Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[Astrid]

If that were true, everybody would have the same moral standard. The fact that we don't proves your claim wrong.

The extreme differences among the moral
standards of different cultures, and between
the .morality demanded of people as per Bible,
the versions and interpretations by Christians,
and the behaviour of god as portrayed the ye Bible
kinda make this "written in hearts" metaphor
more than a bit inept.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God depends on humans to interpret his standard, thus it always fails.

That's a good point, Ken, although I think it's a bit vague and somewhat stretching to say that it "always fails."

It'd be more accurate to say that it "quite often" fails ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The extreme differences among the moral
standards of different cultures, and between
the .morality demanded of people as per Bible,
the versions and interpretations by Christians,
and the behaviour of god as portrayed the ye Bible
kinda make this "written in hearts" metaphor
more than a bit inept.

He's extrapolating from (and misconstruing) some things that Paul the Apostle said.

 

[Astrid]

He's extrapolating from (and misconstruing) some things that Paul the Apostle said.

You know the correct construction?
You know you he wouldn't be more
properly known as Saul the Usurper?

 

[Astrid]

That's a good point, Ken, although I think it's a bit vague and somewhat stretching to say that it "always fails."

It'd be more accurate to say that it "quite often" fails ...

Really. When did it "work"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know the correct construction?
You know you he wouldn't be more
properly known as Saul the Usurper?

No one can "know" the exact referents to which Paul was indicating, especially not via a speech act that only runs a few sentences in length, given to some folks in Rome in the First Century and coming as it does from an ancient, foreign theological perspective. This means you don't know and I don't know; no one does exactly.

What we can glean from Paul's statement is that he meant to imply that most people, even non-Christians, have at least some rational ability for moral discernment simply by their being a human being and having a brain.

As for your additional comment regarding Paul, I think it's a moot point.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really. When did it "work"?

I'll tell you when you can tell me when and how either Communism or sheer atheism definitively enable people to be both "more moral" and objectively substantiate Human Rights as a part of nature and reality.

 

[Ken-1122]

I tell you when you can tell me when and how either Communism or sheer atheism definitively enable people to be both "more moral" and objectively substantiate Human Rights as a part of nature and reality.

But it was you who claimed it worked; not her. Seems it is up to you to provide the example. And when has Communism and Atheism ever been an interpretation of God's moral standards?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But it was you who claimed it worked; not her. Seems it is up to you to provide the example.

Did I claim "it works"? No, I simply said to you that it "quite often" fails, by which I meant that it usually does fail. And the question here is: what is "IT"? My reference to "it" was to indicate failed attempts at interpretation and application, not to God's Standard itself apart from human interpretation.

With this clarification made on my part, what kind of example do you expect to be given, Ken?

And when has Communism and Atheism ever been an interpretation of God's moral standards?

They are interpretations every time a Communist or an Atheist attempts to voice an evaluation about "God's moral standards" ...

 

[Ken-1122]

Did I claim "it works"? No, I simply said to you that it "quite often" fails, by which I meant that it usually does fail.

Usually fails (as opposed to always fail) means there are times when it actually works. If you are gonna make the claim that there are times when it (human interpretation of God’s moral standards) actually worked, you need to provide at least one example of this happening.

They are interpretations every time a Communist or an Atheist attempts to voice an evaluation about "God's moral standards" ...

Communists and Atheists criticizing interpretation God’s moral standards is not the same as being interpretations God’s moral standards.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Usually fails (as opposed to always fail) means there are times when it actually works. If you are gonna make the claim that there are times when it (human interpretation of God’s moral standards) actually worked, you need to provide at least one example of this happening.

Ok. I suppose your insistence here is fair, but what do you think an example of a successful interpretation of God Standards is? I'm asking because I don't think it's rational to attempt to offer an example to another person when the other person may assume that a qualified, "sufficient" example would one with a different descriptive nature than what I have in mind.

However, even with that being the case, I'd say that acts of beneficence like those of a Mother Theresa would be closer to an application of a good interpretation of God's Standards than are those acts that were part and parcel of, say, the Crusades. Can we mutually agree on this, or do you have something different in mind?

Communists and Atheists criticizing interpretation God’s moral standards is not the same as being interpretations God’s moral standards.

Yes, you're correct. BUT I didn't say anything about Communists and Atheists criticizing other people's interpretation about God's Moral Standards. No, I simply said that when they offer up vocal evaluations of (or about) God's Standards, then they are offering interpretations.

See the locutionary difference to which I was referring?

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok. I suppose your insistence here is fair, but what do you think an example of a successful interpretation of God Standards is? I'm asking because I don't think it's rational to attempt to offer an example to another person when the other person may assume that a qualified, "sufficient" example would one with a different descriptive nature than what I have in mind.

My opinion doesn’t matter because I was asking for your opinion. Even if I disagree with your opinion, at least you gave what I asked for; an example of your opinion.

