Is morality objective, even without God?

[Hans Blaster]

If you mean "were never indoctrinated into a set of religious beliefs"....

I'd be one. Yes, we're annoying to other atheists as well.

Can confirm.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Can confirm.

Lol sorry Hans, it took awhile for me to see it. There's no teacher for atheism, so we can get here through different routes. I think the previously religious route is far more common...and it creates a sense of self or community which some have a hard time letting go of or feel a desire to fill.

As for the type I am...it can easily spiral into a lack of self understanding and sort of nihilistic hedonism...I think I just got lucky enough in that respect to eventually conclude I need not justify my sense of self nor desire the sense of community I never really had. Fish don't have to explain why they're swimming after all. There's almost no advantages to this....I don't recommend it to anyone....and despite the difficulties of separation from an indoctrinated religion....it looks like a better deal to me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're welcome to contribute your thoughts on if and how Christianity influenced English Common Law.

I'm sure it did, and I'm certain someone has elaborated it better than I could. I find it interesting how pagan moral beliefs influenced the law....the act of dueling was a pagan practice later adopted by Christians as nowhere in the Bible does Jesus claim that whenever the doubt of guilt is unclear between two men does god declare who is guilty by combat.

It seems rather obvious that it's an extension of the nature of violence as power in any type of struggle or conflict. Yet Christians let it happen, legally, well into the 1800s.

 

[Bradskii]

This is a common argument. If you'll note from my previous posts, I was willing to concede your relationship as perfect. The reason for the questions that followed was to ask, "OK, for the purposes of this conversation your relationship is fine. But do all relationships last?" I believe you've conceded that not all relationships last, and further that when they end, it causes harm. So, we're starting from that point.

I think the point that was being proposed (I just checked back) was that a marriage is a commitment that 'should be captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow'.

Hey, if that's what someone wants to do, with an engagement and a buck and hen party and a limo ride in the wedding dress to a church wedding with friends and aunties and distant cousins all invited to the reception with a giant 5 tiered cake...then go for it. Or, do it in a foreign registry office a few days after agreeing to get married and your wife can ring her mum up later and say 'You'll never guess what I did today'.

All options are available. But I reject that it should be just one of them.

OK. It's a fair question, so I'm willing to entertain it. But I've never really thought about it before. It doesn't matter to me if Christianity has a unique morality. Maybe that's the conclusion it's coming to - that it doesn't matter to either of us.

As we discuss this, and my thoughts become clearer, maybe the only 2 points I could make have already been made: 1) That the English Common Law was influenced by people who were Christians, 2) that the English Common Law is different than pre-colonial law in other cultures (e.g. India and Arabia).

I'd say that in some parts of the world, especially the middle east, some laws would most definitely be theocratic. With some exceptions (drinking restrictions on a Sunday for example) that wouldn't be the case in the UK.

Maybe how they are different doesn't matter to you, as you'll argue that they simply had different arbitrary starting points and (for all "reasonable" cultures) they are converging on a utilitarian ideal. If so, I would disagree. I would say they are simply changing with the whims of the times, always have, and always will. People want to be free to do whatever they want to do, so they push for that. Eventually, when they realize that being totally free means other people feel no obligation to help them, and everything collapses about them, they sheepishly agree to some constraints. And then set about pushing to be totally free again.

Yes, it's quite a balancing act.

But, to answer your question, I would begin with this. What makes Christianity unique is Christ.

Well, in one sense that's trivially correct. But in another, having the son of a deity isn't.

If you want to take it further than that, I'll have to think about it. My first thought would be: If Christian morality is unique, it would be unique in what it chooses to distinguish as moral and immoral as a total set. Think Venn diagrams again. Christians may share with Hindus in calling thing A immoral. And they may share with Muslims in calling thing B immoral. But as a total set, only Christians call things A, B, C, etc. immoral. Further, they are unique in that only they punish thing A with aa, thing B with bb, etc.

I was thinking of something more substantial than one religion might stone you to death and another might behead you.

On a different issue, it's easy to note that Christians lobby for marriage between any man and woman who desire a sexual relationship, and your morality does not lobby for that.

