• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Where does morality come from?

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by Searching_for_God, Apr 28, 2019.

  1. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I believe one peer review I quoted said this"macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution."

    that that sufficiently refutes your claim. :wave::wave::wave::wave:
     
  2. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,017
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Dude, fix your quote tags.
     
  3. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,017
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    And your source for this...?
     
  4. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
  5. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
  6. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,017
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    So a change from one species to another is below the species level? Of course it's above the species level.

    https://scholar.google.com.au/schol...evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=fossil+evidence+for+evolution&btnG=

    No, it does not make us even. When I say you don't understand evolution, I am not belittling you. I am making an observation based on the statements you have made which do not appear consistent with what I would expect to hear from someone who understands evolution.

    https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=evidence+of+speciation&btnG=
     
  7. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,017
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Did you actually read the article, or did you stop reading as soon as you got your little soundbite?

    He doesn't ever say that macroevolution never happens, he simply proposes that there is more to macroevolution than lots of microevolution.

    In any case, his view is not a consensus. Many other scientists in the field disagree with him. But his claim does not support your point.
     
  8. KyleSpringer

    KyleSpringer Member

    241
    +61
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Define effective, because it doesn’t really matter if you care about what happens or not, if you break the rule, you still do the time, making it as effective as it needs to be.

    Maybe it’s not the rules that are ineffective, maybe everyone else is deficient of integrity, and self control.

    You said previously, rules are put in place to produce a desired outcome. Which is true, we agree on that. But without rules there’s is no standard, and to say that because someone may rebel because they lack conviction is cause to throw out a set of rules is foolish.

    In other words, everything goes because people will ultimately do what they want anyways. That’s subjective, and that kind of morality will leave us in ruin.

    Like the example where the guy kills someone then kills himself. He has every intention of bypassing the punishment for his crimes. So throw out all laws that say harming other individuals is wrong. Screw the standard bc no one is listening to it? That’s not how things work.

    I wish you the best in your search for truth and may God be with you.
     
  9. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,365
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Well, define objective standard then. This assumption that chaos would rule in the absence of some kind of objective moral standard is completely unfounded. Actions have consequences. People prefer some consequences over others. Thus, people tend to behave in certain ways rather than others. There’s no need for something so abstract as an “objective moral standard” when people have good enough reasons to do what they do.
     
  10. KyleSpringer

    KyleSpringer Member

    241
    +61
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I’m not saying that chaos would rule in the absence of a objective moral standard. I am saying, however, that subjectively speaking, you can break any rule that someone implements, meaning that chaos and disorder are not only possible, but inevitable.

    So you’re arguing that objectivity is irrelevant due to the fact that people generally seem to have motives that preserve themselves and the fabric of the society they live in.

    I’m arguing that morality inherently comes from God, where there is no subjectivity or change. He himself is the standard.

    Have you seen the movie “purged”?

    If one day a year it was legal to kill, steal, and commit any crime you wanted, free from consequences, you would then have to change your worldview to adjust to this new subjective standard.

    I for one am not willing to endorse a system where morality is determined my what is or isn’t legal. If my neighbor can get away with murder, what’s to stop us from just blowing the whole block up?

    If that’s the world you want to live in, and reject the absolute standard of morality that God has set forth, don’t be look at the tv in disgust the next time you see someone being arrested for pedophilia or murder, because subjectively they may believe what they did was right, and to encroach on that or to condemn them for it is self refuting.
     
  11. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +841
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    If it's been 'set forth' by Yahweh, then it's subjective. Not objective.

    And if it's purportedly 'absolute', then it's worthless, as is any moral philosophy that does not allow for nuance.

    Which is all to say nothing of the fact that you have no means of gleaning precisely what it is that Yahweh has 'set forth' regarding moral behavior. So even granting his existence, he is irrelevant.
     
  12. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,365
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    As far as I can tell, that’s the state of reality. You really can do whatever you want, as long as you have the physical means and are willing to accept the consequences. Haven’t we seen this borne out historically in mass shootings, terrorism, and wars? We congregate in orderly societies to minimize these risks, but there’s no eliminating them entirely.

    Right.

    Isn’t that just as arbitrary as any other standard?

