Good Without God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]jsal33 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]jsal33 wrote:
Do you think that slavery is gone from this country because god spoke to someone?[/quote]

God speaks to the Catholic Church and they opposed it when the majority of people in the slave trade found nothing wrong with it. looks around awkwardly[/quote]

god speaks to the catholic church
REALLY
Anyone in particular[/quote]

A lot of people. Kind of hard to make list since you know God doesn’t hand out lists of people he talks to through the Holy Ghost.

82

[quote]ephrem wrote:

good = benefits society / bad = detriment to society

[off to bed, early shift tomorrow][/quote]

That’s call “utilitarianism” and it’s not a good model for morality. By that model, killing off the decreped, retards, really old people, or anything obviously useless to society as a whole would an acceptable act.

We can bitch, moan, whine and complain about each other’s point of view however, getting these words defined is the key to having a productive discussion.

What makes an act, good? Is something that is good always an act. Same for evil.
Let’s take some extreme examples and discuss what makes them what they are:

A good act:
You find a staving sick orphan, you take him, get him medical care, feed and care for him.
Would this be a good act? Why? Would it still be a good act even it society was against it?

A evil act:
Raping a child.
Would this be an evil act? Why? Would it still be evil if perfectly acceptable by society?

Morality is a difficult thing to discuss because we all have sense of it, we just cannot define it.

83

[quote]Makavali wrote:
.[/quote]

Let’s start this off with saying. Yes, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of The Church. Your point on how this disproves morals come from God?

Okay, so you are saying that the Vatican’s arms (which were funded and were actually were other countries arms) went out and did the inquisitions, when it has been stated that the Vatican pleaded with them not to do such things.

That The Church killed people because they did not believe in creation (which The Catholic Church actually believes in the Theory of Evolution)?

That a very anti-Catholic Protestant Confederate Army (which only some of the South believed this) thought that slavery was moral?

That the Catholic Church some how has connections with the Muslim Terrorist from 9/11.

And that because of the evil misleading and corruption of some folks in the Catholic Church that led to disobeying a decree not to leg homosexual and psychological unstable persons into the priesthood, that God did not create morals. Interesting logic, that does not even incorporate or match The Church’s logic on God, Church, and morals. Well nice try, but you are going to have to try harder.

First lesson, God created morals.
Second lesson, Jesus (God) started and gave us our Catholic Church
Third lesson, Man runs the Catholic Church.
Fourth lesson, Man learns more about the Catholic Religion.
Fifth lesson, Man stumbles.
Sixth lesson, Man corrects himself, because of God’s morals that He gave us.

84

First lesson, God created morals. No
Second lesson, Jesus (God) started and gave us our Catholic Church wrong
Third lesson, Man runs the Catholic Church. OK
Fourth lesson, Man learns more about the Catholic Religion. Man invents it
Fifth lesson, Man stumbles. ???
Sixth lesson, Man corrects himself, because of God’s morals that He gave us. Nope man created morals that evolved and still do to this day

Not even close. How many religions exist. How many gods are their. Not just any one persons belief but how many have their been in history. Jesus did not start the catholic church. He was a symbol/ Martyr used to try to inspire followers way after his death. He was a Jew.

85

Pat for me this has not meant to be a discussion about questions of what is moral behavior or what morals are. It has been about the conception of where morals come from. The article argues that morals develop in society without a god. The evolving (changing) of what is moral through our history points to the idea that they can and will evolve forever. Therefore any omniscient god would have gotten it right the first time with no need for morals to change. If god did need to make a few adjustments along the way he’d need to get that message to us somehow. In my opinion anybody that says god spoke to them directly needs to be evaluated at least.

86

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
I suppose I would argue with panel three, that under the atheist regimes of both Stalin and Lenin there were sizeable pograms placed on the kulak population of Russia and the Russian Orthodox church, but I think there’s a far greater problem inherent in the cartoon.

To laud the negative virtues of atheist(as in, to praise the fact that they’ve managed to not trample on others’ lives, liberties or properties) would only be just if they’ve ever been in a position to do otherwise. Almost all of the crimes religion has committed came from the ecclesiastical ministry being turned into a political actor. When has this occurred in the history of the Atheist faith?

