Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and ...

booksale

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and less able to enjoy the life fully?

Handsome Bob

booksale wrote: »

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and less able to enjoy the life fully?

In a sense it does I'm sure, but only because we live in a society where it's becoming increasingly "uncool" to be religious among younger people, and thus one could potentially be treated as the religious "oddball" or "outcast".

In regards to the actual religious beliefs, I'm sure every Christian that posts here will tell you that the self-fufillment that they feel by obeying the rules is immense.

neuro-praxis

If you could show me a human being who does not have beliefs and does not obey rules, I'd be very interested.

chozometroid

booksale wrote: »

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and less able to enjoy the life fully?

I'm sensing a translation error here.
You must be intending to say "a religious belief" and "obeying the rules of that religion."
As it turns out, not obeying God's commands actually makes life much worse. Sin is easy, instant gratification, but the meaningful things in life and worked for. This is a deep topic.

Turtwig

booksale wrote: »

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and less able to enjoy the life fully?

Humans evolved to believe in God(s) so believing is natural. I'd argue that not believing in God makes you less human, but I think it's path a that humans will eventually head down. Religion formed the initial structures of society but it now seems we are slowly realising the flaws in those primitive structures.

As for enjoying life fully, well, when I was a believer I was happy, although I do think I'm much happier now. Yet the believers that I talk to seem to think that my view of reality is utterly depressing and chilling, which it probably is, but I love it anyway,:D
(Actually that probably goes for most people I talk to openly about that kind of stuff.)

mardybumbum

Malty_T wrote: »

As for enjoying life fully, well, when I was a believer I was happy, although I do think I'm much happier now. Yet the believers that I talk to seem to think that my view of reality is utterly depressing and chilling, which it probably is, but I love it anyway,:D
(Actually that probably goes for most people I talk to openly about that kind of stuff.)

I was never happy as a believer.
All that making sure I dont go to hell business was a pain in the arse.
But when the rapture comes, I will make sure there is a Christian nearby to grap hold of.
I call Dibs on Jakkass. :P

Turtwig

mardybumbum wrote: »

I was never happy as a believer.
All that making sure I dont go to hell business was a pain in the arse.
But when the rapture comes, I will make sure there is a Christian nearby to grap hold of.
I call Dibs on Jakkass. :P

I suppose it depends on the scale of belief you had, I personally never feared hell or for that matter saw it in the light I do now. Suppose I was always under the assumption I was going to heaven anyway.:pac:

I call JC.:D

astroguy

Assuming you mean "having a religious belief" and following the rules associated with that, then I believe it does render you less able to enjoy life fully. If you spend your time on this Earth believing in a higher power and a "better place" after death, then you are less likely to get the most out of and enjoy life. When you know this is not the case, you can really enjoy life and appreciate the wonders of Nature, evolved over billions of years. The idea is to make the most of your time here, as it's all there ever will be.

MrPudding

Malty_T wrote: »

I call JC.:D

That would be a special kind of hell.

MrP

Boardnashea

I'm always surprised (or maybe reassured)by how much all the different sets of "rules" have in common. And that goes for the rules that people who believe there isn't any god(s) live by too. Ethics and morals don't require a deity ("deities" doesn't look right).

astroguy

It's true that ethics and morals do not require a deity. One of the most common criticisms of non-religious people by their religious counterparts is something along the lines of "without a religious book/ set of rules, how can you have a moral code?" . Religion is clearly superfluous here as it is hypocritical to say that you need religion as a moral guidance yet then to pick and choose the rules that are appropriate in the current age anyway. Clearly the argument becomes circular and any rational thinking person can realise that we don't need religion as a moral compass because it doesn't work anyway.

PDN

I don't think having a belief and living with rules diminishes one's humanity in the slightest.

All of us live by rules, and life can become impossible when certain rules are ignored or simply don't exist.

For example, most of us at one time or another have moaned about traffic laws. Stopping at red lights, not being able to park on double yellow lines, observing speed limits etc. can all be irksome. But anyone who has ever tried to drive in Lagos or Nairobi will tell you to be grateful for those rules!

philologos

astroguy wrote: »

It's true that ethics and morals do not require a deity.

Is it?

astroguy wrote: »

One of the most common criticisms of non-religious people by their religious counterparts is something along the lines of "without a religious book/ set of rules, how can you have a moral code?"

