Morality and Belief in God

[Daisy]

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.

Not true...morals laws are the same as they always were with God...the laws you're talking about that have changed are not considered moral laws...

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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)?

Very succinct. Thank you.

I do feel the need to quibble with the choice of the word "whimsical" there. One's conscience isn't subject to whimsy. Whether I chose to obey the posted speed limit is something I decide based on the situation, but I think even that dismissive attitude is above whimsy.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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.

I would think that the advantages should be supported in objective reality if it's indeed a superior mode/source of morality. Otherwise we are just talking about the feelings of the believer, which are by definition subjective.

I think the point in your 3rd sentence is a truism, so I cannot disagree.

 

[PTF]

Quote...

" I see religions as very ambiguous but probably necessary ways of giving humans some awareness of this Supreme Mind. I am a Christian, and became a priest of the Church of England in 1972. But I have an interest in the many diverse ways in which humans have sought spiritual truth, and in trying to understand what these various paths may have to teach. "

Some awareness of this Supreme Mind. A good idea to sit and have a round table discussion about religion and its purposes. I think we all are seeking the truth and it's there in front of us. We have to figure the puzzle and work to fit the pieces no matter the paths we take. I think one key is having open minds in all fronts, rather you believe or not. The bottom line is think before you say and listen to what others say. it starts with communication.
Angel...this will be the only response to this post as you know what happened to me several weeks ago. This thread is very enlightening. Good work.

 

[ataraxia]

Not true...morals laws are the same as they always were with God.

So these laws have always been the same? Apparently, slave-masters could rape their female slaves with impunity- but only if they were not married. If they were married, the rapist would have to offer a ram as sacrifice. The woman who was just raped, on the other hand, would get whipped- to teach her a lesson not to get raped while she is married.

Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

You could beat your slaves to an inch of their life. As long as they could be back on their feet in a few days, you were fine. If you killed them though, you would have offer up a ram as sacrifice.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

If you only beat them enough to blind them, you would have to let them go as punishment.

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

 

[gfm7175]

Very succinct. Thank you.

I do feel the need to quibble with the choice of the word "whimsical" there. One's conscience isn't subject to whimsy. Whether I chose to obey the posted speed limit is something I decide based on the situation, but I think even that dismissive attitude is above whimsy.

I'll agree, whimsical was a poor word choice, and not really what I meant. Not sure why that came out when I typed... I meant more of "on a whim", or "a sudden change of mind"... maybe one could also say "at any given time"... But I think the overall point is that it's a case of "focusing solely on our temporary life", vs. "focusing more-so on the afterlife".

 

[Angel]

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.

1. Since we're talking about two ideas or concepts of morality, you are correct in locating their apprehension in subjectivity, although this does not get us far.
The business about projection is just atheist cynicism and abandons the topic, which is the ideas.
The focus on how morality is lived is also off-topic and tendentious. Observations about the behavior of atheists and theists, besides revealing your biases, are irrelevant to a consideration of the concepts in question.

2. If "See above" refers to your earlier post, where you portray theists as little children, this too does not address the conceptual differences between the two kinds of morality and serves merely as more venting against theists. Here's an analogy: Asked to discuss the differences between Conservatism and Liberalism, you go off on the behavior of politicians you don't like.

3. To be sure, observations underlie your posts, but your observations are not focused on the conceptual differences in the two moralities; instead you are observing people you despise and attempting thereby to discredit the concept you reject.

Did you watch the video?


Namaste

 

[Angel]

Nope.

Anyone with even a casual awareness of contemporary ethics should know that. Consequentialism and Contractualism, for example, both offer possible mechanisms to establish moral realism. Ethicists such as Martha Nussbaum focus on moral universalism, determinable via reason and examination of the human condition. The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights never invokes any sort of supernatural or religious justification.

Kant, Bentham and Mill precede Nussbaum et al. on the contemporary scene. Rawls. Singer. Do you find the moral argument from reason persuasive? Do you consider reason a necessary condition for a universal morality?

What is the justification of the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

:roll:

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

Yes, secular ethics is a genuine and viable effort to establish objective and/or universal ethics.

No, it is not acceptable to ask a question in such a biased form.

Not sure why you're rolling your eyes, nor what point the wife-beating question makes. Is it my question you object to? Could you develop this second part of your post a little further so that I may be able to engage it>
Thanks.


Namaste

 

[ataraxia]

1. Since we're talking about two ideas or concepts of morality, you are correct in locating their apprehension in subjectivity, although this does not get us far.
The business about projection is just atheist cynicism and abandons the topic, which is the ideas.
The focus on how morality is lived is also off-topic and tendentious. Observations about the behavior of atheists and theists, besides revealing your biases, are irrelevant to a consideration of the concepts in question.

2. If "See above" refers to your earlier post, where you portray theists as little children, this too does not address the conceptual differences between the two kinds of morality and serves merely as more venting against theists. Here's an analogy: Asked to discuss the differences between Conservatism and Liberalism, you go off on the behavior of politicians you don't like.

3. To be sure, observations underlie your posts, but your observations are not focused on the conceptual differences in the two moralities; instead you are observing people you despise and attempting thereby to discredit the concept you reject.

