Why can't people see ...

[Beastt]

Beastt you are completely correct, Christianity is not the source of morality. The Christian God is. Christians have no more morality ability than anyone else. We are equally equipped with the morality factor ingrained within from God. It is how one uses it, as to whether you can see the fruit or not.

I sit here in a universe completely devoid of your Christian God. Yet, never once have I attempted to destroy all of the people of the Earth because they disappointed me. I've never impregnated a virgin, let alone one already spoken for by another man. I've never cast a son out to be brutally murdered for the sake of the murderers. I've never asked that anyone be killed for me or that anyone attempt to kill someone they love just to prove that they will do what I ask. I've never led a group of people into the desert with insufficient food or water nor have I punished an entire race of beings because one of them took a bite from my apple.

I guess I have a long, long way to go if I am to mimick the source of your morality.

 

[Western Deity]

Because it's a big step to make ???

 

[seebs]

Thats a great line.

Untried meaning untested? Ie. when the going gets tough the christian throws out the christian way (ie. turn the other cheek, love your enemies, casting the first stone).

Untried, as in, most people don't really try to do it. It's too hard.

 

[Kris_J]

Untried, as in, most people don't really try to do it. It's too hard.

Too hard - of course, Jesus & his apostles didn't die of old age or accident, but we don't see too many Christians following their footsteps. That line paints most Christians as much as it does non-christians as failures - and they only go as far as it doesn't take skin off their Christian noses.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I sit here in a universe completely devoid of your Christian God. Yet, never once have I attempted to destroy all of the people of the Earth because they disappointed me. I've never impregnated a virgin, let alone one already spoken for by another man. I've never cast a son out to be brutally murdered for the sake of the murderers. I've never asked that anyone be killed for me or that anyone attempt to kill someone they love just to prove that they will do what I ask. I've never led a group of people into the desert with insufficient food or water nor have I punished an entire race of beings because one of them took a bite from my apple.

I guess I have a long, long way to go if I am to mimick the source of your morality.

No, indeed you have not. You have not created the universe and everything in it. While these things that you mention may seem harsh and to you repulsive, you are not God. It was never because of a bite of an apple but in your view that is all you will see. You will never see the love behind any of these acts.

The virgin and her husband to be were honored, how you should be angered when they were not is really point in case.

 

[Jet Black]

... that acting morally in a social group is on average better for you than if you act immorally?

Once this is acknowledged by everyone, we can move on to the next point (which I came to understand after reading Shermer's book 'The Science of Good and Evil'), which is that being moral is the most efficient and effective way of acting moral.




Sorry: I am getting a little bugged by some of the threads on the board at the moment.

Have a nice day.

because people don't realise how pwned they are by game theory

 

[MidKnight]

No, indeed you have not. You have not created the universe and everything in it. While these things that you mention may seem harsh and to you repulsive, you are not God. It was never because of a bite of an apple but in your view that is all you will see. You will never see the love behind any of these acts.

The virgin and her husband to be were honored, how you should be angered when they were not is really point in case.

Well, you could argue the "might makes right" position, Oncedeceived.

However, that would not bring you any closer to arguing from a moral position.

As always...in my view.

 

[David Gould]

because people don't realise how pwned they are by game theory

Hooray! Someone saw through the horrible ambiguity of my opening post.

It is something that annoys me because, once explained, it seems so logical and obvious that it is difficult for me to deal with people who say, 'But where could morality come from if there is no god? Huh? Huh?' And then you try and explain it again and it still does not sink in.

Maybe I am just no good at explaining it. Maybe I should give up on it as a bad deal.

 

[Marz Blak]

because people don't realise how pwned they are by game theory

Good answer!

 

[Jet Black]

Maybe I am just no good at explaining it. Maybe I should give up on it as a bad deal.

I think the problem is that it is too easy for people, and people get too stuck into their misconceptions. The natural world is replete with examples where things like altruism pay, over and over again, and they all have an obvious explanation. the behaviour of vampire bats demonstrates this on a lower level, and the behaviour of chimps takes it to a more sophisticated level, with a whole bunch of intermediates. The only way a group would survive would be by application of game theoretic concepts and evolutionarily stable strategies (whether genetic or memetic) - any other group would just die out or be replaced by an ESS.

 

[Dragar]

I think the other problem is that it reduces (to someone who believes morality has some special, supernatural meaning) morality to a very simple, natural thing.

I rather imagine persuading the ancient Greeks that beauty was not an objective ideal but a subjective value-judgement would have similar consequences. Or, perhaps, trying to persuade people that there is no 'absolute clock' prior to experimental confirmation of relativity theory.

People like absolutes; the ability to say "This is wrong!" and the belief that the entire universe agrees.

It can be frightening to realise that not all of the universe agrees, and most of it doesn't even have an opinon.

Dragar

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, you could argue the "might makes right" position, Oncedeceived.

However, that would not bring you any closer to arguing from a moral position.

As always...in my view.

Although might is God's right that was not my point. God can see the reason behind all that is done, a veiwpoint that we haven't the ability to see. In my view

 

[Sisyphus]

Although might is God's right that was not my point. God can see the reason behind all that is done, a veiwpoint that we haven't the ability to see. In my view

then it is obvious that he should not be used as a moral example to be followed. or he should feel somewhat obliged to give us a hint at the reasoning behind the written atrocities and actions that are obviously (to us) violations of what we would consider moral. or he could have found another way to do the things written, a way that didn't make people turn away in disgust.

