s squarely in the religious category. If you doubt this, just look up the religious significance of the word "king" or "emperor" and you'll see what I mean.

"Most of the time secular society hasn't got time for this. Governments dont put time and money towards these things so its the religious charities mostly that are involved in helping the vulnerable in society. "

You're talking about quality of life... and would you like to guess which nations rank the highest in quality of life? That's right...it's mostly the exact same nations that I listed as having the happiest people. Coincidence? Probably not... since its their secular governments that are responsible for this. So why is it that a much wealthier, much more religious nation like the U.S. doesn't do as well as these highly secular nations? I'll let you think about that...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok well whats happening as unlike the normal replies you are including my posts in the same writing as yours and without quote marks. So all the writing looks the same. So you are taking one sentence that I may have said and putting in among what you say all in the same style writing. So I am not able to tell the difference. This may be because the reply button is not working. But still if you put quotes around it it should show it as different. Thats why I was coloring my quotes different to high light them. But it looks like I missed one. Oh well I thought you agreed with me for once. And yes I do carry on but I like to elaborate rather than make a short reply that can be dismissive.

"OK I'm not just talking about you but society and the system as a whole."
This is what I mean above as I spotted this time. Its in the same writing as yours and can be confused as something you say. It should either be quoted as something I said like, this is what you said and highlighted.

"But as a system all of those opinions are equal and have a chance of being applied. "

To...

"So no one can start to say we should ban this or that morally even though we are doing this in 100s of other ways with all the little rules and regulations societies have."

I understand what subjective morality is but as you said this forum isn't about morality I will leave it at that as that subject is a big one and though its sort of related will only complicate things. But one thing I would like to point out is that I didn't say or imply that the results of people with depression ect is from moving away from Christianity. I was merely pointing out that for whatever reason the present lifestyles of modern day societies especially those in more modernized countries are showing a lot of stress, depression, anxiety and suicide. We already know of the higher levels of heart disease, diabetes and other lifestyle related illnesses. These go hand in hand with modern life.

There is also data showing that economically something is going wrong with the system. So you have to look at an overall historic view and see what the trends are and where things are heading. What is happening now maybe the culmination and end result of many years of particular things that society has been doing. Some say that our system of doing things is not working and what we have been seeing with financial collapses and other breakdowns with families and the justice system are just signs that our way of doing things is wrong.

Some believe that commercialism and the love of money and material things is causing most of our problems. Putting profits before people. So in some ways people who have little maybe truly happy because they dont have all those trappings to delude them into thinking they are happy and better off.

How do we know that communism for example isn't a better way of doing things politically and maybe socially. Some talk about a one world government. So eventually our system may completely break down and we will find ourselves in a different world with different ways of doing things that maybe more repressive.

I am not sure you can clearly determine why a society is happy and successful. Many will say that the countries you mention as secular are basically built on Christian values. The religious ones you mention who are suffering are normally the poor , uneducated ones and there are many factors why that is besides religion. In some ways the western countries have contributed to their problems. In other ways we are responsible for helping them.

But if you break down the factors about what Christianity does in our societies there are stats which show people are better off with a religion and belonging to one. They foster a sense of belonging, support the vulnerable in society and give hope where there is none. They can teach and instill a good sense of morality and there are stats which show there are better outcomes for people physically, mentally, emotionally and financially.
There have been times throughout history where religion has led to good results in society. But basically in a modern secular world and politics you cant have religion ruling things as it will be rejected. Belief has to be something chosen and free will is important if we are to come to that choice.

But you could also look at all the communist countries and dictators that are non religious and there will be many more that are causing misery and suffering. Throughout history secular politics and rulers have accounted for many more deaths and suffering that religion has ever caused. Thats because it is humans who are the ones doing it.

As for the links you posted its a bit funny because I have links that support the opposite for how religion affects people. So I guess you have to assess the source to see if its legit or not. Or maybe stats can be found for both sides of the story. I notice one was Australia as well. But there are many factors that make up a happy country. Australia has beautiful weather and great beaches. So even if you are poor you can sit on the beach and absorb the surroundings. Go to England where the weather is horrible and it makes a difference. They say there is such as thing as weather depression. People get depressed because of the bad overcast and dull miserable weather.

