Morality Without God

[ViaCrucis]

I am curious as to why some think it is impossible. I wanted to set a thread that would allow me to talk about this with Christians, since I am limited to what and where I can post.

I think it may largely depend on what we mean by "morality". If by "moral" we mean, "Someone with a working code of ethics and is a healthy, functioning member of society" then the idea of needing to be religious to be moral seems odd to me.

But, largely speaking, I don't find the concept of "morality" particularly helpful. At least not from a theological vantage point. I don't think Christianity is particularly interested in morality, Christianity isn't a religion about behavioral conduct in order to function for the civil good within civilized society. Christianity, instead talks about things like "Law" and "righteousness", and I find these far more helpful theological concepts. Righteousness (or justice) isn't a matter of being moral, but a matter of what is truly, and actually right; that which is right and in conformity with the perfect justice and lawfulness of God. That is, to be, actually and absolutely good.

And as a Lutheran that changes the ballgame considerably. Because righteousness isn't something any of us has, religious or non-religious. Christians are not a righteous people anymore than non-Christians. Rather, from a Lutheran vantage point, the righteousness Christians have is an alien, a foreign, righteousness--God's own righteousness imputed to us, because we have been justified, set right, with God on account of, and in, Jesus Christ Himself.

Lutheran terminology has helpful language also here I think. We have what is called a coram Deo, coram hominibus distinction. That is, "before God" and "before man". If the question is if I can be good in relation to my fellow man, the answer is yes; one doesn't need to be a Christian to be good in relation to our fellow man, in fact plenty of religions have quite good codes of ethics and emphasize good morals so that people can live decent, functioning lives with their neighbors. And one doesn't need a religion either.

Religious and non-religious, Christian and non-Christian are all equally able and capable of doing things that benefit their neighbor, to live decent moral lives in society.

That's a coram hominibus thing.

But there's also coram Deo, us in relation to God. In relation to God we are confronted with the harsh, difficult reality of the Law, what God has commanded, what God declares to be good and right everywhere, always, and for all. And ourselves as reflected back to us in the Law is not that of a righteous person, a perfect, glorious, perfectly-shapen image of the Divine Being Himself; instead we find something misshapen, malformed, bent, and turned inward toward oneself; a wholly self-interested animal. Sinners.

A lot of ink has been spilled by those bothered by the idea, typically used by those in Calvinist or Calvinist-leaning circles, what has been called "Total Depravity" because it seems to say that man is utterly evil, unable to do anything good. But that's actually not what it means. The word "depravity" here comes from the Latin pravus, "bent" or "crooked", and the "total" part refers to man in all his members, or parts (i.e. the human will included). What "total depravity" actually means is that every aspect of the human person is "touched" by the reality of sin, and that even in our will, even in our thoughts, even in our feelings, we remain "bent", misshapen. Not bearing the image of God as we ought. Our humanity is out of whack.

Lutheranism speaks of man being "incurvatus in se", "curved or bent inward on himself". And what we mean by this is that our natural inclination, our natural momentum is inward, it is toward ourselves, and that is the crux of the problem. Our acts, our thoughts, our way is misshapen, bent, toward our own self-interest, to glorify ourselves. And thus even our best works--works that truly do benefit our neighbor and even come from our best intentions--are ultimately tangled up, twisted up, bound up in our own self interest: pride, the desire for praise, so that even a selfless act can be a selfish one.

What all this means is that, yes, anyone can be good and moral.
And yet it also means nobody is good and righteous.

Coram hominibus.
Coram Deo.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[alien444]

I think it may largely depend on what we mean by "morality". If by "moral" we mean, "Someone with a working code of ethics and is a healthy, functioning member of society" then the idea of needing to be religious to be moral seems odd to me.


But, largely speaking, I don't find the concept of "morality" particularly helpful. At least not from a theological vantage point. I don't think Christianity is particularly interested in morality, Christianity isn't a religion about behavioral conduct in order to function for the civil good within civilized society. Christianity, instead talks about things like "Law" and "righteousness", and I find these far more helpful theological concepts. Righteousness (or justice) isn't a matter of being moral, but a matter of what is truly, and actually right; that which is right and in conformity with the perfect justice and lawfulness of God. That is, to be, actually and absolutely good.


I almost seems that you are talking about a Platonic Form of justice or righteousness. As if morality is a function of human righteousness and human righteousness is but a reflection of an absolute divine righteousness---humanity's righteousness is in essence, divine righteousness, but not actually divine righteousness.

Is this an absolute that has been or can be conveyed to humanity in a concrete manner?

And as a Lutheran that changes the ballgame considerably. Because righteousness isn't something any of us has, religious or non-religious. Christians are not a righteous people anymore than non-Christians. Rather, from a Lutheran vantage point, the righteousness Christians have is an alien, a foreign, righteousness--God's own righteousness imputed to us, because we have been justified, set right, with God on account of, and in, Jesus Christ Himself.



Lutheran terminology has helpful language also here I think. We have what is called a coram Deo, coram hominibus distinction. That is, "before God" and "before man". If the question is if I can be good in relation to my fellow man, the answer is yes; one doesn't need to be a Christian to be good in relation to our fellow man, in fact plenty of religions have quite good codes of ethics and emphasize good morals so that people can live decent, functioning lives with their neighbors. And one doesn't need a religion either.

