Morality is a problem, but not one without a solution. I just don't think religion holds the answer. Further, I'd say religion holds the WRONG answer. The idea is that we may not find the solution, but we never try with religion. Christianity is especially a hindrance to finding real morals.
Tim, I will say your last post was much better than the previous ones. Is there any chance we can get back to faith and trust and it's benefit to society? I'm really interested in digging further into those, especially since you agreed my definition of faith renders it illogical.
Tim, I will say your last post was much better than the previous ones. Is there any chance we can get back to faith and trust and it's benefit to society? I'm really interested in digging further into those, especially since you agreed my definition of faith renders it illogical.
Now, your problems with atheistic morality:
First, I have to make a distinction, or my fellow atheists are going to be upset. I personally find this to be a matter of semantics, but that's me. Atheism, by its most popular definition, is not a world view, and therefore has nothing to say on morality. Secular Humanism IS a world view, and has much to say on the topic. I suppose for many atheists, the possibility that a theist could also be a secular humanist makes this distinction important. In my experience, however, I find most theists reject secular humanism. I know I did when I was a believer. To me, atheism may not be my world view, but it is certainly accurate to say my atheism colors my world view significantly. "There are even moral norms that are not dependent on the age in which we live. For example, it is wrong in every culture and in every age to kill someone without justification. It is wrong in every culture and in every time for someone to steal someone else’s property, even if the person is justified."
Nope. Not even close. Let’s look at these a little. Killing without justification may be wrong, but what is justification? How do we determine what that is? Is it okay to kill adulterers? Is it okay to kill people who work on the sabbath? Is it okay to kill disobedient children? These killings are justified in the bible. If we do NOT think these are moral, how do we justify that?
Stealing property is ALWAYS wrong? Even if it is justified? Really. Why do you think it is okay for a person to allow his children to starve when he could steal a loaf of bread from the supermarket? Is it wrong for the person to NOT want his children to starve? What if there was a crazy person who threatened to kill you, your family and your neighbor’s family if you didn’t steal someone’s car? Still wrong? Still not okay?
There are no absolute moral standards. They are as imaginary as the god who is supposed to author them.
There are no absolute moral standards. They are as imaginary as the god who is supposed to author them.
According to you, I am the sole determiner of what is moral. Yet, if each of us is a moral island unto himself, then there will inevitably be conflict. And when there is conflict, how is one to determine which position is correct?
That’s not what I meant. Maybe I didn’t do a good job at explaining this. I’ll try again. Everyone has the obligation to develop, maintain, and modify a personal code of ethics. These individual codes must congeal into a code of ethics adopted by society at large. The way to influence the code held by society is to change the codes held by individuals. This is slow, difficult and painful. There will be mistakes, errors and there must also be corrections. Think of it this way. You are not society. I am not society. But together, our individual sticks of morality form a faggot of morals. I’ve been waiting all day to type “faggot of morals”.
That’s not what I meant. Maybe I didn’t do a good job at explaining this. I’ll try again. Everyone has the obligation to develop, maintain, and modify a personal code of ethics. These individual codes must congeal into a code of ethics adopted by society at large. The way to influence the code held by society is to change the codes held by individuals. This is slow, difficult and painful. There will be mistakes, errors and there must also be corrections. Think of it this way. You are not society. I am not society. But together, our individual sticks of morality form a faggot of morals. I’ve been waiting all day to type “faggot of morals”.
Uh, are you trying to imply there is no moral conflict today? Do you mean that if EVERYONE was a christian there would be no moral conflict? That’s not true. Just look at all the in-fighting that goes on within christian denominations today. How are those conflicts resolved? Usually, we see the birth of a new denomination or splinter group. If we had a real way of actually finding a solution, instead of just segregating ourselves from those who disagree with us, that would be progress.
“We each have a conscience, yet a conscience serves no evolutionary purpose. Indeed a conscience actually is anti-evolutionary. You feel good if you, without any benefit to yourself, help an old lady across the street. Yet, opening a door for an old lady does not benefit you in any way or serve any evolutionary purpose.”
What the flippy dippy does morality have to do with evolution? What does the non-random selection of randomly replicating replicators have to do with how these replicators treat each other? Morality is as much an evolution question as geology is a question of ice cream flavors.