The other thing with comparing religion to secular life is that a large part of what religion is suppose to be is associated with suffering, poverty, homelessness, mental illness and all the other things that societies have problems with. In one way they are attracting those people and associated with them because they are involved in helping them. So their congregations will have a larger proportion of these people.

But like I said if you break down the workings of religion and what effects it has on people and society the research shows that it has a beneficial effect merely by the fact that it is including all those people who are vulnerable and isolated in society. Mainly because it gives hope and a sense of belonging and promotes a good lifestyle. Members of congregations are subject to continuous positive teachings about good living and being kind to others. That is what they are there for and that is their main mission in life. Most of the time secular society hasn't got time for this. Governments dont put time and money towards these things so its the religious charities mostly that are involved in helping the vulnerable in society.

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-global-poverty

Heres some research from one of the sites you linked which shows that belonging to religion helps a person with their physical and mental health.
Religious Americans are reported to have more robust immune systems, lower blood pressure, and better recovery times from operations, (although these claims have been disputed) (2, 3). Attending church provides many potential health advantages including promotion of a healthier lifestyle, improved stress management, and better social support (4). Such benefits could explain why religious Americans live longer according to some studies
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201302/do-religious-people-really-live-longer
Being married and being involved in religious activities are generally associated with positive effects in several areas, including physical and mental health, economic outcomes, and the process of raising children.
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis
8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life
Puts a smile on your face
Raises self-esteem (if you live in the right place)
Soothes anxiety
Protects against depressive symptoms
Motivates doctor visits
Lowers your blood pressure
Helps you resist junk food
But could make you fat
8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life | Religious People & Prayer | Resist Junk Food & Soothe Depression

Now let's talk about some of these links you posted...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201302/do-religious-people-really-live-longer

I'm really surprised that you posted this link in "support" of your position. Either you didn't read it...or you were hoping I wouldn't read it and you deliberately misrepresented it. I'm not going to speculate which one...but to clear things up, here's some quotes from your link....

"With economic development, health improves, but religion declines (1). This means that developed countries are both healthier and more secular. "

"So secular populations definitely live much longer than residents of highly religious countries. "

"Yet, the apparent health benefits of religion are not found in some other developed countries. In states like Denmark and the Netherlands, where religiously active individuals are in the minority, any health advantages of religion shrink to vanishing point as illustrated by research on clinical depression"

"When we compare people living in the same country, religious people enjoy a health advantage if they are part of a large majority, as is true of the U.S. That advantage disappears if religious people are in the minority."

"Why? One plausible reason that non religious people in the U.S. have worse health is that they are largely excluded from participation in politics, and find that they have less of a role to play in their local communities because religious people consider them unworthy. "

Sooo...the article doesn't claim that the religious are healthier and happier than the secular at all. When we compare one nation's population against another, secularism does much better than religious by far. When we compare populations within a nation...the religious only enjoy advantages if they are in the majority...because they tend to exclude and ostracize non-believers from communities and the benefits those communities confer. You may have noticed that it didn't say the reverse happens where non-believers are the majority.

So for anyone who had a hard time following all that, secularism is better for your health...that is, unless you live somewhere that non-believers suffer from the bigotry of the religious.

Your next link was about marriage and its health benefits. I read a little bit of it...it's nice. It doesn't have anything to do with secularism vs religion...but it's nice. There was nothing in it to suggest that secular marriages don't benefit in the same ways religious marriages do. In fact, the article makes a great argument in favor of homosexual marriage.... as they should be able to enjoy all the tangible health benefits that hetero marriage does.

Your last article, which draws talking points from several different studies, is essentially refuted by your first article. There's no reason to think those health benefits aren't available to non-believers once we remove the barriers of bigotry that a religious majority impose upon us.

 

[stevevw]

That really doesn't answer the question. All you have described is where the commands came from. What you didn't discuss is how we know if those commands are moral.

As you have acknowledged I have described where the teachings and example comes from which is Jesus Christ as He was God in the flesh. So as we know the same source that states where Jesus comes from also states that Jesus was without sin. He was perfectly obedient. So therefore we know that He was perfectly moral. So He is worthy to set the example and show us the way to live a moral life.

Religions have also made good people do bad. Your own posts show how this is done. First step, you pronounce that no matter what God says, it has to be moral by definition. Second step, put your words in God's mouth, and people obey.