Religious and non-religious, Christian and non-Christian are all equally able and capable of doing things that benefit their neighbor, to live decent moral lives in society.

Right, and regarding the other conversations on this thread, I don't think golgotha or aiki think that as an atheist I cant make interpersonal moral choices, they just believe that as an atheist I can't make moral judgements because I do not have an objective standard by which to measure or justify those choices.

That's a coram hominibus thing.

But there's also coram Deo, us in relation to God. In relation to God we are confronted with the harsh, difficult reality of the Law, what God has commanded, what God declares to be good and right everywhere, always, and for all. And ourselves as reflected back to us in the Law is not that of a righteous person, a perfect, glorious, perfectly-shapen image of the Divine Being Himself; instead we find something misshapen, malformed, bent, and turned inward toward oneself; a wholly self-interested animal. Sinners.


A lot of ink has been spilled by those bothered by the idea, typically used by those in Calvinist or Calvinist-leaning circles, what has been called "Total Depravity" because it seems to say that man is utterly evil, unable to do anything good. But that's actually not what it means. The word "depravity" here comes from the Latin pravus, "bent" or "crooked", and the "total" part refers to man in all his members, or parts (i.e. the human will included). What "total depravity" actually means is that every aspect of the human person is "touched" by the reality of sin, and that even in our will, even in our thoughts, even in our feelings, we remain "bent", misshapen. Not bearing the image of God as we ought. Our humanity is out of whack.



Lutheranism speaks of man being "incurvatus in se", "curved or bent inward on himself". And what we mean by this is that our natural inclination, our natural momentum is inward, it is toward ourselves, and that is the crux of the problem. Our acts, our thoughts, our way is misshapen, bent, toward our own self-interest, to glorify ourselves. And thus even our best works--works that truly do benefit our neighbor and even come from our best intentions--are ultimately tangled up, twisted up, bound up in our own self interest: pride, the desire for praise, so that even a selfless act can be a selfish one.

What all this means is that, yes, anyone can be good and moral.
And yet it also means nobody is good and righteous.

Coram hominibus.
Coram Deo.

-CryptoLutheran

Well of course as a non-believer in God I have a problem with the idea of of this description of humanity. I would say that I certainly believe that we naturally act almost exclusively with self-interest, but that this self-interest is the result of the evolutionary imperative of survival not the result of being "malformed" in comparison to an absolute. Realization of the fact that we act in self-interest should not result in guilt or an unnecessary humbling in the presence of an absolute, but a process of self-realization that can compel us to behave with less self-interest. Just because it is natural for us to behave with self-interest, doesn't mean we should or must behave with self-interest. It seems that having such a harsh view of humanity can hinder our imagination of what we can accomplish in our interpersonal relationships and ultimately as a species.

I believe that one can in a very real and literal way be good and righteous because we need not compare ourselves to an unattainable absolute, but only to the most righteous among us.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

I am curious as to why some think it is impossible. I wanted to set a thread that would allow me to talk about this with Christians, since I am limited to what and where I can post.

Every person on earth has the capacity to be moral at least to some degree. None are excluded.

To the Atheist, they too can be moral but they cant justify being that way apart from a higher/highest standard . If they don't believe in absolute moral laws (the highest) , then they ascribe to moral opinion really.

If you want to see what occurs IN REALITY between real genuine Christians as defined by biblical standards versus Atheists for example...then go to this recent formal debate and youll see actual Scientific Studies and Polls taken which show the drastic difference with actual behavior and attitudes from unbiased sources : http://www.christianforums.com/t7805623/

 

[golgotha61]

alien444,

I am going to discuss some individual points that need attention and then I will move onto the point of God's absolute moral standards.

In your dialogue with ViaCrusis, you make this statement:

... I don't think golgotha or aiki think that as an atheist I cant make interpersonal moral choices, they just believe that as an atheist I can't make moral judgements because I do not have an objective standard by which to measure or justify those choices.

I believe that one can in a very real and literal way be good and righteous because we need not compare ourselves to an unattainable absolute, but only to the most righteous among us.

I won't speak for aiki but I do believe you can make moral judgements as an atheist but in so doing, you depend on a moral law which demands a moral law giver. The problem is that you employ a moral standard/law but deny the giver of that law.

Your second statement describes a moral standard based on relativism but it contradicts this statement:

I do have an "objective" standard by which to judge moral behavior.

This is contradictory and therefor is not a truth statement.

You also make an observation that requires more reflection. This involves the claim that genetics is the evolutionary vehicle whereby morality is realized in mankind. You say:

The reason evolutionary biology and psychology have largely ignored the "mind" and human nature is because of the dark history of eugenics (particularly after WWII) and the racist theories of sociobiology in the early 20th century.

Here you are saying that eugenics is wrong/immoral and that is just what the idea that the evolutionary process of the existence of morality leads to.

I mentioned in another post about the Auca Indian in Ecuador and how they murdered each other to the near extinction of themselves. It was the Gospel of Christ that led them out of that darkness and saved their race. And this was attested to by secular sociologists and not just the Christian community. So the idea that evolution leads to morality requires a standard of judgement as to which culture/race is more moral than another. Therefore, you are simply reinvigorating the same racism that Hitler employed. And,by your own moral judgement, morality through evolution is an immoral proposition.

