Morality?

[Ellinas]

It is common to see the religious declare that morality without religion cannot exist. I may not be in a position to declare what should be moral but I have an opinion on what is immoral.

When an animal or human being are ill-treated, made to suffer, denied their freedom and or dignity.
When children and old people are forced to beg for a living while their state spends billions on weapons.
When money is above basic rights of decency; the right to see a fellow human or animal in need of medical care as one in need of society's compassion rather than an insurance number or size of wallet.
When state sanctioned murder (capital punishment) is applied: the same as "leg hurts? cut off leg" philosophy.

Where is the morality when we worship people who make millions for acting in a film or ministers who preach religion in a fashion akin to selling cosmetics.

We idolise war heroes while turning our backs to the ones who fight to save our environment, the poor, the oppressed.

The price of one land mine can feed a family in some countries!

Haitians are blamed for denuding their land of forests while the same people who blame them are at the same time dismissing ecology as a tree hugging good for nothing global warming scare.

Where is the morality when we send teenagers to fight in foreign lands resulting in their deaths or maiming or a conscience filled with guilt for killing fellow humans?

How can violence be condoned and called morally justifiable while condemning sex as immoral?

I think we are in dire need of rethinking our codes of conduct to better reflect the erudition we have acquired through centuries of social experience. Otherwise we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

 

[Bro_Sam]

When an animal or human being are ill-treated, made to suffer, denied their freedom and or dignity.
When children and old people are forced to beg for a living while their state spends billions on weapons.
When money is above basic rights of decency; the right to see a fellow human or animal in need of medical care as one in need of society's compassion rather than an insurance number or size of wallet.
When state sanctioned murder (capital punishment) is applied: the same as "leg hurts? cut off leg" philosophy.

Where is the morality when we worship people who make millions for acting in a film or ministers who preach religion in a fashion akin to selling cosmetics.

We idolise war heroes while turning our backs to the ones who fight to save our environment, the poor, the oppressed.

The price of one land mine can feed a family in some countries!

Haitians are blamed for denuding their land of forests while the same people who blame them are at the same time dismissing ecology as a tree hugging good for nothing global warming scare.

Where is the morality when we send teenagers to fight in foreign lands resulting in their deaths or maiming or a conscience filled with guilt for killing fellow humans?

How can violence be condoned and called morally justifiable while condemning sex as immoral?

I think we are in dire need of rethinking our codes of conduct to better reflect the erudition we have acquired through centuries of social experience. Otherwise we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

The ironic thing is that you claim that morality exists independently of religion, but the very fact that you have a sense of morality (albeit a misguided one) shows the existence of God.

 

[jayem]

The ironic thing is that you claim that morality exists independently of religion, but the very fact that you have a sense of morality (albeit a misguided one) shows the existence of God.

Not necessarily. A moral instinct can also result from evolution as a social species.

 

[CoderHead]

The ironic thing is that you claim that morality exists independently of religion, but the very fact that you have a sense of morality (albeit a misguided one) shows the existence of God.

Not necessarily. A moral instinct can also result from evolution as a social species.

Or the simple, personal desire to live as part of a group without conflict. No God required.

 

[Bro_Sam]

Not necessarily. A moral instinct can also result from evolution as a social species.

No.

Evolution is based on the idea of the strong overcoming the weak. If ouir morality were really based on evolution, then we'd be killing sick people, refusing to feed the hungry, etc.

Or the simple, personal desire to live as part of a group without conflict. No God required.

That's not morality. Morality is an inate understanding of what is right and wrong, not merely going along with a group to avoid conflict. That's legalism.

No. You're attempting to portray ToE as a justification for immorality based on the premise of "survival of the fittest," which isn't a social rule like morality.

No, I never said anything about immorality or a justification for immorality.

It's a pretty despicable argument on your part.

And if that had been an argument that I actually made and not one you just made up and attributed to me, you might have a point.

Of course we're not going to ensure that people starve to death and are denied care for illness!

Why not? That's what's best for to ensure the survival of the species and the growth of society.

Morality is not innate. Otherwise, all humans on the planet would agree on the same moral code.

You mean like every society having laws against murder and theft?

We don't. Morality is defined by a society's agreement as to what's acceptable and unacceptable for that society to thrive.

I see. So then, was Nazi Germany a moral government?

Look around you - does every society on Earth hold the same morals? No.

Yes.

Dead wrong. Natural selection favors traits which promote the reproduction of a population.

That's exactly what I said.