Did you watch the video?


Namaste

I don’t despise theists at all ( well, at least the vast majority of them). Most of my friends and family are theists, and I love them very much. In fact, we share many of the same values. Where we may differ is where we think those values are coming from. For most practical day to day things, it doesn’t matter too much ( although once in a while, I can see them falling into easily avoidable traps of thinking, from which I try to gently nudge them out of). It’s just one of those things that’s fun to think about and debate. I just don’t think they have thought about where morality comes from long enough. Most of them don’t have the time or inclination to worry about it or talk about it too much anyway. That’s why I like discussing them here with people who do have such interests and inclinations.

As far as your objection that I’m not talking about concepts, I am not sure what you mean. What concept are you talking about? I am arguing about placing the source of morality in any external authority, even if they are otherworldly. In my mind, if morality does not arise genuinely and authentically from the subjective self, it is not true morality. It just becomes a game of blindly and unthinkingly following random commands- an adult version of the game “Simon says”. I can’t imagine that you think morality is that simple.

 

[Daisy]

So these laws have always been the same? Apparently, slave-masters could rape their female slaves with impunity- but only if they were not married. If they were married, the rapist would have to offer a ram as sacrifice. The woman who was just raped, on the other hand, would get whipped- to teach her a lesson not to get raped while she is married.



You could beat your slaves to an inch of their life. As long as they could be back on their feet in a few days, you were fine. If you killed them though, you would have offer up a ram as sacrifice.



If you only beat them enough to blind them, you would have to let them go as punishment.

You conveniently left out the 2nd part of my quote...figures...

 

[Daisy]

Quote...

" I see religions as very ambiguous but probably necessary ways of giving humans some awareness of this Supreme Mind. I am a Christian, and became a priest of the Church of England in 1972. But I have an interest in the many diverse ways in which humans have sought spiritual truth, and in trying to understand what these various paths may have to teach. "

Some awareness of this Supreme Mind. A good idea to sit and have a round table discussion about religion and its purposes. I think we all are seeking the truth and it's there in front of us. We have to figure the puzzle and work to fit the pieces no matter the paths we take. I think one key is having open minds in all fronts, rather you believe or not. The bottom line is think before you say and listen to what others say. it starts with communication.
Angel...this will be the only response to this post as you know what happened to me several weeks ago. This thread is very enlightening. Good work.

Amen! When people purposely leave out part of your quote, you know they're not listening so that pretty much shuts down the conversing...at least for me...

 

[ataraxia]

You conveniently left out the 2nd part of my quote...figures...

So being given the license in your holy Scripture to beat and rape people with impunity because they are your slaves has nothing to do with morality?

Even in the 10 Commandments, slaves are placed in the same category of personal property as horses and oxen: the types of property that you shall not covet from your neighbor. Are you telling me the 10 commandments are not true moral law either now?

So any law that you don’t like now, you will dismiss as not being true moral law. How convenient. Anytime we are not sure if something like owning slaves as Human property is a good thing or bad thing, we will need to consult you on your latest personal opinions on the matter. I am sure you will give us the ultimate, immutable, and unquestionable correct interpretation. That is, of course, until the next time your opinions change. Am I right?

 

[Logician Man]

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

Read the Old Testimony 'closely'.In the O.T.,the biblical god killed/murdered over 2 1/2 million people ( not including the alleged Great Flood).Many of these victims were babies,pregnant women,and little toddlers. These numbers can easily be verified in a google search with the verse and chapter and number killed/murdered in each verse.( I can't post links on this device).My question is where is the 'morality' in these actions?

 

[Daisy]

I'll agree, whimsical was a poor word choice, and not really what I meant. Not sure why that came out when I typed... I meant more of "on a whim", or "a sudden change of mind"... maybe one could also say "at any given time"... But I think the overall point is that it's a case of "focusing solely on our temporary life", vs. "focusing more-so on the afterlife".

Not really...whimsical is a perfect choice...I've been doing a little reading on the subject...I found this interesting...even God adheres to His moral laws...

God’s Adherence to His Moral Law. The God of creation is not a whimsical God, unreliably violating his own laws. (Mal 3:6) This fact can be seen in God’s adherence to his moral laws, which are in harmony with his physical laws but are higher and grander than they are. In justice he cannot condone unrighteousness. “You are too pure in eyes to see what is bad; and to look on trouble you are not able,” says his prophet. (Hab 1:13; Ex 34:7) He expressed his law to Israel: “Soul will be for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (De 19:21) When he desired to forgive helpless, repentant men for the sin that is the cause of their dying, God had to have a legal basis if he was going to adhere to his law. (Ro 5:12; Ps 49:6-8) He proved to be strict in his adherence to law, going to the point of sacrificing his only-begotten Son as a ransom for the sins of mankind. (Mt 20:28) The apostle Paul points out that, “through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus,” Jehovah was able to “exhibit his own righteousness . . . that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous the man that has faith in Jesus.” (Ro 3:24, 26) If we appreciate that God, out of respect for his moral laws, did not hold back from sacrificing his beloved Son, certainly we can reason that he would never need to “violate” his physical laws to carry out anything desired within physical creation.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003073?q=moral+laws&p=par

 

[Angel]

I don’t despise theists at all ( well, at least the vast majority of them). Most of my friends and family are theists, and I love them very much. In fact, we share many of the same values. Where we may differ is where we think those values are coming from. For most practical day to day things, it doesn’t matter too much ( although once in a while, I can see them falling into easily avoidable traps of thinking, from which I try to gently nudge them out of). It’s just one of those things that’s fun to think about and debate. I just don’t think they have thought about where morality comes from long enough. Most of them don’t have the time or inclination to worry about it or talk about it too much anyway. That’s why I like discussing them here with people who do have such interests and inclinations.