Anyway, the point is that I refuse to submit to this reductionist characterization that belief in a genetic basis for human nature paints one into a corner where "truth statements" are no longer possible and freewill is an illusion.

Although your terms in the past posts seem ambiguous, I am encouraged that you recognize the importance of freewill. So I think we can dispense with this argument of "truth statements" based on determination and rest on the functions of freewill.

Am I correct that you are asserting that:
1) Describing a behavior as "Right" or Wrong" can only be done if the subjectivity of those terms are removed by an absolute standard, and that absolute standard is God?

To reiterate, moral determinations rely on a moral law and if there is a moral law, one must posit a moral law giver. God is the source of absolute moral standards because he is holy, which is far different than He is "good."

2) As an atheist, I can only speak in subjective terms about morality because I am not basing moral judgments on the absolute standard created in God's nature?

Sure you are. There is no way that you can absolve yourself of the influence of God's moral standards that have proliferated this American society. It is impossible to deny the influence of God's moral laws on anyone in this culture.

3) An individual who believed in a God other than the Christian God, could speak objectively about morality because they would then have an absolute standard by which to measure what is moral, even if you disagreed about the existence of their God?

Here is what God says:
Romans 2:14-15 (NIV)
14 "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"

4) God has communicated his absolute standard to humans in the bible and through the words and actions of Jesus?

Yes, and this answers your statement that you see no evidence of absolute standards being lived out. Christ lived out His moral standards as an example. But, it is true that no human other than Christ has or can live out God's moral law to perfection.

This is one of the colossal failures of Christianity as a moral philosophy. Forgiveness should require effort, self-examination, and self-sacrifice, and from the forgiveness of others and ultimately ourselves we may not only find peace but become a better person.

First of all, Christianity is not just a philosophy. It is a relationship with a Holy God through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Second, this is the great mystery and absolute wonder of Christianity, not its failure. The idea that the responsibility of my life's rebellion against God is satisfied by God Himself is needed because I can never make amends to Him or to those that I have harmed.

I could say slavery, the role of women in society, or witchcraft for a few examples--but you would just say these were perversions or misunderstandings of God's nature. Fifty years from now (or less) there will be someone saying the same thing about Christianity's current view on the morality of homosexuality. I could also say that the Golden Rule has logical flaws and that Jesus never presented a new moral philosophy, but you will just say that I can't make moral judgements without an absolute arbiter (i.e. your God)

It would be better to let me respond than to speak for me. The issue of slavery is understood in the context of the biblical culture and how God responded to it. He did respond to it by His standards in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Typically, the slavery that most folks point to is what existed in U.S. history and in the present in other nations.But this is not comparable to slavery in the biblical context.


Women in society is another issue that is treated more fairly in scripture than most realize. Luke chapter 8:1-3 describes how several women traveled with Christ and the apostles and were supporting them out of their own means.



Paul makes a statement in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 that says that a woman's husband should teach her when she is unclear about things that are church centered. Now, this was unusual because the culture did not teach women at all and viewed the efforts to educate her as fruitless. Also, Paul's ministry was supported by women of means and power throughout his travels.



Christ clarified the law and you are correct in the statement that he made no new except this one: John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love on another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." This is not loving others as yourself, but loving others as Christ did and by his example.



Now I have additional statements to make. "Faith in the biblical sense is substantive, based on the knowledge that the one in Whom faith is placed is proven He worthy of trust" (Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Other Gods, 57). So for the Christian faith is not checking our brains out at the door, faith is based on proofs.


Speaking to the idea that evolution is the process by which mankind developed a moral standard, I find no proponent of evolutionary ethics that has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through an amoral process has produced a moral basis for life (Zacharias. 112). That is why I gave you this in another thread: "a first member in any series of subsequent members can only pass on what it has in its nature to pass on to subsequent members. Also, what comes from the physical, non-human and non-moral by means of the physical, non-human and non-moral can only be physical, non-human and non-moral." Evolution cannot account for morality. (Joubert, Callie. ARJ. 2012).



Here is what J. L. Mackie says: We might well argue . . . that objective intrinsically prescriptive features, supervenient upon natural ones, constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful God to create them.


The conclusion is obvious, "nothing can be intrinsically, prescriptively good unless there also exists a God who has fashioned the universe first" (Zacharias. 113).



So to deny an objective moral law, based on the rejection of the existence of God, necessarily results in the denial of the existence of evil.


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Harry3142]

Alien444-

Is God necessary for morality? Yes, he is. Those societies who believe that they can exist on a moral level while rejecting all belief in God eventually find themselves in serious trouble:

The attempt made in recent decades by secularist thinkers to disengage [the moral principles of Western civilization] from their [scripturally based] religious context, in the assurance that they could live a life of their own as a "humanistic" ethic, has resulted in what one writer has called our "cut-flower culture." Cut flowers retain their original beauty and fragrance, but only so long as they retain the vitality that they have drawn from their now severed roots; after that is exhausted, they wither and die. So with freedom, brotherhood, justice, and personal dignity - the values that form the moral foundation of our civilization. Without the life-giving power of the faith out of which they have sprung, they possess neither meaning nor vitality. Morality ungrounded in God is indeed a house built upon sand, unable to stand up against the vagaries of impulse and the brutal pressures of power and self-interest. (Will Herberg, Judaism and Modern Man, as quoted in Jewish wisdom, page 291, by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin)