Some religions are OK with it. Some are not. Some adherents of any given religion are OK with it and some are not. In my lifetime it's actually changed from 'some are OK with it' to 'most are OK with it'.

 

[J_B_]

I'm sure it did, and I'm certain someone has elaborated it better than I could. I find it interesting how pagan moral beliefs influenced the law....the act of dueling was a pagan practice later adopted by Christians as nowhere in the Bible does Jesus claim that whenever the doubt of guilt is unclear between two men does god declare who is guilty by combat.

It seems rather obvious that it's an extension of the nature of violence as power in any type of struggle or conflict. Yet Christians let it happen, legally, well into the 1800s.

Yes, one can find pagan influences on Christians. And I'm sure in many cases Christians are blind to the creep of practices Christ does not approve of. However, I see that as a human trait, not a specifically Christian one. So, the same is true of Christian influences upon the world.

 

[J_B_]

I think the point that was being proposed (I just checked back) was that a marriage is a commitment that 'should be captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow'.

Hey, if that's what someone wants to do, with an engagement and a buck and hen party and a limo ride in the wedding dress to a church wedding with friends and aunties and distant cousins all invited to the reception with a giant 5 tiered cake...then go for it. Or, do it in a foreign registry office a few days after agreeing to get married and your wife can ring her mum up later and say 'You'll never guess what I did today'.

All options are available. But I reject that it should be just one of them.

I understand your objection.

My reasons for marriage go far beyond the wedding ceremony, the ring, and the piece of paper. Ceremony is an important part of accepting the reasons behind the ceremony, but the ceremony - the symbols - are not the thing itself.

In my version of marriage, the community is offering something to the couple. If the couple wants to opt out of marriage, so be it. But that means they also opt out of what the community offers to them. Agree?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, one can find pagan influences on Christians. And I'm sure in many cases Christians are blind to the creep of practices Christ does not approve of. However, I see that as a human trait, not a specifically Christian one. So, the same is true of Christian influences upon the world.

No disagreement there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In my version of marriage, the community is offering something to the couple. If the couple wants to opt out of marriage, so be it. But that means they also opt out of what the community offers to them. Agree?

I'm sorry....what does this hypothetical community offer the hypothetical married couple?

 

[Bradskii]

In my version of marriage, the community is offering something to the couple. If the couple wants to opt out of marriage, so be it. But that means they also opt out of what the community offers to them. Agree?

What exactly is the community offering that would differ between your version of marriage and mine?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol sorry Hans, it took awhile for me to see it. There's no teacher for atheism, so we can get here through different routes. I think the previously religious route is far more common...

I happen to be part of one of the largest "religious groups" in the US -- ex-Catholics. The "religous route" is mostly more popular because there are so many candidates for this path. (Plus it comes with a handy guide for making atheists.)

and it creates a sense of self or community which some have a hard time letting go of or feel a desire to fill.

I hear these rumors of "community", but I never saw any reason to be closer to any people because they gathered for worship in the same place as me for an hour each week.

As for the type I am...it can easily spiral into a lack of self understanding and sort of nihilistic hedonism...I think I just got lucky enough in that respect to eventually conclude I need not justify my sense of self nor desire the sense of community I never really had. Fish don't have to explain why they're swimming after all. There's almost no advantages to this....I don't recommend it to anyone....and despite the difficulties of separation from an indoctrinated religion....it looks like a better deal to me.

 

[o_mlly]

... I never saw any reason to be closer to any people because they gathered for worship in the same place as me for an hour each week.

Where were you for the other 167 hours? Seems more like a failure on your part rather than the community.

Some people are just unteachable at times, inflated with hubris. Augustine of Hippo was just so as he reports in his autobiography, "Confessions, Book III".

Chapter 12. The Excellent Answer of the Bishop When Referred to by His Mother as to the Conversion of Her Son.​

… You granted her [Monica] then another answer, by a priest of Yours, a certain bishop, reared in Your Church and well versed in Your books. He, when this woman had entreated that he would vouchsafe to have some talk with me, refute my errors, unteach me evil things, and teach me good (for this he was in the habit of doing when he found people fitted to receive it), refused, very prudently, as I afterwards came to see. For he answered that I was still unteachable, being inflated with the novelty of that heresy, and that I had already perplexed various inexperienced persons with vexatious questions, as she had informed him. But leave him alone for a time, says he, only pray God for him; he will of himself, by reading, discover what that error is, and how great its impiety.​

 

[o_mlly]

It seems rather obvious that it's an extension of the nature of violence as power in any type of struggle or conflict. Yet Christians let it happen, legally, well into the 1800s.