So are you saying that I am bad. I dont follow. No one is putting any words in Gods mouth. That is why Jesus came so that we had a clear message about what was good in Gods sight. Jesus was obedient to God and God was pleased. Jesus did not sin and showed us the way to God. By accepting Jesus into our lives and following him we know what is right and wrong. If you look at the teachings of Jesus and His example you see what has to be done. Jesus was constantly teaching and showing people how to live and be saved.

So if someone claims to know God but doesn't follow Jesus they are a false prophet. Jesus showed us this by the examples of telling a person by the fruit they bear. So we have a measuring stick to go by in Jesus and its quite obvious. Its as simple as that.

 

[Loudmouth]

As you have acknowledged I have described where the teachings and example comes from which is Jesus Christ as He was God in the flesh. So as we know the same source that states where Jesus comes from also states that Jesus was without sin. He was perfectly obedient. So therefore we know that He was perfectly moral.

That is a claim that you are assuming to be true simply because of where you think it originates from.

How do we know that he really was without sin, and that his commands are moral?

So are you saying that I am bad.

I am saying that you have given up your ability to judge good and bad which can lead to dangerous territory. When you give up your sense of morality in the name of obedience, bad things can happen.

No one is putting any words in Gods mouth.

That is what the entire Bible is, the act of man putting his words in God's mouth.

 

[stevevw]

That is a claim that you are assuming to be true simply because of where you think it originates from.

How do we know that he really was without sin, and that his commands are moral?

Well earlier you seemed to accept where the claims came from so I was then telling you what the claims were. You didn't seem to have any problems with me saying that Jesus was the source of the claims. So we were going along just nicely there. But when it gets down to the crunch thats when you will reject Jesus.

We cant know if Jesus was without sin apart from what the bible says and what Jesus claimed Himself. So how do we prove something like that unless we were there or we can have the knowledge to know the truth. But certainly what is written about Jesus shows that He did no wrong and no one has accused Him of doing no wrong apart from those who crucified Him. But even Pilot said He couldn't find any wrong in Jesus and that the high priests seemed to be trying to pin something on an innocent man. The prophesies also tell us that He did no wrong and was like an innocent lamb led to the slaughterer.

For what was written about what Jesus did and what He said there is in wrong and it is all moral in its teachings. So even if we say that none of it is true it certainly gets is wright anyway for what it claims. So we can follow the teachings and morals anyway as they dont show us any wrongs and seem moral to live by.

I am saying that you have given up your ability to judge good and bad which can lead to dangerous territory. When you give up your sense of morality in the name of obedience, bad things can happen.

No I am not giving up my free will or blindly following anything. This is where you get it wrong and think that Christians follow things blindly and without checking to see if all is ok and making good sense. We still are humans and we still use our brains. I am merely assessing things and then deciding and choosing that following Jesus is the best way for me to live a good moral life. I believe that I am a sinner and therefor I am weak and not capable of living a good moral life on my own ability. So I entrust myself to God and allow Jesus to live in me and be my guidance.

When I accept Jesus I am born again and therefore live by the spirit of God. As God lives in my heart I His spirit gives me a God conscience which cannot live with sin and wants to please God by being obedient. I am doing Gods will in my life and not my own. The real danger is when you believe that you are good enough to decide that you can be in control of these things based on your own human ability only. That as a human you can rule and control what is right and wrong and that there is no one else but humans who can do this. That is when we become the gods of our own lives and world and begin to destroy it.

As we have seen throughout history humans are fallible and are not capable of knowing all things. They are not trust worthy of doing the right thing and are susceptible to corruption. They are weak to temptation and will go astray and sin. Thats is why we need to acknowledge this and allow someone or something else independent of ourselves to lead the way. If we know of something else that is more knowledgeable and powerful that ourselves doesn't it make sense to allow that something or someone to lead the way.

That is what the entire Bible is, the act of man putting his words in God's mouth.

Thats is what you say. There is to much testimony and history to dismiss it as that. It has survived the test of time and is still alive and well. They are not just words they are living words that give a spiritual message. The writings use the filter of humans to express the contact man has with God. That has to be taken into consideration. Humans have their own views and will see things in different ways. But the basic relationship we have with God in which He is showing us who we are and who He is and the creation He has made for us are real questions that God answers for us. These are things in all of us and we are seeking answer in many different ways. I believe God is that answer. Jesus is the way to God and was sent because we severed our relationship with God. So when we look to Jesus we see God and find the answers we are looking for.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well earlier you seemed to accept where the claims came from so I was then telling you what the claims were. You didn't seem to have any problems with me saying that Jesus was the source of the claims. So we were going along just nicely there. But when it gets down to the crunch thats when you will reject Jesus.