Even if I were to concede that atheism does not grant one morals, it is clear that religion does not either. We’ve talked about slavery, which is clearly endorsed by the bible. If you think that slaves in the bible were like prisoners in jail today, you are an idiot. While I may agree there are issues within our jail system that does not mean prisoners are property of the state. We’ve discussed racism which is clearly endorsed by the bible, especially in its laws about slavery. I’ve mentioned in this post horrific examples of murder endorsed by the bible. These are examples of the kinds of justification given for killing people. If christianity WAS responsible for leading society AWAY from these things, which is debatable, then it seems clear that the religion is moving AWAY from the morality of its holy book. How is that possible if the moral absolutes are given in that book?
And I think it is a GOOD thing that we are moving further and further away from the morality of the bible. When we finally allow gays to marry, it will be a glorious day for moral progress, indeed. Imagine my glee at watching all the christians who opposed gay marriage to try to convince me that they lead the way in getting these people equal rights and protection under the law. Then we can get stem cell research going without nutty interference. Then we can have science education get past fools who think the Flintstones was a documentary. If atheism is the driver behind progress that pushes us further from the hideous morality described in the bible, then the consequences of atheism are not just good, they’re stupendous!
“We each have a conscience, yet a conscience serves no evolutionary purpose. Indeed a conscience actually is anti-evolutionary. You feel good if you, without any benefit to yourself, help an old lady across the street. Yet, opening a door for an old lady does not benefit you in any way or serve any evolutionary purpose.”
What the flippy dippy does morality have to do with evolution? What does the non-random selection of randomly replicating replicators have to do with how these replicators treat each other? Morality is as much an evolution question as geology is a question of ice cream flavors.
Even if I were to concede that atheism does not grant one morals, it is clear that religion does not either. We’ve talked about slavery, which is clearly endorsed by the bible. If you think that slaves in the bible were like prisoners in jail today, you are an idiot. While I may agree there are issues within our jail system that does not mean prisoners are property of the state. We’ve discussed racism which is clearly endorsed by the bible, especially in its laws about slavery. I’ve mentioned in this post horrific examples of murder endorsed by the bible. These are examples of the kinds of justification given for killing people. If christianity WAS responsible for leading society AWAY from these things, which is debatable, then it seems clear that the religion is moving AWAY from the morality of its holy book. How is that possible if the moral absolutes are given in that book?
And I think it is a GOOD thing that we are moving further and further away from the morality of the bible. When we finally allow gays to marry, it will be a glorious day for moral progress, indeed. Imagine my glee at watching all the christians who opposed gay marriage to try to convince me that they lead the way in getting these people equal rights and protection under the law. Then we can get stem cell research going without nutty interference. Then we can have science education get past fools who think the Flintstones was a documentary. If atheism is the driver behind progress that pushes us further from the hideous morality described in the bible, then the consequences of atheism are not just good, they’re stupendous!
"Nope. Not even close. Let’s look at these a little. Killing without justification may be wrong, but what is justification? How do we determine what that is? Is it okay to kill adulterers? Is it okay to kill people who work on the sabbath? Is it okay to kill disobedient children? These killings are justified in the bible. If we do NOT think these are moral, how do we justify that? "
ReplyDeleteSo incorrect and so little knowledge of bibical theology. You may claim to have been a believer, but your knowledge simply contradicts it.
According to the bible we are all sinners, there is a difference between murder and killing. Murden is the unlawful taking of life, the taking of an innocent life. Killing is justified and lawful for criminals, etc. even in our society.
The bible stance is that the killing done was done upon sinners, so it isn't unlawful in biblical terms. God has the right to judge, not us.
"Stealing property is ALWAYS wrong? Even if it is justified? Really. Why do you think it is okay for a person to allow his children to starve when he could steal a loaf of bread from the supermarket? Is it wrong for the person to NOT want his children to starve? What if there was a crazy person who threatened to kill you, your family and your neighbor’s family if you didn’t steal someone’s car? Still wrong? Still not okay? "
Practicality is not morality, stealing would still be wrong. The end does not justify the means. Do you think this is allowed in court as an excuse?
This is the same as saying, if you have 20 children that will all be murders unless you murdered just one, by your standards, killing the one would be moral, but this is incorrect,
it is simply more practical or causes the least damage, but it is still an inmoral act. Your definitions are simply wrong.