And even Bertrand Russell stated that there were serious dangers to any society that attempted to exist God-free:

Bertrand Russell, this century's most prominent secular philosopher, himself articulated the dangers of a God-free subjective ethics: "I cannot see how to refute the argument for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." (Jewish Wisdom, ppg. 290-291, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin)

If we want examples of what happens to societies where God is rejected we need only look at Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Mankind has not evolved morally, but rather is as savage and destructive today as our ancestors were 5,000 years ago. Anthropologists have already posited, and we need to realize, that it is not the coming together of people to form a society and their consequently making laws in order to govern that society which leads to religious belief; it is instead a common religious belief that influences a people to come together as a society and make laws to govern that society. Therein lies true civilization, so to remove religious belief from a society is not to be seen as removing the roof of that society; it's to be seen as removing its foundation.

 

[alien444]

[FONT=&quot]

[/b]Philosophically speaking, and as I am using it in my comments, "objective" is what is described in points 2 and 3 of your definitions above.
This is not a term I used, so I don't understand why you are defining it here...What’s more, I would not use the term "absolute" strictly in the way you define it above. Certainly, in relation to the Moral Argument, "absolute" is better defined as,

...not dependent on, conditioned by, or relative to anything else; independent...

I disagree, I think you are simply redefining objective. Absolute means "whole" and "without imperfection" and that is the way I use it to describe an objective morality given by God. If there is an objective morality it must be either created by, or an extension of God's nature. If you claim a Moral Law Giver exists (i.e. God) then how can the morality of this law not be perfect (i.e. absolute). Perhaps if I substitute perfect for absolute, then I can make my point clearer. However, if you reject my assertion that these laws must be necessarily perfect, then yes I don't see any other way to counter the idea of an objective morality besides proving God does not exist, which of course I cannot do any more than you can prove that Shiva does not exist. Furthermore, I don't understand a God-given objective morality that isn't perfect.

"Objective," at least in the sense in which I am using it, means "mind-independent," which means that objective morality exists independently of the human mind. If this is so, then objective morality is not contingent upon human beings; it exists even if humans do not.

Your argument above begs the question, too. You assume God does not exist and, therefore, objective morality is a human construct. But you have offered no good reason why your initial assumption (that God does not exist) should be accepted.

I am arguing that a God given, innate, objective morality, that would necessarily be perfect does not exist, and that therefore God doesn’t exist (although I am not that interested in disproving the existence of God at the moment) The only way in which I could support my argument would be to establish that an objective morality must be perfect, and that no objective/perfect moral precepts exist.

But what do you mean by "example"? If you mean you see no one living out God's moral precepts perfectly, then I would point you to Christ whose perfect example all Christian believers are commanded to emulate.

How can Christ be an example when he is the Moral Law Giver in which you speak of? If the objective morality in which you claim exists is just an abstract moral perfection in which we are measured or are to strive towards, and is evident only in the life of Jesus, then you would need to prove the existence of God to demonstrate your claim. If we are talking about concrete moral precepts communicated to humans by God (in the bible) and are meant to command humans how to live, then you would just need to prove that morality is not relative and subjective. If you do not believe that God has communicated this moral philosophy to humans (presumably through the bible) then how can we be held accountable for our moral actions. If we are to be judged by an objective perfect moral law that exists outside of our comprehension, then isn’t it cruel to hold us responsible for making “correct” moral decisions when we cannot comprehend (or know) what this advanced entity even wants us to “chose”. We do not hold children to the moral standard of adults because we know they have not developed the ability of abstract thought.

If you mean God's laws themselves I would like to know which of His moral laws (not those laws of separation peculiar to the Israelites, or commands of war issued to them under theocratic rule) are imperfect?

So basically don’t mention the horrors of the OT which resulted from the direct actions or commandments of God (who is also Jesus). The Golden Rule, for instance, is logically flawed.. Jesus offered no new moral precepts in the bible that had not already been established.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]As I noted above, the term "absolute" has a broader usage than your definition provides. I am not willing to confine its meaning to the single definition you wish to use.



"Objective" entails a certain degree of static-ness. Philosophically, an objective characteristic is one that follows its object around. A hard, grey, rough rock is so whether it is buried under a thousand feet of dirt or sitting on a pedestal in a museum. Its characteristics of hardness, greyness, and roughness follow the rock around and so these characteristics are said to be objective to the rock. In the same way, objective moral values and duties do not alter with time and place. In order to be truly objective they must not. So, when you speak of a morality that is fluid, that changes with the times, you are not speaking of a truly objective morality.

Well, that's because I don't agree that it exists.

I do. Very clearly. For example, would you torture a baby for fun? Has there ever been a circumstance in which doing so was considered a moral duty? If not, I think we have at least one genuinely-objective moral duty: one ought never to torture a baby for fun. How about murder? Would you like to be murdered? Would anybody? Has there ever been a time or place where everybody agreed that murdering was a moral duty? I'm not talking capital punishment or killing the enemy on the battlefield, here. I mean someone coming up to you and stabbing you in the heart for no apparent reason. If not, then we have another objective moral duty: You shall not murder. And so on.