    Why? National law doesn’t determine morality, it just reflects the values held by the ones in charge of legislation. I wouldn’t change my values to match theirs, I would either leave that society or work to change those laws.

    No one has suggested this.

    It’s not about what world we want to live in, it’s about the world we live in. I don’t see any objective moral standard in this world, but I also don’t see any need for one.
     
  13. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +4,916
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    First, the minor points:
    1. Science never proves anything. All you have done is to demonstrate that evidence suggests that (some) Christians are better able to resist the temptations of alcohol than non-Christians. You have not demonstrated that Christians are also better able to resist arson, burglary, conspiracy, domestic violence, extortion, fraud, etc.

    It is only fair that I give you a warning. The next time I see a post in which you clearly make a distinction between Christians and Catholics I shall be reporting that post as being against the forum rules. I hope that, as a Christian, you would wish to avoid breaking the rules of the Christian Forum.

    You have explicitly or implicitly spoken as if your position is solid. You have spoken as if your position is proven. That makes it valid to ask you to provide the proof.

    I have not explicitly, or implicitly spoken of having proven any of the concepts that I currently accept as being the best evidenced and argued explanations for what we observe. Since, therefore, I have not asserted that any of my positions are proven I can hardly be accused of hypocrisy for asking those who do make such assertions to justify/prove them.

    If you wish to declare that your positions and beliefs are tentative and subject to error, then I shall stop asking for proof. It's your choice.

    I gave you a comprehensive statement as to why I participate in these forums. Recruiting atheists was not one of the reasons. I find your remark here offensive, deluded and self-serving.
    In case that was unclear: I do not participate in these forums to recruit atheists.

    Aside: I don't even approve of atheism, of the kind where the atheist declares with certainty "there is no God". I don't hold with such ludicrous degrees of certainty.

    Once again, offensive and deluded. In the real world I have often avoided following a particular line of discussion with friends or work colleagues for fear that it might adversely test their faith. Is that the action of someone who finds "joy and fulfilment" when a "Christian falls into atheism".
    There are several Christian members on this forum for whom I have considerable respect. If I were to learn that any words I had written had led them away from their faith I would be mortified. Is that the reaction to be expected from someone who finds "joy and fulfilment" when a "Christian falls into atheism".

    I do find a degree of "joy and fulfilment" when a fundamentalist Christian recognises, for example, that it may be possible for evolution and Scripture to be reconciled.

    There are plenty of practising Christians who find no conflict between their beliefs and their faith and the use of scepticism and rational thought. And "converts" to the use of scepticism and rational thought are the only converts I would be interested in. But please note, obtaining such "converts" would only be an ancillary, unconscious benefit of being on the forum.

    Rubbish!
    I don't admit I am not here to learn to be a Christian.You speak as if you have dragged some great secret from me. You haven't. I have never, in any of my posts, at any time during my membership, stated or implied anything that suggested I was here to "learn to be a Christian". I gave you my reasons for being here previously. You have chosen to call me a liar. Shame on you, not on me.

    I'll assume you misread a portion of my post, rather than deliberately misrepresenting it. I did not say that I wanted to "find out how might hold a contrary view". Here is a second attempt to get my point across.
    1. I come to the forum, in part, to be exposed to alternative views.
    2. I come to the forum, in part, to seek to understand the rationale behind those views.
    3. I come to the forum, in part, to present my own view, where I feel it may be relevant/interesting/important.
    4. In that case I seek also to explain why I hold that view. (This is only proper, since I have gained an insight into the alternative viewpoint and why it is held. It would wrong of me to deprive the other party of the same kind of information on my viewpoint and its motivations.)

    Get over yourself. I've given you my reasons. If you cannot accept them perhaps you should just place all atheists and agnostics on Ignore. To be on the safe side you might wish to include Catholics!

    The only uncomfortable aspect of it was your intransigent insistence upon assigning me motives that do not exist. Such intransigence is extremely frustrating, for it betrays the very lack of scepticism,open-mindedness and rationality that I admire. It seems I can do very little to correct that in others, so yes, it makes me uncomfortable to think you will continue being deluded as to my motives despite any efforts on my part. You might wish to reflect on the issue of bearing false witness. It may be applicable here.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  14. KyleSpringer

    KyleSpringer Member

    241
    +61
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    If you choose not to acknowledge Divine law, that doesn’t make the law irrelevant, it makes you rebellious and in need of repentance.
     
