Morality and Belief in God

[ataraxia]

Absolutely on both...just look at how our laws of the land have changed in recent years, appeasing the whims the ungodly...

Oh it upsets you that we now no longer burn witches alive at the stake these days?

 

[Quag]

It seems to me that this thread isn't discussing/focusing on the objective/subjective aspect of morality, but rather the level of "binding" (and in extension, ultimate meaning) that morality has (and comparing this between the theist and the non-theist).

there is nothing inherently different in morals of the religious than the non religious

 

[Angel]

I'm moral, probably because I don't believe in a god.

Yet you're the only member who ignored the request in post #2 not to quote the entire OP out of the gate.
To be sure, this is a slight matter, but it does involve a low level of right and wrong and of course co-operation, which places it at the fringe of morality, I dare say.


Namaste

 

[<alt>doxygen]

there is nothing inherently different in morals of the religious than the non religious

I want to see this (it must be exceptionally large giving the predominance of theistic religions) group of theists who's lives are bound by this supposed extraordinary morality.

Where is this evidence that theism is so superior?

 

[calamity]

Yet you're the only member who ignored the request in post #2 not to quote the entire OP out of the gate.
To be sure, this is a slight matter, but it does involve a low level of right and wrong and of course co-operation, which places it at the fringe of morality, I dare say.


Namaste

you act as though I made it to post 2

 

[Angel]

you act as though I made it to post 2

Good rejoinder, cal. Yes, your ten words were just burning to be expressed, no doubt.


Namaste

 

[Angel]

It seems to me that this thread isn't discussing/focusing on the objective/subjective aspect of morality, but rather the level of "binding" (and in extension, ultimate meaning) that morality has (and comparing this between the theist and the non-theist).

Your attempt to keep responses on point has fallen on deaf ears, gfm. Much obliged for your effort.

 

[Atheist 2020]

I cannot be a moral person, because I am a atheist. You have to have faith in a God before you can be moral

 

[gfm7175]

there is nothing inherently different in morals of the religious than the non religious

Morality seems more "binding" from a religious perspective, wouldn't you agree? ... as if it has more meaning/purpose... For instance, if Christianity were true and we all were accountable to the Christian God for our moral actions (and being eternally separated from God if we did not achieve moral perfection during our lifetimes).

That seems more meaningful/purposeful/binding than just a temporary ad hoc moral agreement that changes at the whim of individuals, to an extent, but mostly whomever is currently setting moral rules for society to live by...


It's not even about the difference in morals themselves, or how they are followed, but really, it's about the difference in just how "binding" the morals are... as in, are they temporary ad hoc agreements, or are they universally binding for eternity?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Your attempt to keep responses on point has fallen on deaf ears, gfm. Much obliged for your effort.

I'm sorry if I and others were confused, but this is your OP:

Questions

Is belief in God or in a Transcendent Spiritual Reality a necessary condition for a universal and universally binding morality?

Is non-theistic morality anything more than temporary ad hoc moral agreement susceptible to the changing whims of time and place?

I see universal and universally binding morality, not objective/subjective.

That's what I responded to.

 

[gfm7175]

I cannot be a moral person, because I am a atheist. You have to have faith in a God before you can be moral

Who in this thread has made that claim? I can say that I have denounced that claim many times, even once earlier in this thread (if I recall correctly) ...

You can be moral without being a believer. Heck, you might even be more moral than I...

 

[Angel]

With All Due Respect

What this thread was not intended to be about

1. Subjective v. Objective Morality
2. The existence of God
3. Atheist spleen
4. The immorality of mankind

What this thread was intended to be about

1. Whether theistic morality is very different from non-theistic morality (Ward)
2. What are the fundamental differences between theistic morality and non-theistic morality (Ward offers his answer)
3. On what bases does this comparison rest

The Ward video offered in the OP is but six minutes in duration, short enough, it seems to me, to invite engagement by reasonable persons interested in the discussion of ideas.


Namaste​

 

[gfm7175]

Non-believers do not understand how sinful they are until they are filled with God's Holy Spirit. Even new Christians are amazed.