However, even with that being the case, I'd say that acts of beneficence like those of a Mother Theresa would be closer to an application of a good interpretation of God's Standards than are those acts that were part and parcel of, say, the Crusades. Can we mutually agree on this, or do you have something different in mind?

I think you did a good job of answering my question. However your answer refutes the claim of the person I was originally responding to when he said any moral standard created by humans will always fail. If we are going to consider all personal acts of beneficence the result of a successful moral standard, then many of the secular acts of beneficence (many from atheists) must be included as an example of success; refuting the claim of the person I was originally responding to.

 

[Astrid]

I'll tell you when you can tell me when and how either Communism or sheer atheism definitively enable people to be both "more moral" and objectively substantiate Human Rights as a part of nature and reality.

Cute evasion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My opinion doesn’t matter because I was asking for your opinion. Even if I disagree with your opinion, at least you gave what I asked for; an example of your opinion.

I think you did a good job of answering my question. However your answer refutes the claim of the person I was originally responding to when he said any moral standard created by humans will always fail. If we are going to consider all personal acts of beneficence the result of a successful moral standard, then many of the secular acts of beneficence (many from atheists) must be included as an example of success; refuting the claim of the person I was originally responding to.

Ok. That too is a fair point.

 

[Kylie]

We already know Gods moral standards, its written in our hearts and conscience. If morals need human interpretation then we are in trouble as human interpretation is fallible and subject to corruption.

If this were true, then we would not see such widely varying laws when it comes to things like the death penalty.

 

[Kylie]

But there's another layer of knowledge and its not material yet its just as important as the measure of material things.

You can not show this. All you can do is make a claim.

Our experiences and beliefs can also reveal knowledge about the world.

They can not provide anything OBJECTIVE about the real world.

We can gain new knowledge through experience. We can know all the mechanisms and measures of music for example even a deaf person can understand this. But if someone deaf has never heard Mozart's Requiem and then was able to experience the joy and exhilaration of it for the first time they would have gained new knowledge they had never had before.

Experience and knowledge are different things.

In fact even science is pointing to the material world being some interface that we create to make it comprehensible but is an illusion that represents some fundamentally non-material remembering that what we think is objective reality is actually 99.999% empty space.

Please provide a valid scientific source for this claim that the material world is an interface.

 

[Astrid]

If this were true, then we would not see such widely varying laws when it comes to things like the death penalty.

Or what constitutes murder

 

[FireDragon76]

While I don't discount the genetic factor, I do not consider it the primary reason why Christianity is failing in the West. I cannot speak about Islam, but only Christianity. I see the failure of Christianity as a result of increased secularization and the values of universal egalitarianism on the rise. Christianity and it's success depends on a level of commitment like that which the early Roman Christians exhibited. A willingness not only to die a martyr, but to exclude from one's own group those who would destroy the integrity of the group.

One of the only groups of Christians that is actually growing are the Amish. I would not count them as the most gifted people intellectually. They are simple and yet the way of life they live is one wholly dedicated to religion. God is their first loyalty, followed by their immediate community and then everyone else. They have strict rules in place to manage their society and those who break the rules are shunned. Modern Churches have problems even excommunicating known and open heretics. In effect, Christians have become too attached to being part of the wider society. They are less particular about themselves as Christians and more likely to think of themselves as Americans, New Zealanders, Australians or whatever. Religion is not their first loyalty.

As for the idea that religion cannot help those with psychopathic tendencies, if that's what I understood you to be describing, I don't agree. Psychopaths might be less willing to convert and might not feel the same as the rest of us but religion can make a difference in their lives if they are convinced of it. I think of David Wood, a serious and committed Christian apologist who once tried to murder his own father. Even if the psychopath doesn't have the same emotional reaction, a commitment intellectually to the rules and willingness to follow them can lead to lasting benefits.

Amish aren't Christian nationalists: Amish don't force their religion on anyone, including their own members. They believe violence is wrong, and that everybody is free to choose what they will believe.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Amish aren't Christian nationalists: Amish don't force their religion on anyone, including their own members. They believe violence is wrong, and that everybody is free to choose what they will believe.

They are also strict with high ingroup orientation and preference. They would exclude both you and me from their closest associations, reserving that for members of their own Church and their friends and family therein. While not forcing their religion on anyone, they are more than willing to shun and disregard their own children who choose to live in the world and according it's ways rather than their own. You can say it's not forcing, but it's certainly a strong incentive to remain part of the community and it is coercive. Their practices in this regard differ little from the early Church and Christians should consider embracing them as a means of preservation and actually caring for the faith more than temporary approval by those who despise them.

Their belief that governmental violence or authority is wrong, is simply misguided and a point on which I differ from them. It's a foolish position to hold for any community, because eventually the one who holds the power will exert it, especially if your group is seen as a potential threat.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Or what constitutes murder

...Or what constitutes the said reality of some concept like "Human Rights."