This is tangent off the original topic. I’m pretty sure you’ve covered this before, I just didn’t want to go looking for it.

87

Morality was invented by the weak as a weapon to use against the strong. If you can convince the 300 lbs power lifting weapons expert that unselfishness is good, then you’ll get your share of the goodies. This is why unselfishness has been equated with morality for thousands of years. Its also why a Randian philosoiphy of rational selfishness will never be adopted by humanity – its counter to why the weak invented morality in the first place.

88

Headhunter pretty interesting. Who knows moral behavior may evolve in that direction down the road.

89

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Now, how would YOU determine that slavery is wrong if everyone around you was agreed otherwise?[/quote]

by realizing black people are people like they are with hope and dreams, the ability to love and feel pain… just like they do.
[/quote]

In other words, by appealing to a universal principle? [/quote]

By appealing to empathy, a common trait among a lot, and yet not all, animals.[/quote]

Bingo. Most of us possess an instinctive sense of empathy, and it needs no supernatural explanation. Empathy has proven benefits. When people look out for each other, everyone has a greater chance of survival and greater quality of life.

90

Bingo. Most of us possess an instinctive sense of empathy, and it needs no supernatural explanation. Empathy has proven benefits. When people look out for each other, everyone has a greater chance of survival and greater quality of life.

Awesome

91

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

good = benefits society / bad = detriment to society

[off to bed, early shift tomorrow][/quote]

That’s call “utilitarianism” and it’s not a good model for morality. By that model, killing off the decreped, retards, really old people, or anything obviously useless to society as a whole would an acceptable act.

We can bitch, moan, whine and complain about each other’s point of view however, getting these words defined is the key to having a productive discussion.

What makes an act, good? Is something that is good always an act. Same for evil.
Let’s take some extreme examples and discuss what makes them what they are:

A good act:
You find a staving sick orphan, you take him, get him medical care, feed and care for him.
Would this be a good act? Why? Would it still be a good act even it society was against it?

A evil act:
Raping a child.
Would this be an evil act? Why? Would it still be evil if perfectly acceptable by society?

Morality is a difficult thing to discuss because we all have sense of it, we just cannot define it.[/quote]

I can agree with everything you have pointed out here, even though I am not a theist. I would describe morality as the set of principles we should live by when interacting with others. I think we’re all shit out of luck when it comes to constructing a perfect system of morality. Nevertheless, I also think we’re shit out of luck when it comes to knowing whether any sort of god exists, or whether that god gives one damn about us one way or another, or knows how we should act any better than anyone. Furthermore, I think there’s no way to set one faith as better than any other without a human standard apart from religion. For instance, I judge Christianity to be morally superior to Islam, by what I consider human standards, even though I don’t find either one more believable than the other.

Moving on, acknowledging that you won’t agree with everything written here, we still have to live with each other, and hopefully we’re not interested in killing each other in order to settle our disagreements. We both possess a sense of self-worth (you may see yours as coming from God, while I see mine as intrinsic). We both want to be free to live our own lives. Neither of us wants to be controlled by another person. (Well, you may want God to control your life, but I’m also sure that you believe that God has your best interests in mind.) We have stuff to work with here, we still have things in common - all of us do. Furthermore, I still believe in the Golden Rule. Looking out for each other has proven benefits to everyone individually. People still matter. I don’t have to trade the altar of God for the altar of “society” to figure out how to do right by others. I just have to be able to imagine myself in that other person’s shoes, and realize I could be this person, or someone I care about could be this person.

92

[quote]pat wrote:
A evil act:
Raping a child.
Would this be an evil act? Why? Would it still be evil if perfectly acceptable by society?[/quote]

I would like to know what society would survive to ask questions like this if it endorsed mentally damaging its constituents from a young age. That child rape is considered evil means it must have ill effects on society as a whole (remembering that damage of that magnitude to the individual is damaging to people close to the individual, which seeps into their acquaintances and so forth), otherwise it wouldn’t be questioned.

Actually, we should pose this question to a Catholic priest, no?

93

God is the ‘hidden big brother’ who will beat you up if you don’t share with those weaker than you. LOL!