That isn't quite the objection I'd have.

astroguy wrote: »

Religion is clearly superfluous here as it is hypocritical to say that you need religion as a moral guidance yet then to pick and choose the rules that are appropriate in the current age anyway.

This is a different argument. I would hold to the position, that morality requires God. As in God puts the moral conscience into us, and gives us a moral standard to lead our lives. We can choose to live lives outside of His authority, or we can choose to respect and live in His boundaries which are there for our welfare and well being.

astroguy wrote: »

Clearly the argument becomes circular and any rational thinking person can realise that we don't need religion as a moral compass because it doesn't work anyway.

How does it? Again, shoving "rational thinking person" in there doesn't make your argument any more viable?

For any effective morality to really hold up, there is a need for objective moral attributes. If these don't exist, one cannot really call ones system moral, as it is not mutually binding.

Believing that these standards are derived from God is superior to the view that these are derived from ourselves. The latter falls apart on any real inspection.

chozometroid

astroguy wrote: »

Assuming you mean "having a religious belief" and following the rules associated with that, then I believe it does render you less able to enjoy life fully. If you spend your time on this Earth believing in a higher power and a "better place" after death, then you are less likely to get the most out of and enjoy life. When you know this is not the case, you can really enjoy life and appreciate the wonders of Nature, evolved over billions of years. The idea is to make the most of your time here, as it's all there ever will be.

When you realize you will die and cease to exist in a short time, you can really enjoy life and appreciate the "wonders of Nature?" Actually, I think when you realize that it's all in vain, the beauty should be removed. It's only beautiful because of the illusion created by your primitive evolved brain. You are just an randomly evolved entity observing other collections of randomly evolved entities. Your purpose is only to help your DNA survive. You will die soon and never know if you existed or not.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

For any effective morality to really hold up, there is a need for objective moral attributes. If these don't exist, one cannot really call ones system moral, as it is not mutually binding.

Agree in principle.

Jakkass wrote: »

Believing that these standards are derived from God is superior to the view that these are derived from ourselves. The latter falls apart on any real inspection.

Disagree vehemently. You do not need any god to provide the objective moral standard.

Soul Winner

booksale wrote: »

Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and less able to enjoy the life fully?

Absolutely not. For the Christian the promise is deliverance from death to life. Jesus said: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly". John 10:10. Having no belief in anything and obeying no rules is what would make us less human IMO. Even if I didn't believe in Christianity I would still want to have structure and purpose in my life. Rules and values are what gives us purpose and structure no matter what the discipline, be it religious or not. Without these we just have anarchy, heck even the animals have structures and purpose within their groups.

astroguy

chozometroid wrote: »

When you realize you will die and cease to exist in a short time, you can really enjoy life and appreciate the "wonders of Nature?" Actually, I think when you realize that it's all in vain, the beauty should be removed. It's only beautiful because of the illusion created by your primitive evolved brain. You are just an randomly evolved entity observing other collections of randomly evolved entities. Your purpose is only to help your DNA survive. You will die soon and never know if you existed or not.

I don't think the beauty should be removed at all. Given that we will all die soon, I think we should marvel at the fact that we are here at all and have evolved the consciousness to ask these questions. What I meant was that religious faith teaches people to accept what they have, with the promise that there will be a better place. My point is that, when you die that will be the end, so enjoy life as much as possible.
I would say that the fact that we are only here because of self-replicating entitites such as DNA is all the more reason to hold this viewpoint.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Disagree vehemently. You do not need any god to provide the objective moral standard.

We're half in agreement then?

If God isn't required for the existence of moral absolutes, where do they come from? For moral absolutes to indeed be absolute they must exist independently of us. I.E There must be some form of third party to determine the standard which we draw from, and we must both have a common source.

What really convinced me of this point of view was my reading of C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity.

PDN

astroguy wrote: »

What I meant was that religious faith teaches people to accept what they have, with the promise that there will be a better place.

Yet committed Christians like Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, William Wilberforce, William Booth etc. demonstrate something very different.

Knowing that you belong to God and are going to a better place can also encourage you to get off your backside and start making this world a better place too. However, the belief that what you see now is all you will ever see can paralyse you with fear, so its better to try to enjoy what you have as much as possible and not risk losing it by working, sacrificing, and agitating for something better.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We're half in agreement then?