Even lifelong "self-labeled" Christians, such as I, don't truly understand until they are filled with the Holy Spirit. I had an awakening a couple years ago and realized just how "off-base" I really was, even though I called myself Christian. I was just "going through the motions" instead of actually being filled with the Holy Spirit.

What you speak of is real; I've experienced it first hand.

 

[Angel]

I'm sorry if I and others were confused, but this is your OP:


I see universal and universally binding morality, not objective/subjective.

That's what I responded to.

And you were on point. I should have qualified my post with a "generally" or a "largely." My apologies.

I want to see this (it must be exceptionally large giving the predominance of theistic religions) group of theists who's lives are bound by this supposed extraordinary morality.

Where is this evidence that theism is so superior?

Ward is talking about the advantages of the idea.
Morever, the advantages of the idea are neither supported nor defeated by the demographics of moral behavior in the world.
If theistic morality exists, it is binding whether anyone at all feels himself bound by it.

 

[Daisy]

I cannot be a moral person, because I am a atheist. You have to have faith in a God before you can be moral

Sure you can but you set your own morals...God sets the morals of a believer...

 

[gfm7175]

Thinking you need an external authority like a God to behave is like a little kid who thinks that he needs his parents to behave. Without mom or dad to tell him what to do, or threaten him, or reward him, he really cannot see why anyone would want to keep his room tidy, not pull his little sister's hair, or bathe regularly.

Such need for external authority is fine, even necessary, for a child with a very immature and poorly developed sense of morality. But it is the goal of every parent to get their kid to grow up to be able to judge situations on their own merits, and have the maturity, intelligence, knowledge, critical thinking skills, and judgment to think things through on their own and make the right decision- and not always have to keep looking to parents, priests, and otherworldly entities to tell them what to do. You become too easy a target for wily and not-so-well-intentioned people to play you. There are many people who are more than always happy to tell you exactly what to think and do. And kids who never develop that sense of innate morality are the ones who throw the keg party and trash the house the second their parents leave for a minute.

Always do the right thing. It doesn't matter what people tell you otherworldly entities want you to do. You should do the right thing even if those otherworldly entities tell you otherwise. Abraham, on being ordered to slit his own son's throat as a sign of his blind and unquestioning loyalty and devotion to such a deity, should never have obeyed. This story has set the backdrop for every horror committed in the name of religion ever since. If the moral of the story is that Abraham would go as far as sacrificing his own son because of these otherworldly deities, then what is a massacre of a few towns full of unbelieving strangers, or a café full of innocent people at lunchtime? What a frightening and toxic story. You should NEVER ignore your own conscience and intelligence in the name of any external authority- even otherworldly ones.

You mention the "right" thing numerous times, as if there is an objectively "right" thing to do in all circumstances... Given so, what is the grounding (source) of where that "rightness" originates from? How did it "come into existence"? If it doesn't transcend humanity, then how can it be objectively "right" for all of humanity?

Also, "innate morality" seems like what Christians claim when they claim that morality is "written on the hearts of all mankind".

 

[ataraxia]

What this thread was intended to be about

1. Whether theistic morality is very different from non-theistic morality (Ward)
2. What are the fundamental differences between theistic morality and non-theistic morality (Ward offers his answer)
3. On what bases does this comparison rest

Namaste[/B][/CENTER]

1) Their roots are both subjective. But theists project their most current opinions to otherworldly entities and heavens of eternity, certainty, immutability, and unquestioning sanctity. Atheists keep it more humble and local. Consequently, the atheists tend to remain more open to change, new ideas, and new ways of thinking. The theists tend to remain more stagnant, closed minded, and frozen in time.

2) See above.

3) Observations. Namely, the most backward, stagnant, and closed minded societies tend to also be the most religious.

 

[Quag]

Morality seems more "binding" from a religious perspective, wouldn't you agree? ...

Not at all I see no levels of difference in morality of the religious or non religious

as if it has more meaning/purpose... For instance, if Christianity were true and we all were accountable to the Christian God for our moral actions (and being eternally separated from God if we did not achieve moral perfection during our lifetimes).

belieing something doesnt mean its true however just because you believe in your religion and use that to help you decide what is moral doesnt mean non religious people do not beleive as strongly in their morals or cannot find meaning in their lives.