I have no problem with you establishing what the Bible says. The Bible says exactly what you say. The question is whether the Bible is correct.

Apparently, the act of putting "because God told me so" behind a commandment automatically makes that commandment moral. Or is this not the case?

We cant know if Jesus was without sin apart from what the bible says and what Jesus claimed Himself.

You mean what the biblical authors claimed, since Jesus did not write any part of the Bible.

So how do we prove something like that unless we were there or we can have the knowledge to know the truth. But certainly what is written about Jesus shows that He did no wrong and no one . . .

By what measure?

Now you seem to indicate that you have your own sense of morality, which is what I actually believe as well. The true justification for a deity being moral is us judging the actions of that deity. If this is the case, then there can be morality without God since humans are able to determine what is moral all on our own.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No I am not giving up my free will or blindly following anything. This is where you get it wrong and think that Christians follow things blindly and without checking to see if all is ok and making good sense. We still are humans and we still use our brains.I am merely assessing that following Jesus is the best way for me to live a good moral life. I believe that I am a sinner and therefor I am weak and not capable of living a good moral life on my own ability. So I entrust myself to God and allow Jesus to live in me and be my guidance.

I'm shocked Steve. After all this time arguing with you that morality is something unique to everyone...something relative to each of us and our situations....you finally seem to agree. In your quote above, the part I bolded describes you accessing your own morals in a given situation and deciding if they align with your god's morals (which are different from your own by necessity) and then choosing which set of morals to follow.

This is, at its very essence, moral relativism ( or as you call it, "subjectivity")

 

[stevevw]

I have no problem with you establishing what the Bible says. The Bible says exactly what you say. The question is whether the Bible is correct.

Apparently, the act of putting "because God told me so" behind a commandment automatically makes that commandment moral. Or is this not the case?

Its not as simple as putting God behind whatever people think is right as being OK. What we have seen with some of the acts of evil in the name of God is obviously wrong and everyone knows that. We all know it is evil intentions, long disputes over land rights or hatred involving political, Ethnic and cultural differences.

The bible is clear about what is right and what is wrong. The 10 commandments are clear. What Jesus said is clear. Yes people can twist things but basically it is pretty straight forward how a Christian should live. As Jesus said the two commandments that cover all the laws are Love God with all your heart and soul and to love others as you love yourself. So that applied to any of what the morals are will give clear and definite meaning as to how we should behave. Anyone who lives outside this is injecting their own interpretation and personal motives as well as the many human traits like hate, revenge, personal motives, selfish desires into things.

You mean what the biblical authors claimed, since Jesus did not write any part of the Bible.

Well yes what the writers of the bible have said. We have many different writers from different locations and times saying the same things. But yes it comes down to a faith and trust in whether you believe what was written. But this cannot be compared to just some person claiming to know what God said. These are ancient writings that have a lot of history and have been verified in many ways. We know there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth as a preacher. So we can be fairly confident that what was written about what He said is close to the mark. We know that He was put on trial by Pilot and crucified for claiming to be the Son of God. So the core of who he was is verified and its a matter of believing the rest.

By what measure?

Now you seem to indicate that you have your own sense of morality, which is what I actually believe as well. The true justification for a deity being moral is us judging the actions of that deity. If this is the case, then there can be morality without God since humans are able to determine what is moral all on our own.

Who said that humans are knowing what morality is. Certainly a lot of this morality seems to have come from a long time ago and the source would be hard to determine. What we come up with now has already been around for thousands of years. The bible is one of those sources for morality. The teachings of Jesus is another source. The thing is there maybe different sources for morality around and man is certainly capable of deciding what he thinks is best. But its not just about that. Its about the application as well and humans have a poor history of knowing and applying what is right and wrong. We may know what is moral but we dont always do it.