"Uh, are you trying to imply there is no moral conflict today? Do you mean that if EVERYONE was a christian there would be no moral conflict? That’s not true. Just look at all the in-fighting that goes on within christian denominations today. How are those conflicts resolved? Usually, we see the birth of a new denomination or splinter group. If we had a real way of actually finding a solution, instead of just segregating ourselves from those who disagree with us, that would be progress."
You keep misrepresenting what is said, no one claims that if everyone was christian, they would be no difference, this is because of people's own views
and judgements, the bible simply declares what the objective source is.
You think your Atheistic morality is that great, lets see what this world turns into a few hundred years from now. You lack understanding of biblical theology and all you do is keep mentioning how you hate the God you don't believe in. You are stuck and keep on reverting to the same points that have been refuted time and time again, this happens in your Atheistic world view, you must hold to your position by all means.
"One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. "
ReplyDeleteYou say that there is no absolute moral standard, OK, well, here it goes. Give a situation when it is OK for you to torture a child for your own pleasure.
ReplyDeleteIf there is no moral standard, there should be at least a situation when this is absolutely moral.
I love how you think how stealing when necessary makes it moral. Seriously, you don't understand morality vs practicality. Two wrongs don't make a right, just because you would still doesn't make it moral, it still is in fact immoral to take from someone else what doesn't belong to you. So glad the rest of the world (including Atheists) don't think they way you do. Do you think this would hold in a court of law, yes sir, you are found not guilty, because you stole out of necessity, seriously, where does he come up with this stuff.
You say that there is no absolute moral standard, OK, well, here it goes. Give a situation when it is OK for you to torture a child for your own pleasure.
ReplyDeleteIf there is no moral standard, there should be at least a situation when this is absolutely moral.
I love how you think how stealing when necessary makes it moral. Seriously, you don't understand morality vs practicality. Two wrongs don't make a right, just because you would steal doesn't make it moral, it is still in fact immoral to take from someone else what doesn't belong to you. So glad the rest of the world (including Atheists) don't think they way you do. Do you think this would hold in a court of law, yes sir, you are found not guilty, because you stole out of necessity, seriously, where does he come up with this stuff.
"You say that there is no absolute moral standard, OK, well, here it goes. Give a situation when it is OK for you to torture a child for your own pleasure."
ReplyDeleteDidn't God command Abraham to do this in the Bible? Was Abraham pleased to do god's will?
Didn't God do this to Jesus in the bible? Was God not pleased at Jesus' suffering? Was Jesus not pleased to suffer for God's will?
Two BIBLICAL examples.
First of all, I was asking from an Atheistic point of view, since that is what was being debated, but I'll tackle this.
ReplyDeleteGod did this to test Abraham, he obviously did not go through with it, because God told him not to. He in fact did not murder or torture his child and also he wasn't happy about it, so the point is moot.
jesus, well, your whole statement is incorrect. God did this to Jesus? Not quite, God the father ordained it, but God didn't do this to Jesus, God did this to himself, Jesus is God, and God laid his life for us, God was not pleased at Jesus suffering. The bible says that no greater act of love exists than one to lays his life for his brother. Therefore God did this to himself to pay for our sins and save us, therefore performing the greatest act of love. If he had not, then we would all be going to hell.
Humans are sinful by nature, humans sin. We sin against an infinite being, therefore an infinite payment is required, God is this payment.
If I go into your house and break a mirror, and you were to truly forgive me, then you would replace the mirror yourself. This is exactly what God did.
You don't understand biblical theology and what you wrote makes no sense. Now please tell me in your Atheistic worldview, when it is OK to torture a child for your own pleasure.
According your logic, God created us to be sinful; why wouldn't he if he is the perfect being. It was his responsibility to atone if someone were to atone for the way that we were designed. Also, how is it a sacrifice for a higher being to 'die' in the body of a lower being only to rejoin with the rest of himself in the afterlife? God orders others to kill him for the sins that he is responsible for in his own creations but it's okay because he's not really dead?