Humans thrive best in a society--not in isolation.

But, according to evolution, that must be a physically healthy society.

For society to function, members must exhibit cooperative behaviors with each other. Meaning not killing or injuring each other, caring for those who are sick or hurt, and helping to obtain and share food.

Again, that is precisely the opposite of what evolution says.

A group where individuals behave in this manner will be healthier, live longer, and thus have more, and healthier offspring.

The problem is that evolution says allowing the sick or weak to pass on their traits will prohibit society from being "healthier, living longer, and thus having more and healthier offspring".

This group will be more reproductively successful. And over time, these traits will be more common in the population as a whole.

And according to evolution, that's a bad thing.

 

[CoderHead]

Evolution is based on the idea of the strong overcoming the weak. If ouir morality were really based on evolution, then we'd be killing sick people, refusing to feed the hungry, etc.

No. You're attempting to portray ToE as a justification for immorality based on the premise of "survival of the fittest," which isn't a social rule like morality. It's a pretty despicable argument on your part. Of course we're not going to ensure that people starve to death and are denied care for illness!

That's not morality. Morality is an inate understanding of what is right and wrong, not merely going along with a group to avoid conflict. That's legalism.

Morality is not innate. Otherwise, all humans on the planet would agree on the same moral code. We don't. Morality is defined by a society's agreement as to what's acceptable and unacceptable for that society to thrive. Look around you - does every society on Earth hold the same morals? No.

 

[jayem]

Evolution is based on the idea of the strong overcoming the weak. If ouir morality were really based on evolution, then we'd be killing sick people, refusing to feed the hungry, etc.

Dead wrong. Natural selection favors traits which promote the reproduction of a population. Humans thrive best in a society--not in isolation. For society to function, members must exhibit cooperative behaviors with each other. Meaning not killing or injuring each other, caring for those who are sick or hurt, and helping to obtain and share food. A group where individuals behave in this manner will be healthier, live longer, and thus have more, and healthier offspring. This group will be more reproductively successful. And over time, these traits will be more common in the population as a whole.

Evolution by natural selection is about the fecundity of a population. That's quite different than strong vs weak. And you should know that.

 

[Ellinas]

The ironic thing is that you claim that morality exists independently of religion, but the very fact that you have a sense of morality (albeit a misguided one) shows the existence of God.

I fail to see the correlation! What proof have you for what you claim?

 

[dies-l]

It is common to see the religious declare that morality without religion cannot exist.

This statement is generic enough that, strictly speaking, it is not a straw man. Surely, there are some religious people who believe that "morality without religion cannot exist." But, at least among Christians, the more common believe is that morality cannot exist without God. To say that a person cannot be moral without being religious contradicts the Bible itself.

 

[CoderHead]

To say that a person cannot be moral without being religious contradicts the Bible itself.

Yes, because the Bible makes it perfectly clear that there will be a lot of moral people in Hell.

 

[dies-l]

Yes, because the Bible makes it perfectly clear that there will be a lot of moral people in Hell.

Some people interpret Scripture that way, but I was referring to:

"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, 15since 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." Romans 2:14-15

This has nothing to do with moral people going to hell.

 

[CoderHead]

Some people interpret Scripture that way, but I was referring to:

Man, that passage sounds like nonsense. I honestly don't understand what Paul's saying there. Back up one verse and you have this:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

This almost seems to suggest that unbelievers who are moral (meaning you don't need God in order to be a good person) can still find favor with God. Is that what it's saying?

 

[Bro_Sam]

Yes, because the Bible makes it perfectly clear that there will be a lot of moral people in Hell.

There is no verse that says moral people will be in Hell. To the contrary, the Bible is very clear that no one is capable of being moral.

But then, the Bible isn't perfectly clear in its morality...

Actually, it is very clear in its morality. That you don't understand it just serves as evidence for the Bible's claim that the carnal mind cannot discern the things of God.

 

[dies-l]

This almost seems to suggest that unbelievers who are moral (meaning you don't need God in order to be a good person) can still find favor with God. Is that what it's saying?

I tend to agree with that interpretation, except for what you have in parenthesis. I would amend to say that "you don't need to consciously believe in God to obey Him." The difference, I suppose is presupposition. Your phrasing presupposes atheism or agnosticism. Mine presupposes theism, that God is working on you, whether you want Him to or not.

 

[CoderHead]

To the contrary, the Bible is very clear that no one is capable of being moral.

But then, the Bible isn't perfectly clear in its morality...