But I believe left to our own devices we dont completely know the big picture of what is right and good for us. When we think we do and try to do it our way thats when we get it wrong. This is seen in our history how what we do in one generation ends up destroying things in the future ones. What we think is right for peace ends up creating conflict. What we think is good fro our societies ends up always causing more problems generation after generation. So it makes sense that if we are fallible and dont know everything then we should trust and put our faith in someone who does. Jesus says that He is the way, the truth and the life. That means there is no better way, there is no other truth and the life we can have with God is no better as well.
Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

 

[JustMeSee]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right. That sounds great to many people because they know what is wrong and right. Oddly, people seldom agree on this. Furthermore, when people gain power over others their view of right and wrong tends to change to right being whatever protects their power or grants them more power. Historical cases of this are:

Ukraine Famine | United Human Rights Council

and

Chronology of Mass Killings during the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) - Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence

Religious death tolls happen, but they tend to be relatively small and with good reason, ie crusades to kick out foreign invaders from Europe or the inquisition to root out subversive elements of society ie Kabbalists who were accused of sacrificing Christian children.

Poor argument. Morality is far more human than of any gods.

 

[stevevw]

I'm shocked Steve. After all this time arguing with you that morality is something unique to everyone...something relative to each of us and our situations....you finally seem to agree. In your quote above, the part I bolded describes you accessing your own morals in a given situation and deciding if they align with your god's morals (which are different from your own by necessity) and then choosing which set of morals to follow.

This is, at its very essence, moral relativism ( or as you call it, "subjectivity")

What I am saying is that we have a brain and have the ability to reason and use logic. These things are not about morality. They are tools we have to work things out. Morality is something I believe is from God. So what God says through Jesus has to be checked and tested to see that it is from God and not an insane delusion or your own motives being injected into things. So if it doesn't conform to what Jesus has taught and said then it is not from God. Jesus is the way to know God. So we have a clear teaching of good and we have the human ability to check that what we are believing is from God and not ourselves.

But with subjective morality it is exactly what you said. It comes down to humans deciding what is right and wrong. We all know that humans are fallible and get it wrong. They dont know the big picture and can never know all the things that are needed to make the decisions on what is truly right and good or bad and wrong morally. Free will is important and that is the gateway for which a person has the right to decide. But that free will is only the ability to be able to decide. It doesn't have any inbuilt knowledge about what is right and wrong.

Under subjective morality each person can decide what is right and wrong for themselves. The morals that they decide to behold are just as valid to them as the next person. But that just allows two opposing views of morality to have the right to exist at the same time and the potential to be used at the same time. That doesn't make sense and that is what can allow insane ideas to exist and be validated. It doesn't decern between ideas that are mixed with personal views and motives. Whoever can articulate the best argument for their views can promote their position. Whoever can manipulate or influence others that a lie is the truth can get their ideas of morality promoted. That just opens the door for trouble and can be dangerous.

Believing that morality is "something relative to each of us and our situations" is correct only for the right to be able to make that decision. Know one can tell another what to believe about right and wrong. So each person can decide and people will see things differently. But that is different to actually then allowing all those different views to be valid but that is the extension of subjective morality. Because there is no truth and objective morals the only thing left is the human view. So then somewhere along the line someones versions of man made morals will be applied. That is the danger because humans are fallible and cant know whats best. So there is great potential for consequences that will led to harm. Thats why its important to have an independent set of morals that are outside ourselves that can be relied upon.

But thanks for the sort of compliment. I enjoyed that for a fleeting moment.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I am saying is that we have a brain and have the ability to reason and use logic. These things are not about morality. They are tools we have to work things out. Morality is something I believe is from God. So what God says through Jesus has to be checked and tested to see that it is from God and not an insane delusion or your own motives being injected into things. So if it doesn't conform to what Jesus has taught and said then it is not from God. Jesus is the way to know God. So we have a clear teaching of good and we have the human ability to check that what we are believing is from God and not ourselves.

But with subjective morality it is exactly what you said. It comes down to humans deciding what is right and wrong. We all know that humans are fallible and get it wrong. They dont know the big picture and can never know all the things that are needed to make the decisions on what is truly right and good or bad and wrong morally. Free will is important and that is the gateway for which a person has the right to decide. But that free will is only the ability to be able to decide. It doesn't have any inbuilt knowledge about what is right and wrong.

Under subjective morality each person can decide what is right and wrong for themselves. The morals that they decide to behold are just as valid to them as the next person. But that just allows two opposing views of morality to have the right to exist at the same time and the potential to be used at the same time. That doesn't make sense and that is what can allow insane ideas to exist and be validated. It doesn't decern between ideas that are mixed with personal views and motives. Whoever can articulate the best argument for their views can promote their position. Whoever can manipulate or influence others that a lie is the truth can get their ideas of morality promoted. That just opens the door for trouble and can be dangerous.