There indeed IS a God. However, God has to have one helluva sense of humour: Imagine a God who creates a world based upon survival of the fittest (evolution), in which humans invent a morality (altruism) that goes absolutely counter to what God created.

Only a being of delicious intellectual humour could appreciate such irony.

94

Moving on, acknowledging that you won’t agree with everything written here, we still have to live with each other, and hopefully we’re not interested in killing each other in order to settle our disagreements. We both possess a sense of self-worth (you may see yours as coming from God, while I see mine as intrinsic). We both want to be free to live our own lives. Neither of us wants to be controlled by another person. (Well, you may want God to control your life, but I’m also sure that you believe that God has your best interests in mind.) We have stuff to work with here, we still have things in common - all of us do. Furthermore, I still believe in the Golden Rule. Looking out for each other has proven benefits to everyone individually. People still matter. I don’t have to trade the altar of God for the altar of “society” to figure out how to do right by others. I just have to be able to imagine myself in that other person’s shoes, and realize I could be this person, or someone I care about could be this person.
[/quote]

This is a well thought out thesis. I agree with your thesis. Most people learn what is right and wrong from someone close to them. Doesn’t it feel better when someone is nice to you than someone who is being a dick head? We all like to be treated fairly.

I believe God has given us the ability to think on our own, but he has set some guide lines that do help us interact with each other. We are human so we have a tendancy to act more selfishly and in that we will trample on others when they get in our way. Sometime that means trampling on God. Just my thoughts.

95

[quote]jsal33 wrote:
Pat for me this has not meant to be a discussion about questions of what is moral behavior or what morals are. It has been about the conception of where morals come from. The article argues that morals develop in society without a god. The evolving (changing) of what is moral through our history points to the idea that they can and will evolve forever. Therefore any omniscient god would have gotten it right the first time with no need for morals to change. If god did need to make a few adjustments along the way he’d need to get that message to us somehow. In my opinion anybody that says god spoke to them directly needs to be evaluated at least. [/quote]

Do you not have to know what they are before you can discuss origin? Seems I seen like 50 different descriptions so far. We all have an idea of what they are, but nobody can articulate them. But it is important to discuss what they are, before you can discuss where they came from.

Second, our understanding of morals may change. But the morals themselves do notâ?¦.What would be immoral today, that was not immoral 3000 years ago. Was it ok to murder, cheat, steal, rape or dismember? I am not talking about laws or society, I am talking the morals themselves.

Lastly, where did they come from? I am not advocating a position, I am asking a question. Where do good and evil come from?

96

[quote]madman27409 wrote:

I can agree with everything you have pointed out here, even though I am not a theist. I would describe morality as the set of principles we should live by when interacting with others. I think we’re all shit out of luck when it comes to constructing a perfect system of morality. Nevertheless, I also think we’re shit out of luck when it comes to knowing whether any sort of god exists, or whether that god gives one damn about us one way or another, or knows how we should act any better than anyone. Furthermore, I think there’s no way to set one faith as better than any other without a human standard apart from religion. For instance, I judge Christianity to be morally superior to Islam, by what I consider human standards, even though I don’t find either one more believable than the other.

Moving on, acknowledging that you won’t agree with everything written here, we still have to live with each other, and hopefully we’re not interested in killing each other in order to settle our disagreements. We both possess a sense of self-worth (you may see yours as coming from God, while I see mine as intrinsic). We both want to be free to live our own lives. Neither of us wants to be controlled by another person. (Well, you may want God to control your life, but I’m also sure that you believe that God has your best interests in mind.) We have stuff to work with here, we still have things in common - all of us do. Furthermore, I still believe in the Golden Rule. Looking out for each other has proven benefits to everyone individually. People still matter. I don’t have to trade the altar of God for the altar of “society” to figure out how to do right by others. I just have to be able to imagine myself in that other person’s shoes, and realize I could be this person, or someone I care about could be this person.
[/quote]

Wow! That was a very dense concentration of info covering huge swaths of info. So let’s break things apart and I will pull from both paragraphs for reassembly.
“I would describe morality as the set of principles we should live by when interacting with others.” I would agree whole heartedly, but question 1, is where do these principals come from, speaking strictly secularly? “Furthermore, I still believe in the Golden Rule” Me too, but what does that mean? For instance, I may not mind whips and chains, but that doesn’t mean I can do it to othersâ?¦.