?

Chapter XIX​

Dueling Is Punished With The Severest Penalties​

​

The abominable practice of dueling, introduced by the contrivance of the devil, that by the cruel death of the body he may bring about also the destruction of the soul, should be utterly eradicated from the Christian world.​

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT​

Session XXV, December,1563.​

 

[J_B_]

I'm sorry....what does this hypothetical community offer the hypothetical married couple?

What exactly is the community offering that would differ between your version of marriage and mine?

I was expecting some quid pro quo - an answer to my question before we launch into what a community might be able to provide marriages. Whether or not you are getting anything from your community now, do you accept that you can't expect help from the community unless you also accept the attendant responsibilities? You might get help nonetheless, but you can't expect it.

I've already listed a few things. You didn't notice? I mentioned education and counseling. Another common thing communities offer is property protection, i.e. that you and your spouse hold property jointly (trust me, probate is not a fun alternative). There are others, but I'll stop there for now. You could get all those things privately, but at a cost, and not everyone can pay. You could prepare your own legal document for joint property, but if you're married it's just part of the law - an automatic thing. You could seek private education/counseling for marriage if you felt you needed it, but churches often offer such things for free. And so on.

I haven't forgotten that for the purposes of this conversation, we're assuming you don't need any help. What I've noticed is that despite that stipulation to our conversation, your replies tend toward circling the wagons to keep what you think Christians are trying to take. Not once have you suggested that someone with a good relationship, rather than retreating into their castle, should offer to support those community organizations that help people with marriage problems. It seems to me that's what a mature person would do.

Just like you, I have a good marriage. But I also have experience with family members in crisis. I'm not going to share those details. Instead, I'll suggest a movie from 2021 called 'Mass', starring Reed Birney, Ann Dowd, Jason Isaacs, and Martha Plimpton. It's the most true-to-life movie I've ever seen about what it's like for families in crisis. If you watch it, pay attention to the marriage relationships and how they compare between the couple who had community support and the one that didn't. Though the role of the church is only in the background, pay attention to that as well. My experiences with where churches spend their time and money aligns more with what is shown in the movie than the vindictive, grasping Pharisaical attitudes typically discussed here.

 

[Jo555]

In the video below Peter Singer equates morality/ethics with mathematics, which is a concept that I'd never considered before. Most people probably agree that mathematics is objective. It's true independent of our opinions about it. And I can see how it could be argued that morality is exactly the same. In math the understanding that 1+1=2 doesn't instantaneously lead to an understanding of Pi, because although the latter is equally true, coming to understand that it's true is a complicated process. Perhaps the same is true with morality. As with mathematics, morality may be objectively true, but understanding why it's true may be just as complicated as understanding why Pi is true. You don't instantly go from understanding that math exists, to understanding trigonometry, and you don't instantly go from understanding that morality exists, to understanding that slavery is immoral.

Thus there may be an objective morality, but as with math we're still in the process of understanding it, and the fact that we may disagree about what's moral doesn't by necessity mean that morality is subjective. It just means that we don't have a sufficient understanding of morality so as to understand why things are moral, and so instead, morality without God looks subjective, when it really isn't.

And in my opinion, having some God attempting to dictate to me what is and isn't moral will never be as gratifying as actually understanding why things are immoral without a need for that God.

Your last statement is a powerful statement that I share. I do believe in God and it isn't just because someone told me He exists, but because I've have a personal relationship with Him.

It is very grievous to me when believers often stress do's and don't's over walking in his Spirit of love. The main word being stress.

But do know as Christian, we believe the scriptures are God breathed, and they clearly say that this wasn't God's way. We were meant to be united to Him by his Spirit through Christ where his love is our driving, Spiritual force.

God added "the law" as a means to work with man's choice of judging good and evil on their own and being their own god instead of being embodied by his Spirit of love. I know I've said this before, bear with me as working towards something. It was a temporary measure and a shadowy reflection of God's heart to maintain some semblance while He reconciled humanity back to Himself, for all who believe, we are being perfected in his love.