 

[Edward Vil - E for short]

Why can't people see ...

Because they have no eyes?
It's Dark?
They have their eyes closed?

 

[wellman]

how would a blond,blue eyed,nazi waffen SS officer, act "morally" within his moral code? same question for an Al Queda leader recruited from a palestinian refugee camp? same question for a jewish freedom fighter in pre-1948 palestine? and if "morality" is an evolutionary survival enhancing adaptation then why isnt "Christianity" also...according to yoiur logic?

 

[MidKnight]

Although might is God's right that was not my point. God can see the reason behind all that is done, a veiwpoint that we haven't the ability to see. In my view

There is no justification/reason behind some of the horrendous crimes that I have witnessed.

If I decline to accept such an excuse in an interview with a murderer, that there is a mysterious, unknowable plan behind his/her violence perpetrated upon an innocent...why should I accept such an excuse from the central unprovable construct of a religion?

Especially when the only ones making that assumption for the constuct are the followers of such a construct and never the actual construct itself.

Are you claiming to know the mind/motivation of your God?

Things to think about.

 

[David Gould]

how would a blond,blue eyed,nazi waffen SS officer, act "morally" within his moral code? same question for an Al Queda leader recruited from a palestinian refugee camp? same question for a jewish freedom fighter in pre-1948 palestine?

People tend to act immorally towards others when those others are not perceived as human. All three of the above examples are of those kinds.

This trick of being able to look at another human being and not see them as such was also an evolutionary useful trait, by the way. Competition for resources between tribes was significant. If you could not recognise a member of your own tribe or failed to recognise that the person approaching you was not a member of your own tribe then serious problems could ensue, up to and including your death. So tribal differences - which later became cultural differences - were the way you told who was a tribe member (a human being) and who was not (not a human being).

and if "morality" is an evolutionary survival enhancing adaptation then why isnt "Christianity" also...according to yoiur logic?

Christianity likely is an evolutionary survival enhancing adaptation. Religion increases group cohesion, which is very important when you are trying to do things like build a civilisation. It is probably not too great a coincidence that in general the regions that have developed high technology were controlled by exclusivist religions. Concepts such as eternal damnation for breaking the rules of the society, along with a god who can see everything you do, go a long way to making societal rules effectively unbreakable.


Then there is the meme argument, of course, which suggests that regardless of whether religion helps humans or not it contains things that enable it to survive and be passed on mind to mind.

 

[cube66]

Why can't people see?

Because some people are easily tempted by evil.

Like homocide, robbery and brainwashing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

[/font]
then it is obvious that he should not be used as a moral example to be followed. or he should feel somewhat obliged to give us a hint at the reasoning behind the written atrocities and actions that are obviously (to us) violations of what we would consider moral. or he could have found another way to do the things written, a way that didn't make people turn away in disgust.

Again you misunderstand the meaning behind the concept. We do not follow God's moral example, God is the source of morality due to His nature. God is the author of life. The Creator of life and has the authority over life and death. We the created do not. You are placing God in an equal position with us.

When a human takes a life we don't have any supernatural ability to know what happens when someone dies. God has the ability to know this. It is wrong for humans to take life, have you never heard the words.....who do you think you are God? There is a reason, God has the right and we do not. We do not know what happens when we die. I know that when some people have died they say they see Jesus, how do we know whether or not when every person dies Jesus is with us and lead us away from the horrible death that you are siting here. We don't know but God does and death to God is only a passage way to Him so HE probably doesn't view it in the same manner as you do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no justification/reason behind some of the horrendous crimes that I have witnessed.

What you have witnessed is the horrendous crimes commited when humans take life and death in their own hands. Yes, God allows those things to happen, knew they would happen but you see it as an act of an unloving God to allow it but you only see it from your viewpoint. You don't see it from God's. I know God's love and so I know His nature from experience to be loving and you haven't that ability.

In your line of work have you never seen the one that has taken the step to save someone at risk of his/her own life. Have you not seen heroic examples of love and unselfish disregard for their own lives when faced with possible death to save another? What of these examples? Do you only give the criminal equality to God or do you give the hero the same? IF God did not allow our free agency to do what we will then we would not know the love behind the act of a hero. We would not know the love for another because we would not know the opposite of those things and we must to understand the other.

If I decline to accept such an excuse in an interview with a murderer, that there is a mysterious, unknowable plan behind his/her violence perpetrated upon an innocent...why should I accept such an excuse from the central unprovable construct of a religion?

I would not expect you to accept it from a religion, but you must accept it from God. God is not your equal but your superior, your Creator if it is as we claim.

Especially when the only ones making that assumption for the constuct are the followers of such a construct and never the actual construct itself.

If God were only a construct then I would probably agree. But if the followers are only following a construct then you don't believe that there were innocents killed in the first place so why charge the construct with immorality?

Are you claiming to know the mind/motivation of your God?

No. I am trying to answer to the best of my ability due to the fact that by my experience, and the authority of the Bible God is good and loving. That He is superior and has the authority to take life and give life. That He alone knows what transpires when a person dies and that when that person dies He is there on the other side of death. Death is a doorway to Him and I don't think that He see death as we do.

Things to think about.

Nothing I haven't thought long and hard about.