If God isn't required for the existence of moral absolutes, where do they come from? For moral absolutes to indeed be absolute they must exist independently of us. I.E There must be some form of third party to determine the standard which we draw from, and we must both have a common source.

What really convinced me of this point of view was my reading of C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity.

Do you know any sane person who quite likes the idea of a maniac breaking into his house and massacring his family and himself?

And do you think we are required to invoke a god to explain why no sane person likes that idea?

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

If God isn't required for the existence of moral absolutes, where do they come from?

It's a survival mechanism.

Jakkass wrote: »

For moral absolutes to indeed be absolute they must exist independently of us. I.E There must be some form of third party to determine the standard which we draw from, and we must both have a common source.

We don't need a common source, we just need a common goal/rule. And that doesn't need to be a committee-based decision on what rules to apply, it just needs to be a cultural practice that has proved beneficial for the survival of a group of animals.

Jakkass wrote: »

What really convinced me of this point of view was my reading of C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity.

Try this quote (I'm sure you've seen it before but I think it demonstrates the difference between us, as far as I have observed from your writing):

Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.

Moderator's Warning
Less of the absurd, and untrue, generalisations please.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Moderator's Warning
Less of the absurd, and untrue, generalisations please.

Oh come on. It was a pithy quote to illustrate the current conversation Either what god says goes, no matter how you personally might feel about it, or you apply your own moral standard and will ignore a command of god if you don't like it.

You said yesterday that you didn't need god to tell you what was a moral action so I'm guessing you fall into the first category. Me too. I have perceived that Jackass favours the second category.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you know any sane person who quite likes the idea of a maniac breaking into his house and massacring his family and himself?

And do you think we are required to invoke a god to explain why no sane person likes that idea?

I think the point he was making was that without God there are no objective moral values. Only subjective ones. What if we discovered a race of aliens on another planet who's moral code was to break into other people's houses and massacre their families (I know its ridiculous but bear with me). Do we decide to bring our moral code to bear on them and teach them that what they are doing is wrong? If so, then to what standard are we adhering to when we say that they are wrong? If there are no objective moral values then who are we to say that our moral code is superior to the alien's moral code? Now don't translate that into I think that it is just as moral to massacre families as it is not to massacre them, that is not my point. My point is that like it or not, objective moral values do exist and everyone knows it, which means that God must exist, because without God there cannot be objective moral values. We know all too well without even needing it to be taught to us that massacring someone else's family is not just socially unacceptable behavior, it is a moral abomination. If God doesn't exist then nobody has a better moral code than anyone else because there is no absolute moral code which to judge it by.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

It's a survival mechanism.

This doesn't answer the question. A survival mechanism doesn't explain where this comes from.

doctoremma wrote: »

We don't need a common source, we just need a common goal/rule. And that doesn't need to be a committee-based decision on what rules to apply, it just needs to be a cultural practice that has proved beneficial for the survival of a group of animals.

It's impossible to have a common goal / rule without a common source. Without a common source, you have no place to suggest that your personal morality is any better than anyone elses.

doctoremma wrote: »

Try this quote (I'm sure you've seen it before but I think it demonstrates the difference between us, as far as I have observed from your writing):

Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.

PDN is right, it's an absurd generalisation. Christians believe that God is the source of morality, God is how we compare right and wrong. It exists independently of us. This is the reason why I can say although Stalin may have had popular support in Russia, what he did was absolutely wrong. Why was it wrong?

We were created by God in His image. As such we should respect each other as a common creation. None are better than the other, none are more or less deserving of this treatment.

Morality for me, is reflecting our true potential and living out our moral purpose which God has given us. If we reject God, and stop living out this moral purpose, this is what I would call immoral.

Edit: If we lived without God in any respect, all that we know would fall apart. God keeps everything in order, and binds everything together including human morality.

doctoremma

Soul Winner wrote: »

What if we discovered a race of aliens on another planet who's moral code was to break into other people's houses and massacre their families (I know its ridiculous but bear with me).

Any group of beings who operated by this principle would not survive.

Soul Winner wrote: »

My point is that like it or not, objective moral values do exist and everyone knows it, which means that God must exist, because without God there cannot be objective moral values.

Why not? Why does there have to be god? How is any ethical principle commanded by god objective? And honestly, do you follow his examples of "moral" behaviour?

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God doesn't exist then nobody has a better moral code than anyone else because there is no absolute moral code which to judge it by.