Yes, I do recall your family situation, which you kindly shared with us some time back. So perhaps I was being oversensitive to your characterizations of theists in your posts. If so, I apologize.

As far as your objection that I’m not talking about concepts, I am not sure what you mean. What concept are you talking about? I am arguing about placing the source of morality in any external authority, even if they are otherworldly. In my mind, if morality does not arise genuinely and authentically from the subjective self, it is not true morality. It just becomes a game of blindly and unthinkingly following random commands- an adult version of the game “Simon says”. I can’t imagine that you think morality is that simple.

Fair enough.
Ward presents us with two concepts: theistic morality and non-theistic morality. He says they are very different conceptions and briefly describes what the advantage of the former has over the latter.
To discuss these two concepts qua concepts, the "placing of the source of authority" is not open to question or demurrer. That "placing" is precisely what differentiates the two concepts, that "placing" is a given, and a fair and reasonable comparison/contrast of the concepts qua concepts has no place for rejection or acceptance of either. Both ought to be taken on their own terms.


Namaste

 

[calamity]

Read the Old Testimony 'closely'.In the O.T.,the biblical god killed/murdered over 2 1/2 million people ( not including the alleged Great Flood).Many of these victims were babies,pregnant women,and little toddlers. These numbers can easily be verified in a google search with the verse and chapter and number killed/murdered in each verse.( I can't post links on this device).My question is where is the 'morality' in these actions?

Oh, I’m with ya there. That god is straight up evil.

 

[Logician Man]

Oh, I’m with ya there. That god is straight up evil.

We seem to share what many former 'Christians' profess,that being that critical,in depth study of the bible is the motivator as to why we left the belief system and became skeptics in the first place

 

[Daisy]

Read the Old Testimony 'closely'.In the O.T.,the biblical god killed/murdered over 2 1/2 million people ( not including the alleged Great Flood).Many of these victims were babies,pregnant women,and little toddlers. These numbers can easily be verified in a google search with the verse and chapter and number killed/murdered in each verse.( I can't post links on this device).My question is where is the 'morality' in these actions?

Before each Godly destruction, Jehovah gave them fair warning and every opportunity to turn back from their evil ways...but they stubbornly refused...some no doubt mocked and ridiculed Noah for building an ark on dry land, since it had never rained before on the earth...

 

[calamity]

Before each Godly destruction, Jehovah gave them fair warning and every opportunity to turn back from their evil ways...but they stubbornly refused...some no doubt mocked and ridiculed Noah for building an ark on dry land, since it had never rained before on the earth...

lol....fair warning :lamo before destroying them.

And, what did the poor people do that they were warned not to do--oh yeah, not kiss his ass and like ass too much.

 

[Daisy]

lol....fair warning :lamo before destroying them.

And, what did the poor people do that they were warned not to do--oh yeah, not kiss his ass and like ass too much.

As my momma always told me...I brought you into this world and I can take you out:2razz:...how much more so for our Creator...

 

[Logician Man]

Before each Godly destruction, Jehovah gave them fair warning and every opportunity to turn back from their evil ways...but they stubbornly refused...some no doubt mocked and ridiculed Noah for building an ark on dry land, since it had never rained before on the earth...

Where did evil originate?

 

[Daisy]

Where did evil originate?

With Satan...

 

[calamity]

We seem to share what many former 'Christians' profess,that being that critical,in depth study of the bible is the motivator as to why we left the belief system and became skeptics in the first place

The stuff on TV was pretty good: Yul Brynner the bad guy and Charles "Out of my dead Hands" Heston as the hero in the Moses story was pretty good. And, flooding out the pursuing Egyptian army was certainly a cheering moment. It got weird though with the cow worship fetish and of course, all that burning bush nonsense was only interesting when I was 8. But, TV Bible is certainly better than real Bible. Crack open Deuteronomy and the first thought you get is WTF?

Another good TV Bible moment was Greatest Story Ever Told. Max von Sydow kicked ass in that film. Well, at least I thought so at age 10. Watching it a few years later...not so much. It was still a good story, but I had already learned the trickery behind it by then: Believe in this dude or burn in hell for eternity. Uh...no thanks.

 

[Logician Man]

With Satan...

Incorrect....According to the KJV bible (Isaiah 45:7),the biblical god created evil.

 

[calamity]

With Satan...

Hardly. Any objective reading would say evil was a term man invented back when he did not understand the complexities of the human brain.