I certainly agree that one ought never to torture a baby for fun, but I can't say that every human being innately agrees that one ought not to. I don't know how much "fun" the Aztecs had while sacrificing infants to power the sun and bring rain but they certainly felt a moral duty to do so. The Aztec God Tlaloc required the tears of the young so their tears would wet the earth. As a result, if children did not cry, the priests would sometimes tear off the children's nails before the ritual sacrifice. As far as murdering someone for no apparent reason, just because the reason isn't apparent doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Human sacrifice has been agreed upon by many cultures as a moral duty and it is murder in the strict definition of killing someone unjustly. And the Moral Law Giver you speak of didn't seem to believe that infanticide is always wrong.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1 Samuel 15:3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Psalm 135:8
He struck down the firstborn of Egypt, the firstborn of people and animals.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Psalm 137:9[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I disagree. I think they are precisely what you say they are not. Saying so doesn't make it so. Proof, please.

You say this yet it is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that an objective morality exists because God exists, or God exists because an objective morality exists. But you haven’t proven that an objective morality exists and you certainly can’t prove that God exists. You are not asking me to prove a point, but to prove that studying human evolution is a valid way of understanding human behavior. The ideas that I am presenting here are not my own, I did not develop the paradigm of Evolutionary Psychology or evolution. I can give you links to EP journals, but do you really want to read through several research journals. If so, they are not hard to find.


This is just one of the many "just-so" stories evolutionists are so fond of. Plausibility is not probability.

These "just so" stories are based on anthropological, biological, neurological, historical, and sociological research and facts. There is no greater "just-so" story than that of the existence of a creator God. What is "faith" if not a "just so" argument?

Also, on the view you sketch out above there is no basis for claiming that morality is objectively true and thus authoritative and binding.

That's because I am arguing against an innate objective (and perfect) morality. Once again, if it is not objective and perfect, then how can you claim that it is created by, or an extension of God.

Evolution has created a sort of herd morality for humans that is essentially the same in purpose as the "morality" that governs, say, baboons. Neither morality is superior to the other, only different.

This is the rather ad hominem argument that materialists believe that humans are no better than insects, that we are "just" animals. Firstly, I think the “just” part underestimates the fascination and beauty inherent in the process of evolution and the “humbling” that occurs in the realization of the kinship of all living things. Also, I am not aware that any other animals possess any moral purpose. Not only do I believe that human morality is superior to any similar behavior found in any other animal, I believe that a specific human culture can be morally superior to another human culture. For instance, by looking at moral good as that which furthers the flourishing and well-being of conscious creatures, I can compare the morality of the Taliban against the morality of Sweden, and make an objective judgment concerning the morality of each.
Oh? I don't think so. Just ask anyone of they would like to be murdered.

There are still exceptions of course, suicide by cop for instance. Murder is killing someone unjustly. It is unjust to kill an innocent person, but many would believe it would be moral if that killing saved 5 million lives. Any exception negates its objectivity.
You appear here to be guilty of the "Is-Ought Fallacy." Do you assume that because a story in the local newspaper recounts a murder that it is therefore approving of murder or commanding the reader to murder? Of course not. This is true of the Bible, too.

You appear to be guilty of using a bad analogy. A newspaper is not supposedly divinely inspired or literally the word of God and claims special knowledge of the universe. The bible actually forbids "killing", which is even harder to reconcile, but even when narrowed to killing unjustly (as in killing innocents), I am afraid God does plenty of that in the bible and commands that others do it as well.

If "Christians" have murdered, they have done so in contradiction to the moral precepts of their faith. Such conduct, then, cannot be said to be characteristic of the faith.

What does it mean when the Moral Law Giver himself commits murder by his own standard? Is it simply Divine Command Theory that because God does it, it is moral? Is Christianity a totalitarian society, where citizens must anticipate and assume the values of the Great Leader? Religious morality is external and secular morality is internal. Religious morality is based on punishment or reward. Secualr morality is based on values, and I believe that values can be determined scientifically.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In fact, morality shouldn't be objective. Moral Laws ignore the complexity of the human experience and the potential for progress. We are simply reasoning empathetic beings trying to share resources on this planet. Laws about how to behave are like zero tolerance policies which can be very cruel in the disregard of extenuating circumstances.Especially when there violation leads to eternal torture.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] This is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. Whose well-being do we mean?[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] How is well-being defined? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well-being is flourishing. What is flourishing? It is that that furthers well-being? We cannot objectively define “healthy” either, but we are perfectly able to make a judgment that smoking is unhealthy; and we do so based on empiricism. Objective, yes—absolute, no. One hundred years from now we may define “healthy” as those with bio-tech implants, but we will do so based on scientific facts. We can look at a society that forces its women to cover themselves head to toe in burkas. We can make a judgment that this does not further flourishing by looking at the history of female oppression and the societal effects of giving women equal civil rights. Anyone who claims that this is a fact-value distinction is correct, but this can be solved by establishing operational terms for the science of morality. Any scientific discussion first involves an agreement of terms.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is increasing the well-being of others a morally-imperative thing?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It’s not unless you agree that one person can have “better” life than another. A 12-year old girl born in Sub-Saharan Africa who spent her 12 short years starving, being raped, and watching her family die around her, before being stabbed to death by paramilitary. An 80 year old man born in America to a loving supporting upper class family; has unlimited options, best schools, rewarding career, loving spouse and children, dies in his sleep surrounded by his loving family and satisfied with what he has done with his life. If you can agree that one of these scenarios is better than the other, then you are making an objective judgment about flourishing and well-being.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Why should a person not seek to maximize their own well-being even if doing so diminishes the well-being of others?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nothing, but the same thing that has always happened would continue. They would be socially sanctioned for their behavior and lose their trustworthiness. So, by behaving in that manner they actually do not further their own well-being.