From what I know of God and scripture, I would say to you, that in your last statement, God shares your sentiments.

I don't see that morality can be objective, as I understand objectivity, because morality is a code of ethics based on the knowledge of good and evil. Love is a spiritual force. And one can argue that it is not, but as believers this is at the foundation of our belief system. We believe this Spirit that embodied us transcends morality.

Again, is this a moral code? I would say no.
For debate's sake, let us say it is. Then I would say this morality cannot be confined to a moral code, but it is driven by God's love.

I often see in layers and I believe there are layers to morality. The outer layer is the less substantial, so to speak. There is another, deeper layer that humans can find connection, even if they don't agree on surface. That deeper layer is our common human emotions of love and hate, joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure, etc. This some describe as the faculty of the soul.

At the deepest level, as believers, we believe that is about being connected to God's Spirit, that embodies and drives us by his love as we allow Him into the driver's seat. That transforms all other layers above it into commonality with his heart / Spirit.

More I can say on it, but short on time now.

But listen, God's design was never meant to be about a code of ethics to do or don't do. It was always about connecting us to his Spirit by way of Christ. He was just working within the freewill of man and his choice / desire to go about godliness apart from Him and judge right and wrong of themselves. The bible clearly states it is just a shadow of his heart because as Jesus said on the sermon on the mount, the heart of the matter is really the matter of the heart.

It was always in his design to make us like Him, Not that we are the Almighty as the Source and driving force, but as children embodied by his Spirit and transformed into his image.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Where were you for the other 167 hours?

Not at church. They were the best 167 hours of the week.

Seems more like a failure on your part rather than the community.

Failure to do what? Be interested in the random people that went to the same church? Why would I have any common cause with them? It was no failure. I had no interest in any "community". I have no idea if anyone else did either, but I didn't care.

Some people are just unteachable at times, inflated with hubris. Augustine of Hippo was just so as he reports in his autobiography, "Confessions, Book III".

Chapter 12. The Excellent Answer of the Bishop When Referred to by His Mother as to the Conversion of Her Son.​

… You granted her [Monica] then another answer, by a priest of Yours, a certain bishop, reared in Your Church and well versed in Your books. He, when this woman had entreated that he would vouchsafe to have some talk with me, refute my errors, unteach me evil things, and teach me good (for this he was in the habit of doing when he found people fitted to receive it), refused, very prudently, as I afterwards came to see. For he answered that I was still unteachable, being inflated with the novelty of that heresy, and that I had already perplexed various inexperienced persons with vexatious questions, as she had informed him. But leave him alone for a time, says he, only pray God for him; he will of himself, by reading, discover what that error is, and how great its impiety.​

I'm not interested in your quotation from some guy who lived before my people became western.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was expecting some quid pro quo - an answer to my question before we launch into what a community might be able to provide marriages. Whether or not you are getting anything from your community now, do you accept that you can't expect help from the community unless you also accept the attendant responsibilities? You might get help nonetheless, but you can't expect it.

I'd agree to the general statement about community expectations.

I've already listed a few things. You didn't notice? I mentioned education and counseling.

My taxes pay for education, I've paid for my college degree, and I have no children. It seems to me that I've added more to the community than I took.

Another common thing communities offer is property protection,

I can't realistically say this is true. I don't know the general tendency of my neighbors but I would imagine they have some idea what I do and would tell anyone they know that robbing me would be a mistake...in the unlikely event it comes up.

i.e. that you and your spouse hold property jointly (trust me, probate is not a fun alternative). There are others, but I'll stop there for now.

To be clear, I don't see that as a community provided benefit.

You could get all those things privately, but at a cost, and not everyone can pay. You could prepare your own legal document for joint property, but if you're married it's just part of the law - an automatic thing.

And as part of the law....automatic whether or not I participate in or with the larger community or isolate from them.

You could seek private education/counseling for marriage if you felt you needed it, but churches often offer such things for free. And so on.

I wouldn't go to counseling for really any problems I can imagine.