Believing that morality is "something relative to each of us and our situations" is correct only for the right to be able to make that decision. Know one can tell another what to believe about right and wrong. So each person can decide and people will see things differently. But that is different to actually then allowing all those different views to be valid but that is the extension of subjective morality. Because there is no truth and objective morals the only thing left is the human view. So then somewhere along the line someones versions of man made morals will be applied. That is the danger because humans are fallible and cant know whats best. So there is great potential for consequences that will led to harm. Thats why its important to have an independent set of morals that are outside ourselves that can be relied upon.

But thanks for the sort of compliment. I enjoyed that for a fleeting moment.

Well, I suppose it's possible I misunderstood you...but you haven't exactly cleared things up. Let's review for a moment what got us here...

1.Loudmouth claimed you weren't even expressing a position on morality, you were expressing a position on obedience.

2. You claimed that you were expressing a position on morality, and that you weren't just being "blindly obedient" to god's will. You defended this claim by stating....
"What I am saying is that we have a brain and have the ability to reason and use logic."

Use them for what? What exactly are you using reason and logic to deduce? I thought you were referring to moral situations...apparently that's not the case. Here's the statement you made that I was responding to....

"This is where you get it wrong and think that Christians follow things blindly and without checking to see if all is ok and making good sense. We still are humans and we still use our brains. I am merely assessing things and then deciding and choosing that following Jesus is the best way for me to live a good moral life. "

Again, what exactly do you mean by "things"? What are these things that make you different from someone blindly obeying? All that you mentioned in your posts was that you were using logic and reason to deduce "things" and that you had your reasons for obeying god.

Since the only "things" that I could think of that would allow you to claim you were following a system of morality and not just blindly obeying god were, in fact, morals....i assumed that's what you meant. You also mentioned that you had reasons for obeying god... but that doesn't change the fact that you're blindly obeying god (all that is meant by "blindly" here is that you don't question god). You do realize that most people who are obeying someone else have good reasons for obeying... they aren't doing it against their will, right? So whatever the reasons for obeying god are...they don't change the fact that you are blindly obeying. The only thing that can change the fact that you're blindly obeying god.... are these "things" you mentioned that you use logic and reason for. What are they?

 

[stevevw]

deleted quote as it was done wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"This is where you get it wrong and think that Christians follow things blindly and without checking to see if all is ok and making good sense. We still are humans and we still use our brains. I am merely assessing things and then deciding and choosing that following Jesus is the best way for me to live a good moral life. "

Reasoning alone cant determine what is moral because under subjective morality there are so many different views of what is moral. That either says that peoples reasoning is out of whack or they are not being honest with themselves. So I think there is more to determining morals than reasoning with yourself. You could rationalize a lie into the truth and convince yourself that its OK. I see this with many things in society. Things are accepted as OK even when we know they lead to bad consequences. But people justify its OK for the sake of allowing other benefits. Or things can be influenced by personal motives or compromised by not wanting to deal with the situations. So its more about the truth and thats where I believe we need an independent source to give us the ultimate truth. That to me is Jesus.

Of course. If you dont have a set of morals that you believe in then you are going to be like a ship in a storm. Tossed with the waves and never finding a port to harbor in. You will be subjective to what ever is the trend or belief by society at that time. Even though you believe you are coming up with those morals and they are yours. They are really a product of whatever you are subjected to. We know that humans and even societies and countries who can agree on certain rights and wrongs get it wrong. They are subject to mistakes and influences that can tarnish their thoughts. They are subject to influences of power, corruption, manipulations, compromises and selfish motives.

Yes they do but that doesn't mean that what they determine is right and that is the problem. Even for religion.

Thats silly. Just because someone is obeying something doesn't mean they dont realize why they have to go along with it. Society has to obey the laws. If its dont drink and drive we know why we have to obey that law. Barbecue if you drink and drive you will crash your car and could kill someone. There are some who will disagree with some laws and they will have their reasons.

So as a Christian I can realize why I believe in God and why I choose to follow him and be obedient. Jesus said He was the way, the truth and the life. So He was claiming something. But as a none believer you may say thats just a claim and how do we know its true. But as a believer who has accepted Jesus through faith to begin with these claims become something that we can experience in our lives. So we find that we do see that Jesus gives us life because we experience that first hand. It becomes a better life than the other ways we had tried even according to what secular society claimed or said was what life was all about.