[/FONT][FONT=&quot]God and Mind/Body Dualism | Reasonable Faith[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Selah.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Cont. on next post[/FONT]

 

[alien444]

Cont. from last post

[FONT=&quot]There is some very sophisticated thinking that has gone on regarding Mind-Body Dualism. I have not seen that merely showing that the brain and mind are linked makes them identical any more than showing that a motor produces energy makes the motor and the energy it produces identical. [/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Dr. Craig is a very intelligent and educated man, but it seems to me like he has dug deep into the history of metaphysics to revive older God arguments that still don't work. Anyway, it doesn’t surprise me that a Philosophy Prof. is a proponent of Dualism, but Dr. Goetz makes some pretty odd statements.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
"First, neuroscience contributes nothing substantively new to our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to our bodies. We have known all along that our mental lives could be and are causally related to what happens to our bodies. After all, we did not need neuroscience to know that a good knock on the head could produce a change in our psychological lives. Who could fail to be aware that dropping a brick on one’s foot would produce pain? What neuroscience has done is provide us with a more detailed picture of how the human mind is influenced by certain events in the brain. It has not changed the general nature of that picture. The fact that much of what happens in our minds is influenced by what happens in our bodies was something known by the first self-conscious human beings."


The first self-conscious human knew that if he dropped a brick on his foot, it would indeed fall to the ground. This does not mean that he understood gravity, and that the work of Newton and Einstein did not contribute anything substantively to the understanding of gravity. I think Dr. Goetz is greatly minimizing the discoveries and the future possibilities of neuroscience. Goetz is making the God of the Gaps mistake by assuming that because abstract concepts like “purpose” are not at present, wholly explained by neuroscience, then they are evidence of mind body dualism. Ultimately by “mind” what we are getting at is “soul” or “spirit” which is just an ancient term for consciousness; and consciousness was very, very likely present in Homo Erectus and Neanderthals ( if it is understood to be the realization of self and mortality.) Can the consciousness of our hominid ancestors be described with terms like dualism, spirit, or soul?

 

[aiki]

Absolute means "whole" and "without imperfection" and that is the way I use it to describe an objective morality given by God.

But this is not the sole meaning of "absolute"; and its other definitions are useful to this discussion.

In any case, it does stand to reason that a moral law emanating from God would reflect His perfection.

But what do you mean by "example"? If you mean you see no one living out God's moral precepts perfectly, then I would point you to Christ whose perfect example all Christian believers are commanded to emulate.

How can Christ be an example when he is the Moral Law Giver in which you speak of? If the objective morality in which you claim exists is just an abstract moral perfection in which we are measured or are to strive towards, and is evident only in the life of Jesus, then you would need to prove the existence of God to demonstrate your claim.

I don't really understand your reasoning here...I also don't know exactly what you mean by "abstract moral perfection." How does one strive toward an abstraction? How could an abstraction be evident in Christ's life? What I am talking about is explicit, concrete, and well-defined, and lived out clearly in the life of Jesus.

If we are talking about concrete moral precepts communicated to humans by God (in the bible) and are meant to command humans how to live, then you would just need to prove that morality is not relative and subjective.

I think the moral values and duties expressed in Scripture in many respects reflect what we already innately understand about them. The Bible merely connects the Moral Law "written on our hearts," as the Bible declares, to the Moral Law Giver revealed in Scripture.

If you do not believe that God has communicated this moral philosophy to humans (presumably through the bible) then how can we be held accountable for our moral actions.

I believe God has communicated His Moral Law to us in His Word, but we have it written on our hearts, too. Thus, a knowledge of the Moral Law set out in the Bible is not essential to being held responsible for violating what we know innately we ought not to do.

If you mean God's laws themselves I would like to know which of His moral laws (not those laws of separation peculiar to the Israelites, or commands of war issued to them under theocratic rule) are imperfect?

So basically don’t mention the horrors of the OT which resulted from the direct actions or commandments of God (who is also Jesus). The Golden Rule, for instance, is logically flawed.. Jesus offered no new moral precepts in the bible that had not already been established.

The "horrors" of the OT all have a justifying context in which they occurred.
Regardless, the innate Moral Law evident among humans apart from Scripture is what I'm discussing, not the laws and commands of the Old or New Testament.

[FONT="]So, when you speak of a morality that is fluid, that changes with the times, you are not speaking of a truly objective morality.

Well, that's because I don't agree that it exists.[/FONT]

Then, as has been pointed out, you are left with subjective, shifting, moral preferences that haven't the power to declare anything as truly morally obligatory. In such a circumstance, nothing is really right or wrong; acts like rape and murder are just socially unfashionable.

I certainly agree that one ought never to torture a baby for fun, but I can't say that every human being innately agrees that one ought not to.