That seems more meaningful/purposeful/binding than just a temporary ad hoc moral agreement that changes at the whim of individuals, to an extent, but mostly whomever is currently setting moral rules for society to live by...

All morals change over time even those based on religion. All morals being subjective doesnt make them ad hoc or based on whims

It's not even about the difference in morals themselves, or how they are followed, but really, it's about the difference in just how "binding" the morals are... as in, are they temporary ad hoc agreements, or are they universally binding for eternity?

I see no difference in the adherence to a set of morals between those who are religious and those who arent.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm sorry if I and others were confused, but this is your OP:


I see universal and universally binding morality, not objective/subjective.

That's what I responded to.

Exactly correct. My objective morality thread was directly focusing on whether morality is objective or subjective, but Angel's thread here, as you correctly noticed, is not focusing on that argument one bit, but rather focusing on the "binding" relationship and "meaning/purpose" of morality. Is it just a temporary ad hoc agreement that changes whimsically and gets us through this life more smoothly? Or is it a universally binding contract (that is grounded in a transcendent being, and we all are accountable in the "next life" to that transcendent being for our moral actions)?

 

[Atheist 2020]

Who in this thread has made that claim? I can say that I have denounced that claim many times, even once earlier in this thread (if I recall correctly) ...

You can be moral without being a believer. Heck, you might even be more moral than I...

I decide what is good or evil with what is the best rational argument. I also use Logic, as what was the logical outcome of the past, and hope to correct what I can or cannot correct with my personal life. Being moral without a God, is rejecting what is rational or logical. There is a man out there that has the faith of God, and we both agree with the same outcome. We just have a different way to get at the same problem.

 

[devildavid]

Morality seems more "binding" from a religious perspective, wouldn't you agree? ... as if it has more meaning/purpose... For instance, if Christianity were true and we all were accountable to the Christian God for our moral actions (and being eternally separated from God if we did not achieve moral perfection during our lifetimes).

That seems more meaningful/purposeful/binding than just a temporary ad hoc moral agreement that changes at the whim of individuals, to an extent, but mostly whomever is currently setting moral rules for society to live by...


It's not even about the difference in morals themselves, or how they are followed, but really, it's about the difference in just how "binding" the morals are... as in, are they temporary ad hoc agreements, or are they universally binding for eternity?

We only live in the temporary, so that's the only time that is required for morals to be binding. The morality of 500 years ago is not the morality of today, nor should it be. We aren't eternal, so morals don't have to be. They are as transitory as our lives are.

 

[ataraxia]

You mention the "right" thing numerous times, as if there is an objectively "right" thing to do in all circumstances... Given so, what is the grounding (source) of where that "rightness" originates from? How did it "come into existence"? If it doesn't transcend humanity, then how can it be objectively "right" for all of humanity?

Also, "innate morality" seems like what Christians claim when they claim that morality is "written on the hearts of all mankind".

It's "written on the hearts of mankind" the same way that attraction to the opposite sex or attraction to certain foods is "written on the hearts of all mankind"- social behaviors and emotions like empathy, cooperation, sacrifice, loyalty, etc... are hardwired into human brains through evolution. And it's not just humans. Many animals, from ants to elephants, also have it. It turns out that animals who don't have such traits don't do as well in the evolutionary fight for survival as those who do. The idea that nature is just a simple survival of the fittest and always "red in tooth and claw" is too much of a simplification. Sure that's also an important part of nature and survival. But nature weaves a far richer and more complex and sohpisticated tapestry than that.

Scientists have even localized such social emotions to certain parts of the brain. These brain centers are localized to parts of the brain involved in emotions- from disgust when you see others being hurt or injustice done to them, to pleasurable emotions when you help those who need it or relieve their suffering. They even know the particular neurons involved in such brain centers, called "mirror neurons", which are how your brain can look at the pain, suffering, or sadness in someone's face and mirror those emotions to your own brain. Have you ever felt a deep and visceral feeling of revulsion and feel like throwing up if you see someone getting tortured or hurt? Injustice being done? Yep, that's those mirror neurons at work. They can be very powerful.