You don't need god to judge a moral code.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Any group of beings who operated by this principle would not survive.

Actually they would survive, provided that they only behaved this way to outsiders, and not towards their own in-group.

The history of the United States, I believe, demonstrates that they have survived very successfully by appying this principle, for example, to the Native Americans.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Any group of beings who operated by this principle would not survive.

So morality doesn't go beyond what is beneficial for survival?

What I love about Christianity is that it motivates me to go beyond scratching another's back, but it actually calls me to serve other people above and beyond how I would serve myself. Morality for me, and ethical living shouldn't stop at just scratching another's back and keeping us out of the way, it should involve genuine compassion.

I know for certain that I haven't reached this yet, but I will continue to seek this because it is my teleological purpose.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think the point he was making was that without God there are no objective moral values. Only subjective ones. What if we discovered a race of aliens on another planet who's moral code was to break into other people's houses and massacre their families (I know its ridiculous but bear with me).

Of course it's ridiculous but it's not ridiculous because there are aliens involved, it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone would consider massacring someone's family to be moral. I don't want myself and my family to be killed for the exactly the same reason that you don't want yourself and your family killed. We both want to live and we both love our families. We both have the same values in that case because we are both human beings and in many many cases, if something is good for you it's also good for me. It is mutually beneficial if neither of us kills the other person's family.

I can tell you with absolutely 100% certainty that we will never meet a race of aliens that considers massacring people moral in the same way that helping the poor is moral and my reasoning has nothing to do with our inability to get to their planet; I know that we will never meet such a race because if such a race ever comes to exist it will last only weeks before driving itself to extinction.

If god had indeed imparted objective moral values on us they would all the the same down the the very last detail but that is obviously not the case. Certain moral "opinions" are common across the whole species (the sane members anyway) because certain things are fundamental to our functioning as social animals, if we did not all share these values we would have to go and live alone in caves and kick our children out as soon as they were big enough to be a threat to us. Our entire civilisation would collapse. The fact that human beings share many common goals is not evidence of a deity in any way.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

This doesn't answer the question. A survival mechanism doesn't explain where this comes from.

I meant in terms of evolution.

Animals that are "nice" to each other (for whatever reason, selfish genes maybe?) will survive and thrive.
Animals that routinely massacre large numbers of their own species will not survive and thrive.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's impossible to have a common goal / rule without a common source. Without a common source, you have no place to suggest that your personal morality is any better than anyone elses.

The common source does not have to be divine.

Jakkass wrote: »

PDN is right, it's an absurd generalisation. Christians believe that God is the source of morality, God is how we compare right and wrong. It exists independently of us. This is the reason why I can say although Stalin may have had popular support in Russia, what he did was absolutely wrong. Why was it wrong?

If god said it was right, would you still think it was wrong? Was it right that, according to the bible, thousands of people were killed on god's word?

Jakkass wrote: »

We were created by God in His image. As such we should respect each other as a common creation. None are better than the other, none are more or less deserving of this treatment.

I agree with the priniciples of the second part. I don't need the first part to dictate my opinion on this matter.

Jakkass wrote: »

If we reject God, and stop living out this moral purpose, this is what I would call immoral.

When is someone immoral? When they reject god? Or when they stop living a moral life? Or both?

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Actually they would survive, provided that they only behaved this way to outsiders, and not towards their own in-group.

The history of the United States, I believe, demonstrates that they have survived very successfully by appying this principle, for example, to the Native Americans.

Sorry, I was assuming the planet of aliens was occupied by one kind of being and that the original point was that they were killing each other.

astroguy

"Of course it's ridiculous but it's not ridiculous because there are aliens involved, it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone would consider massacring someone's family to be moral."

I know of plenty of people who consider war to be moral and just.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Actually they would survive, provided that they only behaved this way to outsiders, and not towards their own in-group.

The history of the United States, I believe, demonstrates that they have survived very successfully by appying this principle, for example, to the Native Americans.

That's actually a very good point. If morality is objective then it's wrong to harm someone no matter who they are. The argument being put forward here is that objective moral values exist but in the human psyche there is clear distinction made between in-groups and out-groups, even in the bible with the whole "chosen people" thing. the concept of in-group morality does not fit with the idea of a deity imparting objective morals on us but it fits perfectly with an evolved sense that allowed our ancestors to survive in relatively small groups by protecting and looking after each other while still being hostile to outsiders

Sam Vimes

astroguy wrote: »

"Of course it's ridiculous but it's not ridiculous because there are aliens involved, it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone would consider massacring someone's family to be moral."