So this also points to Jesus being the way and truth when this is realized. We understand that there needs to be a truth in this life and that Jesus is that Truth. It is realized through living the experience. So in other words its not just blind faith but we get feed back and tangible rewards and experiences in out lives. So it makes good sense to follow God. This is where I believe in the objective morality of God. As I mentioned before humans are fallible and our history shows that. We keep making decisions which end up causing us many problems. What we end up deciding is morally right can lead to bad consequences. Thats because we can compromise and corrupt the truth of the matters at hand. We either dont realize or we do realize but somehow justify our actions or rationalize them away.

But in Jesus we can be confident that He represents the truth. If we trust in Him we will always find that things work out for the good. Because we cant know all things so when we trust God to lead the way He will lead us in the right direction. That is the only time we may have to trust him without completely knowing what the outcome may be. But we have already experienced the results in many other ways to know that we are on the right track to begin with so that is just an extension of what we already have come to know. So the difference is that secular society will trust themselves and we know that we fail. We need an independent source outside ourselves to lead the way. Its a case of which source. I believe it to be Jesus through my experience.

I don't know if you mistakenly quoted someone else and forgot to cite them...or you're guilty of something far less scrupulous. Either way, I never said...

"So it has to come down to what you believe morals are."

Nor have I said...

"People have the ability to determine what they believe is right and wrong."

As I said, I'm not sure how the mistake happened....and it doesn't really concern me yet. Go ahead and remove those two quotes (and your responses to them if you want your post to make any sense) and then I'll reply to what you've written.

 

[stevevw]

Well, I suppose it's possible I misunderstood you...but you haven't exactly cleared things up. Let's review for a moment what got us here...

OK I can see what happened. You had included some quotes that I had said without high lighting them. Well you did high light the first couple by putting numbers next to them ie 1 and 2. But there were another couple which you mentioned in among your replies which were not high lighted and I didn't see them. I thought they were part of your replies. So I will start again. But I wont elaborate to much as I have made my points previously.

1.Loudmouth claimed you weren't even expressing a position on morality, you were expressing a position on obedience.

2. You claimed that you were expressing a position on morality, and that you weren't just being "blindly obedient" to god's will. You defended this claim by stating....
"What I am saying is that we have a brain and have the ability to reason and use logic."

I have answered that with my last reply.
Its more than blind obedience because as I said in my last reply we realize why we should be obedient. We see that the morals of God make sense in our lives through our experience. But refer to my last reply for a more complete answer.

Use them for what? What exactly are you using reason and logic to deduce? I thought you were referring to moral situations...apparently that's not the case. Here's the statement you made that I was responding to....

Reason and logic help us with many things. But if you just use reason to work out what morals are then how does that work when under subjective morality people will have different views. Does that mean that reason will conclude that all those different views are all correct at the same time event if some are opposing each other. So it has to be more than reason. There has to be some truth. Otherwise how do we know we are reasoning correctly and not fooling ourselves. Humans have the ability to turn a lie into something OK by justifying it is OK because they rationalize the truth away.

"This is where you get it wrong and think that Christians follow things blindly and without checking to see if all is ok and making good sense. We still are humans and we still use our brains. I am merely assessing things and then deciding and choosing that following Jesus is the best way for me to live a good moral life. "

Ok that is my quote. You will have to point out my quotes of high light them as it gets confusing when they dont stand out.

Again, what exactly do you mean by "things"? What are these things that make you different from someone blindly obeying? All that you mentioned in your posts was that you were using logic and reason to deduce "things" and that you had your reasons for obeying god.

You have said it yourself. I have my reasons for following God. If I have my reasons then I am not following Him blindly. As I mentioned before people follow rules and laws and they can realize why those laws are there. They normally make sense as to why the law is there and its not just there to force people to do things for nothing. Thats the same with God. We realize why it makes sense to follow God because we get better results and better lives.

This goes back to needing a outside source for our morals because humans get it wrong. They cant be trusted. Even when they come to an agreement that something is ok to do it can often lead to bad consequences in the end. Thats because humans cant know all the circumstances and possibilities surrounding a situation. They also are subject to many influences like corruption with money or oil in some cases, manipulations of events, selfish motives, revenge, power in wanting to control things and make others do things their way.

