Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Why do some christians think that morals come from god?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ariston" data-source="post: 66143708" data-attributes="member: 341802"><p>Sorry Lenny, you can't have it both ways. Moral absolutes do not exist if morality is contingent upon societal consensus. So we are all still waiting. Which is it: is it absolutely wrong to rape children for or is it just your opinion - no more binding than the diabolical pervert who believes that is good? Also, see Red Herring Fallacy. The Bible is not what is at issue on this thread. Although it could be noted in passing that your Biblical proof-texting, in your case rests on, I must say, a sort of credulous, uniformed, prejudice that isn't quite on par with most psudo-scholarship that I have come across. That is of course since its no scholarship at all. Of course mere quotations without the elucidation of context and interpretation do not serve to benefit the critic even if it has the advantage of presenting the reader with a superficial difficulty. I among many Christians who study the Bible on the other hand, are not quite as interested in propaganda via proof-texting to further an agenda (apparently that the Biblical God is immoral). "No quotation" is more beneficial than a quotation without context by which the reader is misled into ignorance. Further, if morality is determined by society, then in what sense is God immoral? Which societies code serves at the standard and why? The moment you say that morality is relative, is simultaneously the moment when you lose your argument that there is something morally deficient about the character of God. Of course if society determines morality, in which case morality is relative, you lose your argument against God being immoral. </p><p></p><p><em>A Repost of Theism, Morality, And the Atheistic Problem Ethics</em> </p><p></p><p>The reason that Christians think morals come from God in some sense is because Christians think that it is more likely that that moral duties and obligations are objective rather than subjective. That is to say, if this statement is true: "it is wrong in all places and at all times for a person to harm little children for fun" or "one ought not to torture Jews" are true propositions constituting knowledge regardless of the sadist or sociopath who thinks otherwise, then it follows that objective moral duties and obligations exists, and thus there is a deficiency within the naturalist or physicalist worldview where such propositions would be utterly unintelligible. </p><p></p><p>There are two obvious reasons why such statements above would not be true on naturalism or physicalism (Western atheism). If physicalism is true, then determinism is true (or at least free will could not exist), and thus there can be no moral obligations since the notion of "ought" (for example: we ought to be kind to children rather than cruel) implies that we can. The other reason is that no moral proposition would ever rise beyond subjectivity. The notions of fairness, honesty, kindness, ect. would be no more a matter of my opinion than the other mans opinion that we ought to be unjust, treacherous, cruel, ect. Morality is entirely reduced to relativity or personal opinion. Another way of putting this might cut to the point: If it is true that we a just an accidental byproduct of nature, doomed within a relatively short period to annihilation, then there would certainly be no objective moral duties since 1. my actions are entirely the result of heredity and environmental factors alone in which case I could not be responsible for them and 2. even if I were responsible for them there would exist no reason why I ought to behave in any particular way. There is no moral standard that I am obliged or ought to live up to rather than the one that I determine. And the one that I determine has no basis for being superior to that of the next person. If God does not exist, we would have no responsibility to do anything and are justified in doing anything.</p><p></p><p>It is common then for the disbeliever in God who once to maintain the truth of the proposition: "It is morally wrong to harm a child for fun" for example, to say that morality is determined on the basis of whether our actions either cause harm to someone, which is immoral, or promote a greater well-being which is moral. But what cannot be provided is a reason <em>why<em> one is obliged to promote the well-being of another person since the moral theory itself would be based solely on that persons preferential ideology. There would be no reason to think that on such a basis his moral teachings would spontaneously become objective and binding on everyone else. </em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Of course it is morally wrong at all places and at all times to abuse a child. But if this is true in any objective sense and we have a moral duty to prevent such an atrocity, then where atheism possess poor explanatory power (we can call this the atheistic problem of ethics), the objectivity of moral duty is deeply coherent in a world where there exists an omni-benevolent being who wants us to behave in a particular fashion. Of course the atheist could just bite the bullet and maintain that objective morality does not really exist and that his belief that we ought to be kind to children rather than torture them is just a matter of his personal taste - no more valid or binding then the values of a pervert who enjoys molesting children. But in any case, perhaps you can see why Christians think that morality is objective and must be grounded in a higher Standard that we are aware of. </em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>On a final note, there is a general confusion at this point between the question of where objective values come from or how we obtain them and the question of whether they are subjective or objective. I have only emphasized that objective moral duties exist (persons ought to be just for example), this being believed I might add, quite incoherently by our poor atheist friends. I was not attempting to make the point that we do not develop them partly or largely through societal factors and heredity but only that, if God did not exist, they would not be objective and binding. If they are binding as person's hold a priori, its of little consequence how we came to hold them for my present purposes. Of course, it can be noted that one society is morally superior to say Nazi morality in which case we are aware of an objective standard by which we are judging the two. That it to say, its of little importance that there has existed some variation between societies, provided that we can acknowledge morally superior societies. As moral obligations are apparently binding, and a person should believe what is apparently true unless they have strong evidence to the contrary, it is, so it seems philosophically proper to acknowledge the relationship between objective moral duties and theism, and the deficiency of an atheistic worldview.