  15. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,365
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    If Divine law exists it’s only relevant if something happens to me if I break it. What happens?
     
  16. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +1,185
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    Yesterday I had a post written out opining that this is a definition of consequentialist moral systems, but not all moral systems (and especially not deontological moral systems). I decided not to enter the fray, but your subsequent replies made me decide to go ahead and point this out.

    Consequentialism is a legitimate form of morality that goes a long way in describing human behavior, but it isn't the only option.

    True enough. I would put it this way: subjective motivations are always the link connecting us to objective standards, even if those motivations are not consequentialist in nature.

    "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love" (1 John 4:18).
     
  17. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,365
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I don't think there's any discrete moral philosophy that cleanly describes all human behavior, but I think the consequentialist angle is most effective against arguments like Kyle's, which insist that objectivity or absoluteness is paramount. I think subjective motivation is paramount, and I think consequentialism is the strongest and most common form of motivation.

    In principle, I can agree, although the idea of motivations that aren't consequentialist in nature seems strange to me. That would mean feeling motivated to do something, but not having any particular reason. I guess it happens, but I don't know how common it is.

    I really like a lot of what the Bible says about love, and this verse is a great example. If by sharing it you mean to say that love can motivate obedience as well as fear, that's true enough. Ultimately though, whatever emotion is driving you, you're still motivated by the subjective desire for a particular outcome, whether that be the object of your affection being satisfied or you avoiding a punishment.
     
  18. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +1,185
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    I agree, and I think Christianity has had a tendency to undervalue subjectivity for the last 600-700 years..

    True, and some consequentialists have made that argument.. I suppose it depends on how we define consequentialism. I shouldn't think that the non-consequentialist undermines the principle of sufficient reason, but their aim is not always a specific outcome. Humor is an example that comes readily to mind. Acts of humor can be very free, exuberant, undirected acts. There are of course other acts that we undertake as ends in themselves, and many moral systems recognize these as superior to calculated acts aimed at consequences and outcomes. Humor, love, enjoyment, and rest are a few.

    Why does a man love his wife? What is the particular outcome that he desires?

    To go back to your original quote, rules can be taken as prescriptive or indicative, and in the moral life a shift from one to the other usually occurs eventually. By indicative I mean that they indicate the kinds of fruit that a good tree will bear; the kinds of action by which you may recognize the holy person. Similarly for Aristotle virtue is not found in achieving a standard, but in freely and joyously acting in a way that brings optimal human flourishing.

    In theological circles there is an old debate about whether loving God is really just a means to the happiness of heaven. In the Thomistic Catholic tradition we would say that loving God and the happiness of the beatific vision are basically one and the same thing. Alternatively you might say that the act of love brings the effect of supreme happiness, and yet the lover values the object of his love much more than he values the happiness. ...or that his happiness is found precisely in being united with his beloved.
     
  19. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I don't know how to make this argument simpler for you to understand so I will try one more time. Speciation is AT THE LEVEL of species. Macro evolution as I provided is defined as "ABOVE THE LEVEL OF SPECIES." so when you fill a pool with water, the water level is at the same height as the water line. Not above the water line, so too speciation is at the level of species not above. I seen all all your attempts at evidence, but I won't do your homework for you. I can post a google scholar link of "problems with evolution." But that would not be fair, because I am making you sift through the evidence because I was too lazy to find it. Don't make the same mistake. Now that you know that macro evolution is above the level of species, please find evidence of macro evolution. And I doubt you can, I have debated biologists, several, and astronomists, and physicists, and none were able to find examples. I could tell you of the most common examples, but I won't do your homework for you, so far this is not even a debate, and evolution is failing very easily at this point.
     
  20. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,021
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    yes and this is exactly why it disproves what you said about macroevolution.

    I never said that these articles don't believe that macroevolution exists, it is no secret that they do so in fact.

    that is a moot point.

    the point is that they, along with you, and countless others struggle to find the hard scientific facts of macroevolution.
     
Loading...