I haven't forgotten that for the purposes of this conversation, we're assuming you don't need any help. What I've noticed is that despite that stipulation to our conversation, your replies tend toward circling the wagons to keep what you think Christians are trying to take. Not once have you suggested that someone with a good relationship, rather than retreating into their castle, should offer to support those community organizations that help people with marriage problems. It seems to me that's what a mature person would do.

I haven't looked at the success rates of marriage counselors in or out of the church. Honestly, I'd be surprised if there were no expectations or strings attached. Regardless, it's hard to imagine an outside source understanding a particular relationship dynamic better than those in the relationship.

Just like you, I have a good marriage. But I also have experience with family members in crisis. I'm not going to share those details. Instead, I'll suggest a movie from 2021 called 'Mass', starring Reed Birney, Ann Dowd, Jason IsaacsaZDF hPlimpton. It's the most true-to-life movie I've ever seen about what it's like for families in crisis. If you watch it, pay attention to the marriage relationships and how they compare between the couple who had community support and the one that didn't. Though the role of the church is only in the background, pay attention to that as well. My experiences with where churches spend their time and money aligns more with what is shown in the movie than the vindictive, grasping Pharisaical attitudes typically discussed here.

To be clear, the hardest part of my marriage was a 7 year period where I essentially had to do all that two grown adults would need to do regularly. My wife simply wasn't able to for reasons that weren't her fault. That is difficult, and I have certainly seen marriages dissolve over less, but I really didn't have any outside help. It certainly took a toll on me, and I wouldn't look down on anyone who sought community help.

 

[Ana the Ist]

?

Chapter XIX​

Dueling Is Punished With The Severest Penalties​

​

The abominable practice of dueling, introduced by the contrivance of the devil, that by the cruel death of the body he may bring about also the destruction of the soul, should be utterly eradicated from the Christian world.​

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT​

Session XXV, December,1563.​

Nice words on paper.

Who actually outlawed dueling and enforced it?

7. Soldiers and Gentlemen: The Rise of the Duel in Renaissance Italy

7. Soldiers and Gentlemen: The Rise of the Duel in Renaissance Italy was published in Journal of Medieval Military History on page 99.

www.degruyter.com

To be clear, after the decree....they were still dueling in Trent. Italy itself would print multiple manuscripts on the subject regarding everything from rules to technique. These are all Christians of their time.

 

[Bradskii]

I was expecting some quid pro quo - an answer to my question before we launch into what a community might be able to provide marriages. Whether or not you are getting anything from your community now, do you accept that you can't expect help from the community unless you also accept the attendant responsibilities? You might get help nonetheless, but you can't expect it.

I've already listed a few things. You didn't notice? I mentioned education and counseling. Another common thing communities offer is property protection, i.e. that you and your spouse hold property jointly (trust me, probate is not a fun alternative). There are others, but I'll stop there for now. You could get all those things privately, but at a cost, and not everyone can pay. You could prepare your own legal document for joint property, but if you're married it's just part of the law - an automatic thing. You could seek private education/counseling for marriage if you felt you needed it, but churches often offer such things for free. And so on.

So you should get formally married in a way that 'should be captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow'. because it's cheaper? And I'm really not sure that you might be ready for marriage if you need counseling or education. If you really needed it then I'd suggest that friends and family would be better suited to give it.

 

[o_mlly]

Not at church. They were the best 167 hours of the week.

Failure to do what? Be interested in the random people that went to the same church? Why would I have any common cause with them? It was no failure. I had no interest in any "community". I have no idea if anyone else did either, but I didn't care.

I'm not interested in your quotation from some guy who lived before my people became western.

Your hostility toward Christianity is noted and, as already noted, renders you unteachable.

Just who are "your" people?

 

[o_mlly]

Nice words on paper.

Who actually outlawed dueling and enforced it?

Nice words wherever one finds them. Dueling was eventually illegal in the secular world.

The church rightly prohibited her own clerics from dueling. As to society in general, the church only proposes, she does not impose.

To be clear, after the decree....they were still dueling in Trent. Italy itself would print multiple manuscripts on the subject regarding everything from rules to technique. These are all Christians of their time.

At the Council of Trent, the church led the banning of duels, The secular body politic usually takes longer to come to the same truth. And they did.