It does not matter if there are exceptions to the rule. There are always exceptions to the rule - many of whom end up in prison and/or branded as psychopaths. The exceptions have the effect of proving the rule, actually. The normal or common reaction of people to the prospect of torturing a baby for fun is one of revulsion. Such a thing is morally abhorrent and we all know it. No one has to show us a law on the books for us to recognize the immorality of torturing babies for fun. And when somebody does such a thing the common human reaction of horror to such an act illustrates the exceptionality of it.

I don't know how much "fun" the Aztecs had while sacrificing infants to power the sun and bring rain but they certainly felt a moral duty to do so. The Aztec God Tlaloc required the tears of the young so their tears would wet the earth. As a result, if children did not cry, the priests would sometimes tear off the children's nails before the ritual sacrifice.

When I read of such things I am instinctively morally-repulsed - as are the vast majority of people. No one has to tell me or convince me to be so. And you can bet the priests who sacrificed the babies would not have felt a "moral duty" to sacrifice themselves. A cannibal approves of cannibalism only so long as he is not the one boiling in the pot. For my money, the best explanation for my reaction is not the moral-less, mechanical processes of nature but God, the Moral Law Giver.

I don't understand how the corruption of God's Law written on our hearts, which is what you describe in your example above, makes that law imperfect, (which is what you seem to be arguing). If a perfectly cut diamond gets chipped, can one say it was never perfectly cut?

And the Moral Law Giver you speak of didn't seem to believe that infanticide is always wrong.

God only commanded the killing of children when judging a pagan, aggressive nation as a nation. And there is good cause to believe that the Israelites never actually killed any babies. The commands to do so were a kind of war rhetoric common to Old Testament times and understood as such by the Israelites. Paul Copan, in his book "Is God a Moral Monster?", gives detailed explanations about this sort of thing. You would do well to read it.

Psalm 135:8
He struck down the firstborn of Egypt, the firstborn of people and animals.

God did this Himself. He did not have humans do so. God, as the Giver of Life, has a unique prerogative as such also to be the One who takes life. His actions against the untractable, defiant Egyptians were, in light of this, perfectly appropriate. He had given Pharoah many opportunities and incentives to obey His command to release the Israelites before He resorted to this final, drastic measure. Remember, too, that being firstborn did not mean new born.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Psalm 137:9
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

This is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. It does not approve or disapprove; it simply describes.

You are saying that an objective morality exists because God exists, or God exists because an objective morality exists.

Sort of. My view has been that we can deduce from the fact of an evident objective morality among humans the existence of a transcendent moral Source of that morality. As gologtha has put it, a Moral Law requires a Moral Law Giver.

But you haven’t proven that an objective morality exists and you certainly can’t prove that God exists.

I think I have shown that objective morality exists. Your main objection has been that there have been exceptions to (or corruptions of) this objective morality humans possess. But this no more proves your objection than showing that monkeys sometimes fall from trees proves they are not naturally suited to tree climbing.

[FONT="]These "just so" stories are based on anthropological, biological, neurological, historical, and sociological research and facts. There is no greater "just-so" story than that of the existence of a creator God. What is "faith" if not a "just so" argument?

"Based on facts" does not necessarily preclude error. As I said, plausibility does not necessarily equate to probability.

The existence of God is a deductive conclusion, not a "just so" story. But even if the existence of God were a "just-so" story, pointing it out would not somehow change the "just-so" nature of the stories evolutionary psychologists like to tell.

Faith is a "just so" argument? How so? You exercise faith every day you live in all sorts of things. How does doing so constitute a just so argument?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Evolution has created a sort of herd morality for humans that is essentially the same in purpose as the "morality" that governs, say, baboons. Neither morality is superior to the other, only different.

This is the rather ad hominem argument that materialists believe that humans are no better than insects, that we are "just" animals.

Nonetheless, it is an unavoidable implication of their view. I pointed out that the same processes that give rise to the herd morality of baboons also is supposed to have produced the herd morality of humans. If this is so, whose to say that human morality is superior to that of other animals? It is a kind of specie-ism to think our "morality" is necessarily better than that of baboons, or lions, or termites when it is produced from the very same source as theirs is.

[/FONT]

Firstly, I think the “just” part underestimates the fascination and beauty inherent in the process of evolution and the “humbling” that occurs in the realization of the kinship of all living things.

But this is all entirely subjective in its substance. This is utter opinion and thus without any capacity to advance your position. I don't find evolution beautiful or humbling in the least. I find it rather ridiculous.

[FONT=&quot]

Also, I am not aware that any other animals possess any moral purpose. Not only do I believe that human morality is superior to any similar behavior found in any other animal, I believe that a specific human culture can be morally superior to another human culture.

Yes, I know this is what you think, but as I have pointed out, you have no objective ground from which to do so. As a result, you are talking nonsensically. You can't deny objective morality on one hand and then claim you can judge objectively between moralities on the other. You require the very thing you deny in order to do so. Without an objective moral standard you are talking only of differences between moral preferences.

Selah.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[aiki]

[FONT=&quot]

For instance, by looking at moral good as that which furthers the flourishing and well-being of conscious creatures, I can compare the morality of the Taliban against the morality of Sweden, and make an objective judgment concerning the morality of each.