I would amend to say that "you don't need to consciously believe in God to obey Him."

You could likewise say, "You don't have to consciously believe in the Sandman to go to sleep."

Mine presupposes theism, that God is working on you, whether you want Him to or not.

Yet if I presupposed the Sandman as the cause of your fatigue, you'd have no problem telling me I'm wrong. Presuppositions are useless and I've read enough of Greg Bahnsen to have my fill of them.

 

[dies-l]

But then, the Bible isn't perfectly clear in its morality...

It is if you ignore the parts that are confusing or difficult to follow

You could likewise say, "You don't have to consciously believe in the Sandman to go to sleep."

Actually, a closer analogy to what I said is that "You don't have to consciously believe in the Sandman for him to put you to sleep."

Yet if I presupposed the Sandman as the cause of your fatigue, you'd have no problem telling me I'm wrong.

I'm not telling you your wrong about God either. Only that I disagree with you as to your belief that He does not exist, just like I presume that you disagree with me that He does.

Presuppositions are useless and I've read enough of Greg Bahnsen to have my fill of them.

Yet, we all seem to have them and use them regularly. Arguably, we would be incapable of articulable belief without them.

 

[CoderHead]

Actually, a closer analogy to what I said is that "You don't have to consciously believe in the Sandman for him to put you to sleep."

Thank you, that's what I meant.

Only that I disagree with you as to your belief that He does not exist, just like I presume that you disagree with me that He does.

I don't believe He doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced as to whether He, out of the host of other gods out there, actually does. Especially since He behaves so unarguably human.

Arguably, we would be incapable of articulable belief without them.

I question the value of belief, and on the subject of morality I don't think it's relevant. One could be a nihilist and still have morals.

 

[dies-l]

I don't believe He doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced as to whether He, out of the host of other gods out there, actually does. Especially since He behaves so unarguably human.

I apologize for the assumption, then. I inferred from your faith icon that believed that God does not exist. What you describe sounds more agnostic than atheist to me.

I question the value of belief, and on the subject of morality I don't think it's relevant. One could be a nihilist and still have morals.

I don't want to derail the thread, so somebody please let me know if I am straying too far from the original topic, but I want to address this comment quickly. Without belief, is it really possible to accomplish anything? I mean, it is our beliefs, even if incorrect that dictate our actions. For example, if Edison did not have and pursue his beliefs about the relationship between electricity and various types of filaments, he would have been unable to invent the light bulb. For a more mundane example, if I believe that it is cold outside, I wear a coat. If I chose to have no belief as to the outside temperature, I would not know how to dress when I go outside. I will either be paralyzed by ignorance or it will be a total crapshoot whether I dress appropriately. So, I tend to think that belief is quite important.

 

[CoderHead]

I apologize for the assumption, then. I inferred from your faith icon that believed that God does not exist. What you describe sounds more agnostic than atheist to me.

Agnostic atheist - I don't know if there are god(s) but I have no reason to believe they exist.

For example, if Edison did not have and pursue his beliefs about the relationship between electricity and various types of filaments, he would have been unable to invent the light bulb. For a more mundane example, if I believe that it is cold outside, I wear a coat.

I really think those examples fall flat. For one, Edison didn't "believe" anything about the relationship between electricity and filaments; he observed various interactions and made inferences about what was happening. He based his experiments on his experience and his knowledge at that time about the concepts of electricity, which had already been demonstrated and described in the past by other people.

Further, it is not your "belief" about the weather that prompts you to dress as you do; it is your past experience with heat and cold. Do you need to "believe" that it's too warm for a jacket after you've walked outside wearing one? No, you're basing your actions on empirical data obtained from your past experience and from your present condition and will remove your jacket accordingly. No belief is necessary.

 

[dies-l]

Agnostic atheist - I don't know if there are god(s) but I have no reason to believe they exist.

Thanks for clarification.

I really think those examples fall flat. For one, Edison didn't "believe" anything about the relationship between electricity and filaments; he observed various interactions and made inferences about what was happening. He based his experiments on his experience and his knowledge at that time about the concepts of electricity, which had already been demonstrated and described in the past by other people.

Further, it is not your "belief" about the weather that prompts you to dress as you do; it is your past experience with heat and cold. Do you need to "believe" that it's too warm for a jacket after you've walked outside wearing one? No, you're basing your actions on empirical data obtained from your past experience and from your present condition and will remove your jacket accordingly. No belief is necessary.

I guess at least some of our difference comes down to what it means "to believe."