Ironically this is something we in the west do when we pretend to enforce our policies and of peace and democracy on others. Like with the many situations where we have gone in to sort things out. We also mess things up because its more than just being an independent arbitrator. There are corrupt motives behind things such as with power sharing and enforcing others to do things our way. We are not a completely independent and fair judge on things.

Since the only "things" that I could think of that would allow you to claim you were following a system of morality and not just blindly obeying god were, in fact, morals....i assumed that's what you meant. You also mentioned that you had reasons for obeying god... but that doesn't change the fact that you're blindly obeying god (all that is meant by "blindly" here is that you don't question god). You do realize that most people who are obeying someone else have good reasons for obeying... they aren't doing it against their will, right? So whatever the reasons for obeying god are...they don't change the fact that you are blindly obeying. The only thing that can change the fact that you're blindly obeying god.... are these "things" you mentioned that you use logic and reason for. What are they?

This doesn't make sense. Everybody obeys something and sometimes we just have to go along whether we like it or not. Sometimes we may disagree. Does that mean we are blindly following something. If the law or moral that we follow is benefiting us and keeping things from going out of control then why does it matter. If it works it works. But I would say most of the time a Christian realizes that it makes a lot of sense to follow God because it gives them a better life. So if God is getting it right then so what if there are times when a believer has to trust God and may not know completely why God does something. They have ample evidence that He gets it right by their life experiences in keeping their life in order and making things work out.

 

[PapaBillyJr2]

There can be no true morality without God. The reason is because without God, nobody would be able to define morality. There has to be a starting point. Man would never be able to agree with other men's views. So with God, we have a clean and clear view of what morality is suppose to be. Now I know that there are a lot of people that may not want to agree with this, but the bottom line is that morality has to have a starting block. I choose to follow the Creator's definition, since we a have to answer to Him anyway later on down the line.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There can be no true morality without God. The reason is because without God, nobody would be able to define morality.

Some can and do.

There has to be a starting point. Man would never be able to agree with other men's views.

They don't agree with each other right now, even with belief in God!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

There can be no true morality without God. The reason is because without God, nobody would be able to define morality. There has to be a starting point. Man would never be able to agree with other men's views. So with God, we have a clean and clear view of what morality is suppose to be. Now I know that there are a lot of people that may not want to agree with this, but the bottom line is that morality has to have a starting block. I choose to follow the Creator's definition, since we a have to answer to Him anyway later on down the line.

If you base what is moral and what is not moral off the commands of some cosmic being, then you are not a moral person... you are simply an obedient one. In fact, I'd argue a moral system can not possibly be built off of the commandments of any being.

Moral people can identify what is moral, and why it is moral. They use objective consequences of actions as their basis to determine morality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Moral people can identify what is moral, and why it is moral. They use objective consequences of actions as their basis to determine morality.

Right, and some people may be correct in identifying moral actions, even if others are incorrect. Disagreement is only a possible social problem, not a problem for ethics as such.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[stevevw]

If you base what is moral and what is not moral off the commands of some cosmic being, then you are not a moral person... you are simply an obedient one. In fact, I'd argue a moral system can not possibly be built off of the commandments of any being.

Moral people can identify what is moral, and why it is moral. They use objective consequences of actions as their basis to determine morality.

Yet we see that humans have often got it wrong when it comes to assessing all the consequences of the decisions and actions they take. We are constantly seeing the fall out of past decisions taken which have brought bad consequences for future generations. Humans are also susceptible to justifying actions that can cause repercussions through rationalizing something that maybe bad to be ok because it allows them other benefits. They can even corrupt decisions based on selfish reasons like power, money or self interest.

So even though the ideal is to say we may consider the consequences and that is reason enough for us to do the right thing. Our history doesn't show this and there is a lot more to it. Basically we are not in a position to make the right decisions because we are fallible and have a weakness towards an evil side as well. Thats why it makes sense to have someone or something independent of ourselves that may be more reliable than us that we can use to judge what is right and wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Right, and some people may be correct in identifying moral actions, even if others are incorrect. Disagreement is only a possible social problem, not a problem for ethics as such.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The problem is no matter what a human may come up with that they can say is moral can never be certain to know that it is truly moral. So no one can correctly identity that something is moral. they can only think that it is moral in their view.