As I already pointed out, you have serious problems with this basis for judging what is moral. It just doesn't work. To see why, refer to my earlier posts.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

What does it mean when the Moral Law Giver himself commits murder by his own standard?

As the sovereign Creator of all life God does not commit murder when He takes it. It is His unique prerogative as God to both give and take life. You quite mistake the Christian conception of God when you charge Him with murder.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Is it simply Divine Command Theory that because God does it, it is moral?

Is this your attempt to entangle me in the Euthyphro Dilemma? God's moral commands issue from His holy, just, loving nature. Thus, He does not arbitrarily decide what is morally good or bad, nor does He derive what is moral from a Source external to Himself.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Is Christianity a totalitarian society, where citizens must anticipate and assume the values of the Great Leader? Religious morality is external and secular morality is internal. Religious morality is based on punishment or reward. Secualr morality is based on values, and I believe that values can be determined scientifically.

"Anticipating and assuming the values of the Great Leader" were what people living under the atheistic regimes of Stalin, and Pol Pot, and Mao had to do. Christians, in contrast, have a very clear, unchanging set of moral values and duties to which they are required to conform that are ultimately beneficial rather than oppressive.

Religious morality is not merely "external" but objective, authoritative and fixed. Secular morality is not merely "internal" but subjective, shifting and without true power to command.

Secular morality, as I have pointed out, is not based on objective values, but upon the value preferences of the individual, and/or the force of majority rule. It is just one human telling another how he/she ought to live. Christian morality is based upon the holy, pure, just, loving nature of the Creator of the universe. Christian morality is not derived from the individual human but from the only One who has the sovereign right to establish moral values and duties: God.
[/FONT]

[FONT="]How is well-being defined? [/FONT]

[FONT="]Well-being is flourishing. What is flourishing? It is that that furthers well-being?[/FONT]

This is talking in a circle. And as a defintion for morality, it is also quite arbitrary.

[FONT=&quot]

We can look at a society that forces its women to cover themselves head to toe in burkas. We can make a judgment that this does not further flourishing by looking at the history of female oppression and the societal effects of giving women equal civil rights.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]But upon what are past objections to oppression of woman and the establishment of equal rights based? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]History shows that the rights and freedoms of western cultures have, in no small part, the Judeo-Christian worldview to thank for their development. You are, then, borrowing from an objective, theistic, moral standard to ground your secular approach to morality.

And what of those living within a society that promotes the wearing of burkhas? Many Muslim women very much approve of burkhas. Who are you to say to them that doing so is wrong? They believe that they and the culture in which they live flourish morally because of the wearing of burkhas. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]What objective standard can you point to that proves them wrong? You point to western cultural history and they point to their occidental history as a counter. Stalemate. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[FONT="]Anyone who claims that this is a fact-value distinction is correct, but this can be solved by establishing operational terms for the science of morality. Any scientific discussion first involves an agreement of terms.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Who decides the "operational terms"? Why are others obliged to accept those terms? Again, this is just humans telling each other how to live. It's all quite subjective and ultimately works out to "might makes right."
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Why is increasing the well-being of others a morally-imperative thing?

[FONT="]It’s not unless you agree that one person can have “better” life than another. A 12-year old girl born in Sub-Saharan Africa who spent her 12 short years starving, being raped, and watching her family die around her, before being stabbed to death by paramilitary. An 80 year old man born in America to a loving supporting upper class family; has unlimited options, best schools, rewarding career, loving spouse and children, dies in his sleep surrounded by his loving family and satisfied with what he has done with his life. If you can agree that one of these scenarios is better than the other, then you are making an objective judgment about flourishing and well-being.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Sure. But what does any of this have to do with moral values and duties? Why should the traditional understanding of morality be overturned for this new definition you (and Sam Harris) propose? All you appear to be saying, essentially, is that good circumstances are good. Yes, this is obvious. A moral imperative, though, dictates an obligatory act and/or value. A man dying of cancer is in a bad situation, but does it make sense to say that his bad circumstances are, because they are bad, immoral? I don't think so. Dying of cancer is not immoral.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Why should a person not seek to maximize their own well-being even if doing so diminishes the well-being of others?

[FONT="]Nothing, but the same thing that has always happened would continue. They would be socially sanctioned for their behavior and lose their trustworthiness. So, by behaving in that manner they actually do not further their own well-being.

But this isn't what always happens. Stalin sought his own well-being over that of his nation to devastating social effect, but he was not "sanctioned" and marginalized as a result. He ruled Russia. The Hell's Angels seek their own well-being at the expense of others and they get along very well, as do the Mafia and various other criminal organizations around the world.

Selah. [/FONT][/FONT]

 

[theophilus777]

AND 2) If God is the moral law-giver then morality must be absolute, if this is the case then how can moral precepts change over time. There are certainly moral precepts that were once thought by Christians to be the will of God that you and other Christians now do not believe. It is not just an issue of cultural shifts in morality that do not reflect Christian morality. It is an issue of Christians themselves changing the moral precepts that they once believe to be true. Where is the evidence in this of an absolute moral law giver?

Personally, I do not believe God is accurately portrayed as a "moral law giver." Nowhere in our Scripture does it say any such thing, but it does say things like "come, let us reason together." Also that we shall judge Angels! Now why would that happen if God had given some immutable moral law?

Good questions though