</em></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ariston, post: 66143708, member: 341802"] Sorry Lenny, you can't have it both ways. Moral absolutes do not exist if morality is contingent upon societal consensus. So we are all still waiting. Which is it: is it absolutely wrong to rape children for or is it just your opinion - no more binding than the diabolical pervert who believes that is good? Also, see Red Herring Fallacy. The Bible is not what is at issue on this thread. Although it could be noted in passing that your Biblical proof-texting, in your case rests on, I must say, a sort of credulous, uniformed, prejudice that isn't quite on par with most psudo-scholarship that I have come across. That is of course since its no scholarship at all. Of course mere quotations without the elucidation of context and interpretation do not serve to benefit the critic even if it has the advantage of presenting the reader with a superficial difficulty. I among many Christians who study the Bible on the other hand, are not quite as interested in propaganda via proof-texting to further an agenda (apparently that the Biblical God is immoral). "No quotation" is more beneficial than a quotation without context by which the reader is misled into ignorance. Further, if morality is determined by society, then in what sense is God immoral? Which societies code serves at the standard and why? The moment you say that morality is relative, is simultaneously the moment when you lose your argument that there is something morally deficient about the character of God. Of course if society determines morality, in which case morality is relative, you lose your argument against God being immoral. [I]A Repost of Theism, Morality, And the Atheistic Problem Ethics[/I] The reason that Christians think morals come from God in some sense is because Christians think that it is more likely that that moral duties and obligations are objective rather than subjective. That is to say, if this statement is true: "it is wrong in all places and at all times for a person to harm little children for fun" or "one ought not to torture Jews" are true propositions constituting knowledge regardless of the sadist or sociopath who thinks otherwise, then it follows that objective moral duties and obligations exists, and thus there is a deficiency within the naturalist or physicalist worldview where such propositions would be utterly unintelligible. There are two obvious reasons why such statements above would not be true on naturalism or physicalism (Western atheism). If physicalism is true, then determinism is true (or at least free will could not exist), and thus there can be no moral obligations since the notion of "ought" (for example: we ought to be kind to children rather than cruel) implies that we can. The other reason is that no moral proposition would ever rise beyond subjectivity. The notions of fairness, honesty, kindness, ect. would be no more a matter of my opinion than the other mans opinion that we ought to be unjust, treacherous, cruel, ect. Morality is entirely reduced to relativity or personal opinion. Another way of putting this might cut to the point: If it is true that we a just an accidental byproduct of nature, doomed within a relatively short period to annihilation, then there would certainly be no objective moral duties since 1. my actions are entirely the result of heredity and environmental factors alone in which case I could not be responsible for them and 2. even if I were responsible for them there would exist no reason why I ought to behave in any particular way. There is no moral standard that I am obliged or ought to live up to rather than the one that I determine. And the one that I determine has no basis for being superior to that of the next person. If God does not exist, we would have no responsibility to do anything and are justified in doing anything. It is common then for the disbeliever in God who once to maintain the truth of the proposition: "It is morally wrong to harm a child for fun" for example, to say that morality is determined on the basis of whether our actions either cause harm to someone, which is immoral, or promote a greater well-being which is moral. But what cannot be provided is a reason [I]why[I] one is obliged to promote the well-being of another person since the moral theory itself would be based solely on that persons preferential ideology. There would be no reason to think that on such a basis his moral teachings would spontaneously become objective and binding on everyone else. Of course it is morally wrong at all places and at all times to abuse a child. But if this is true in any objective sense and we have a moral duty to prevent such an atrocity, then where atheism possess poor explanatory power (we can call this the atheistic problem of ethics), the objectivity of moral duty is deeply coherent in a world where there exists an omni-benevolent being who wants us to behave in a particular fashion. Of course the atheist could just bite the bullet and maintain that objective morality does not really exist and that his belief that we ought to be kind to children rather than torture them is just a matter of his personal taste - no more valid or binding then the values of a pervert who enjoys molesting children. But in any case, perhaps you can see why Christians think that morality is objective and must be grounded in a higher Standard that we are aware of. On a final note, there is a general confusion at this point between the question of where objective values come from or how we obtain them and the question of whether they are subjective or objective. I have only emphasized that objective moral duties exist (persons ought to be just for example), this being believed I might add, quite incoherently by our poor atheist friends. I was not attempting to make the point that we do not develop them partly or largely through societal factors and heredity but only that, if God did not exist, they would not be objective and binding. If they are binding as person's hold a priori, its of little consequence how we came to hold them for my present purposes. Of course, it can be noted that one society is morally superior to say Nazi morality in which case we are aware of an objective standard by which we are judging the two. That it to say, its of little importance that there has existed some variation between societies, provided that we can acknowledge morally superior societies. As moral obligations are apparently binding, and a person should believe what is apparently true unless they have strong evidence to the contrary, it is, so it seems philosophically proper to acknowledge the relationship between objective moral duties and theism, and the deficiency of an atheistic worldview.[/I][/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Why do some christians think that morals come from god?
Top
Bottom