ReplyDeleteWe are not held accountable to your delusional logic and imaginary beings from bronze age mythology. You say your God tells someone not to follow his orders because he cares about them or is just testing them? How about the emotional trauma of knowing you would have killed your own son if someone else had not stayed your hand? How would a child grow up, knowing that at any more, the unconditional love of his own father wouldn't stay the father's hand from killing him just because someone else told him to do so. I don't know about you, but Abraham sounds to me like a poor parental figure. And in this story, God sounds like some troll from the internet. I think you need a better god to worship.
You keep evading the question and showing your poor knowledge of understanding. God didn't create us to be sinful, that's what happened afterwards. Adam did not have a sinful nature, but he broke God's law and therefore became sinful. God didn't make him do it, Adam did it all on his own.
ReplyDeleteThe bible clearly states that sin causes death, spiritual death. Because of Adam's sin we became sinful creatures, we can't not sin. Therefore God in his glory and mercy died so that we could be forgiven and made righteous in his eyes.
Who is asking you to be held accountable to delusional logic? Something is either logical or not, delusional logic as a statement makes no sense. This article was about morality fro an Atheistic perspective and you keep evading the issue. Who are you to judge Abraham? Are you saying that it would be wrong for a parent to kill his child in every single situation? That sounds like objective morality to me.
Do you not believe God exists, or do you not like him. You sure do like argue from the poor understanding of the bible you have and which you do not believe. Why would you argue from the bible when you don't believe it. Argue from your atheistic perspective please.
Again, when it is OK for you to torture a child for your own pleasure.
If a righteous tree cannot produce rotten fruit then how can we judge Jesus to be righteous in light of all of the atrocities that have been perpetrated in his name?
ReplyDeletei.e. The crusades, the spanish inquisition, etc...
Further does this statement not answer questions concerning the problem of evil? If God made something and that something is evil then God cannot be seen as righteous because as stated before a righteous tree can not produce rotten fruit.
If the Bible is true and Jesus actually existed and God is real then they are not righteous and they should most certainly be seen as the enemies of humanity rather than a focus of worship.
That the silliest thing ever, so good parents can't have bad kids, a good tree can't bear bad fruits, really? What if the fruit goes bad? God is perfect, his creation now isn't. Whats the logic law that determines the assumption that since God is perfect, all he creates is perfect?
ReplyDeleteAlso Jesus was perfect, what people (humans) do in his name or not, is not always what Jesus would do, so you are transferring what humans do to Jesus.
Study please, God did not make evil, Satan was created good, but God granted him knowledge, Satan chose evil. Again you Atheists keep mentioning how you don't like God which at least makes sense, this is better than you claiming there is no God. The bible talks about the effect of sin in humans, which makes them haters of God.
A perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being creates an individual that has the ability to introduce into his own creation flaws and imperfections and does so. The perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being sees no reason to remove the flaws that have been introduced, leading his creation to suffer?
ReplyDeleteProblem mortals?
The issue is that you want this creator you have in mind to treat us like robots. He gave us choice, He is that nice and loving. Are you going to force your kids to do as you want everyday, or are you going to let them make choices on their own? You apply bad logic. He should have created robots then by your definition.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the assumption of perfection and that it can exist within or create imperfect things.
ReplyDeleteGod didn't create us imperfect. He created us exactly as he wanted for his purpose. By your definition, the only thing he could have created perfect would be identical copies of himself which is even impossible for God to do.
ReplyDelete"The idea that a perfect God would not create a universe less than "perfect" is logically flawed. The biblical model states that the universe is "flawed" - for the purpose of allowing humans the choice to love or reject God. The model also states that this imperfect universe will be replaced by a perfect universe once its purpose has been fulfilled. Those humans who chose to love God will be perfected by their own permission into sinless, loving creatures. Why didn't God create this perfect universe in the first place? Forcing creatures to be perfect would abrogate their free will and prevent them expressing true love, since they would have no choice. Humans who want to spend eternity with God chose now to give up their ability to sin or be unloving in the future new universe, where no such choices will exist."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
there are so many flaws in this post- maybe more in the accompanying comments- that its hard to know where to begin. i'll just thrown one thing out there for anonymous' consideration...
ReplyDeletethere is a difference between perfection and innocence.
as for "illogical faith", i look forward to the discussion. in the end i suspect Tim will yield to andrew and the best tim can do from that point is to make the claim that belief just feels better (brings increased happiness) or that it's better to believe and be wrong than for it to go the other way around. we'll wait and see what happens though.