I know of plenty of people who consider war to be moral and just.

Of course that depends on the reasons for doing the killing, which is why I specified later "moral in the same way that helping the poor is moral". Sometimes war can be justified for a variety of reasons but that's different to a situation where stabbing someone in the head is seen as no better or worse than buying them a beer

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

So morality doesn't go beyond what is beneficial for survival?

Originally, that would be my opinion. The human race is unique in the animal kingdom in that we have culturally transcended a simple back-scratching principle. But this is still not a reason to evoke god in our motives.

Jakkass wrote: »

What I love about Christianity is that it motivates me to go beyond scratching another's back, but it actually calls me to serve other people above and beyond how I would serve myself. Morality for me, and ethical living shouldn't stop at just scratching another's back and keeping us out of the way, it should involve genuine compassion.

Anyone can shown compassion. And let's not argue about what constitutes "genuine" compassion.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Animals that are "nice" to each other (for whatever reason, selfish genes maybe?) will survive and thrive.
Animals that routinely massacre large numbers of their own species will not survive and thrive.

I'm aware that you were referring to evolution, but I don't think that is a "source" if you will. There are two possibilities here:

1 - Morality exists within ourselves
2 - It comes from an external source

I would hold that we have the tools or the capability of moral living, but that the actual standard of right and wrong comes from an external source.

doctoremma wrote: »

The common source does not have to be divine.

That's okay, but what is the source then?

doctoremma wrote: »

If god said it was right, would you still think it was wrong? Was it right that, according to the bible, thousands of people were killed on god's word?

What is right is right because God determined it to be right. What is wrong, is wrong because God determined it to be wrong. Humans have a fantastic ability to call what is good bad and what is bad good. People who don't believe in God have a concept of right and wrong because God has given them a conscience, but people can choose to deviate from it.

As for the thousands of people killed - I think that God gave us life as a gift, and He alone has the right to take it away. We are told that it is because of our sin that we will eventually die (Romans 6:23)

What context were these people killed in? Was it due to their sin? If so, I believe that this was acceptable, indeed, all sin is deserving of death (Romans 1:32), but we live under the grace of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3:21-28)

doctoremma wrote: »

I agree with the priniciples of the second part. I don't need the first part to dictate my opinion on this matter.

It would be my opinion that one cannot truly know what the second part truly entails if one does not know the first.

doctoremma wrote: »

When is someone immoral? When they reject god? Or when they stop living a moral life? Or both?

If one rejects God, anything they do is sin. Whatever does not proceed from faith is immoral. (Romans 14:23)

Morality and immorality are dependant on how well ones actions conform to God's standard.

What is considered sin isn't a list of bad things, it's merely dependant on whether someone conforms to God's standard or not. I fall short of God's standard every day, and I repent in order that I may conform more and more to this standard every day.

Their actions also of course are to be taken into consideration also.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

There are two possibilities here:

1 - Morality exists within ourselves
2 - It comes from an external source

OK, now I'm slightly confused. In your opinion, do we act morally from our own free will (without getting bogged down by free will)? Does god provide guidelines or does he play our hand? We have some kind of inate desire to act morally. We make a conscious decision to do so. There is absolutely no reason why such behaviour cannot be wrapped up with any kind of behavioural trait that aids survival in evolutionary terms.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would hold that we have the tools or the capability of moral living, but that the actual standard of right and wrong comes from an external source.

I think we're just debating what the external source is, aren't we? I'm not saying that, on a day to day basis, we make conscious judgments about whether to perform a moral act or not. I think it's a behavioural trait, one refined by evolution. This is my "external source".

Jakkass wrote: »

That's okay, but what is the source then?

^^

Jakkass wrote: »

What is right is right because God determined it to be right. What is wrong, is wrong because God determined it to be wrong.

I find this viewpoint pretty horrifying. I'm not trying to wind you up or be overly confrontational but I don't see how you can subjugate yourself to this type of divine command. Do you unquestioningly accept every little thing that god (apparently) did?

Jakkass wrote: »

Humans have a fantastic ability to call what is good bad and what is bad good.

Only if you take your previous premise to be true, which I don't.