We already have a huge thread discussing the existence of God. However, you are right that it’s damn near impossible to prove that God has any interaction with his creation or even cares in a priori we can infer based on “sufficient reason” but cannot know deductively, at least not yet.

Self worth is intrinsic to all living things. All things strive to survive and thrive as comfortably as possible, like my dumb dog. Where it comes from is another conversation.

God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.

I am not going to comment on the Islam vs. Christianity. That’s another HUGE topic, that can be discussed.

97

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
God is the ‘hidden big brother’ who will beat you up if you don’t share with those weaker than you. LOL!

There indeed IS a God. However, God has to have one helluva sense of humour: Imagine a God who creates a world based upon survival of the fittest (evolution), in which humans invent a morality (altruism) that goes absolutely counter to what God created.

Only a being of delicious intellectual humour could appreciate such irony.

[/quote]

Altruism is something to strive for, you’ll never achieve it…

98

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

good = benefits society / bad = detriment to society

[off to bed, early shift tomorrow][/quote]

That’s call “utilitarianism” and it’s not a good model for morality. By that model, killing off the decreped, retards, really old people, or anything obviously useless to society as a whole would an acceptable act.

We can bitch, moan, whine and complain about each other’s point of view however, getting these words defined is the key to having a productive discussion.

What makes an act, good? Is something that is good always an act. Same for evil.
Let’s take some extreme examples and discuss what makes them what they are:

A good act:
You find a staving sick orphan, you take him, get him medical care, feed and care for him.
Would this be a good act? Why? Would it still be a good act even it society was against it?

A evil act:
Raping a child.
Would this be an evil act? Why? Would it still be evil if perfectly acceptable by society?

Morality is a difficult thing to discuss because we all have sense of it, we just cannot define it.[/quote]

…depends on the reasons for being for or against such acts. I don’t see society benefitting from raping a child, and i don’t think there’s ever been such a society. Perhaps ancient Greece had a different culture, but that didn’t involve rape…

…look, i’m not disagreeing with that that we seem to have an innate sense of morality; i’m saying it has become hereditary, part of our genetic make-up through evolution…

99

[quote]pat wrote:

God wouldn’t control me even if I wanted him to, otherwise I would not have freewill.

[/quote]

…i don’t believe in freewill either…

100

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

good = benefits society / bad = detriment to society

[off to bed, early shift tomorrow][/quote]

That’s call “utilitarianism” and it’s not a good model for morality. By that model, killing off the decreped, retards, really old people, or anything obviously useless to society as a whole would an acceptable act.

We can bitch, moan, whine and complain about each other’s point of view however, getting these words defined is the key to having a productive discussion.

What makes an act, good? Is something that is good always an act. Same for evil.
Let’s take some extreme examples and discuss what makes them what they are:

A good act:
You find a staving sick orphan, you take him, get him medical care, feed and care for him.
Would this be a good act? Why? Would it still be a good act even it society was against it?

A evil act:
Raping a child.
Would this be an evil act? Why? Would it still be evil if perfectly acceptable by society?

Morality is a difficult thing to discuss because we all have sense of it, we just cannot define it.[/quote]

…depends on the reasons for being for or against such acts. I don’t see society benefitting from raping a child, and i don’t think there’s ever been such a society. Perhaps ancient Greece had a different culture, but that didn’t involve rape…

…look, i’m not disagreeing with that that we seem to have an innate sense of morality; i’m saying it has become hereditary, part of our genetic make-up through evolution…[/quote]

No but other things that would presumably benefit a society, would still be considered morally wrong. Orphans and other unwanted people, handicapped people, etc. are a burden to society. Would we not be better off with out them? However, killing them would wrong. Running into a burning building to save a person that may not live would not be benificial to society but it would be a good thing to do…
Would it not be beneficial to eliminate all people with incurable diseases…This is why utilitarianism won’t work. Not everything that is beneficial to society, is a good act.

The innate sense of morality would have to be tied to something else otherwise it would be purely arbitrary.