We even know what happens in pathologic states where those brain centers are absent or dysfunctional. It's not too different than a dyslexic having a tough time reading. These folks present clinically as psychopaths. There have been imaging of these studies comparing their brains to normal control groups when shown pictures of people being hurt. The normal centers of disgust and revulsion don't light up. In fact in many of them, ominously enough, their pleasure centers light up. They like it. Scary stuff. But that's what happens in disease states where the brain is clearly effected. Reading scripture to such folks has not been found to be very helpful.

Humans have an innate normal capacity for love, empathy, loyalty, etc... it's as much a part of their biology as their drive for food, water, and sex. Like many innate traits, upbringing and training can also be hugely helpful. But without the biological substrate, there is as much hope to teach them anything as there is to getting a man with serious eye disease to see or a dyslexic to read.

There are cultural differences too, of course. For example, when Europeans first encountered natives in the Polynesians, the Amazon, or other places who did not cover their loins or breasts, they thought they were "immoral" and "indecent". The natives were conversely puzzled by why these Europeans liked to wear so much junk in the heat. The Muslims, on the other hand, could never figure out why the European women liked to walk around without covering their face and hair. That was even more immoral than not covering their breasts, wasn't it?

But these are all just cultural differences. Some practices are more dysfunctional than others, and it has a lot to do with things like the weather and the contingencies of culture. These things are very subjective and can change across geography and time, and don't matter that much. But the root of all morality is about empathy: the ability to see and feel someone else's pain, and be bothered enough by it to do something about it.

Divine command theories of morality fail, because it just becomes a giant game of "Simon says". "Don't torture young children" would be no different than "tap your head and rub your belly at the same time". They are emotionally and rationally meaningless. It requires you to shut down your own natural emotions of empathy and your own judgment and intelligence, and become a robot which just follows random commands. That's not where our morality comes from.

 

[ataraxia]

Great book for understanding the continuum of morality and social behavior in the animal kingdom: from ants and meerkats to elephants and humans (no otherworldly entities required):


https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&k...d=kwd-301370328657&ref=pd_sl_17vybheul1_b_p38

 

[<alt>doxygen]

With All Due Respect

What this thread was not intended to be about

1. Subjective v. Objective Morality
2. The existence of God
3. Atheist spleen
4. The immorality of mankind

What this thread was intended to be about

1. Whether theistic morality is very different from non-theistic morality (Ward)
2. What are the fundamental differences between theistic morality and non-theistic morality (Ward offers his answer)
3. On what bases does this comparison rest

The Ward video offered in the OP is but six minutes in duration, short enough, it seems to me, to invite engagement by reasonable persons interested in the discussion of ideas.


Namaste​

1) In the subjective realm (in the head of the believer / non-believer) clearly, yes. Both to a large extent seem to think that their way of deriving a sense of morality is inherently superior. I think you would need to have been a philosopher of sorts AND sincere atheist and then a sincere theist, or vice versa, to really know. I would be interested to see a discussion between atheist to theist convert and his/her theist to atheist counterpart.
1 b) However, in real world execution I think there is little difference. Otherwise we'd all be able to tell theists and atheists apart pretty readily a lot more often.

2) Think that God represents perfect love and that adherence to God's morality is your goal in life with the reward being some eternally blissful afterlife is probably quite comforting in trying times. The rest of us have (hopefully) meaningful lives and supporting family/friends that help with that. Still, I'd like to see objective evidence that theists are better people from a moral standpoint before I'd simply accept the idea. Otherwise we're talking about feelings.

3) See #2.eace

 

[Logicman]

Even lifelong "self-labeled" Christians, such as I, don't truly understand until they are filled with the Holy Spirit. I had an awakening a couple years ago and realized just how "off-base" I really was, even though I called myself Christian. I was just "going through the motions" instead of actually being filled with the Holy Spirit.

What you speak of is real; I've experienced it first hand.

You and I both. The conclusion I've come up with is this: The closer one gets to God, the more one realizes the depth of his sinful condition.