Jakkass wrote: »

People who don't believe in God have a concept of right and wrong because God has given them a conscience, but people can choose to deviate from it.

I don't get your point. Do people who believe in god not act according to their conscience?

Jakkass wrote: »

What context were these people killed in? Was it due to their sin? If so, I believe that this was acceptable, indeed, all sin is deserving of death (Romans 1:32), but we live under the grace of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3:21-28)

My little brain cannot possibly process such inhumanity. Babies were "sinful" and deserved to die?

Jakkass wrote: »

If one rejects God, anything they do is sin. Whatever does not proceed from faith is immoral. (Romans 14:23)

I have rejected god. So I am immoral? In everything I do?

Jakkass wrote: »

Their actions also of course are to be taken into consideration also.

Of course. So even if I have rejected god and am apparently immoral, you would actually consider me a moral being because I behave like one.

So god doesn't provide me with my moral status?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

OK, now I'm slightly confused. In your opinion, do we act morally from our own free will (without getting bogged down by free will)? Does god provide guidelines or does he play our hand? We have some kind of inate desire to act morally. We make a conscious decision to do so. There is absolutely no reason why such behaviour cannot be wrapped up with any kind of behavioural trait that aids survival in evolutionary terms.

We act morally based on our freedom. Without freedom there would be no such thing as morality. We'd just all be good and perfect. Humans aren't perfect, humans are inherently sinful and in need of a Saviour. We are justified through faith in Jesus, not in our actions, but as a consequence of being forgiven by Jesus, we have to live in accordance to the Gospel.

We make conscious decisions, but ultimately the litmus test of good and evil lies outside of ourselves, but lies with God.

The innate desire that you are talking about is our conscience. The Bible even says that God would write his laws in our hearts, but we can choose to reject them (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8, Romans 1:20-32, Romans 2:12-16).

doctoremma wrote: »

I think we're just debating what the external source is, aren't we? I'm not saying that, on a day to day basis, we make conscious judgments about whether to perform a moral act or not. I think it's a behavioural trait, one refined by evolution. This is my "external source".

For the most part yes. There are other differences in our positions. Evolution is a process, it isn't a source. Evolution gives us the capability to be moral, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that it is the source of right and wrong. If we derived what was right and wrong from evolution, we'd be living in a grim and heartless world.

There's a difference between saying that natural selection and mutation gave us the ability to be moral (something I'm very much open to), and saying that evolution tells us what is right and wrong (something I'm very much opposed to given such understandings have justified eugenics and Social Darwinism).

A process doesn't give us the answer to what is right and what is wrong. I cannot open a science textbook and find advice as to how I should lead my life.

doctoremma wrote: »

I find this viewpoint pretty horrifying. I'm not trying to wind you up or be overly confrontational but I don't see how you can subjugate yourself to this type of divine command. Do you unquestioningly accept every little thing that god (apparently) did?

No, I don't accept anything without question.

If everything is God's creation, the standard for how one should regard something as good and evil is also His creation, including the innate desire you speak of.

doctoremma wrote: »

Only if you take your previous premise to be true, which I don't.

Are you seriously telling me that human beings have never tried to justify evil acts as good, and good acts as evil?

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't get your point. Do people who believe in god not act according to their conscience?

We do, we just choose to develop it in accordance to God's standards. People can reject these.

doctoremma wrote: »

My little brain cannot possibly process such inhumanity. Babies were "sinful" and deserved to die?

We'd need to start to assess the distinct passages you are discussing further to ensure that strawmans don't start appearing.

If we are to discuss this, we would also need to consider God's foreknowledge, and that only God could truly know what their lives would become.

doctoremma wrote: »

I have rejected god. So I am immoral? In everything I do?

If what is moral is pursuing God's standard, and fulfilling ones teleological purpose, then yes, rejecting God puts you in a state outside of God's standard.

doctoremma wrote: »

Of course. So even if I have rejected god and am apparently immoral, you would actually consider me a moral being because I behave like one.

If you have committed sin, and you reject God's forgiveness you will be ultimately judged for the penalty you have committed. All people have committed sin, therefore all people are liable to punishment unless they accept Christ's grace.

doctoremma wrote: »

So god doesn't provide me with my moral status?

He provides the moral standard, but people can choose to reject it.

Turtwig

One question : How did God know what was moral in the first place?

philologos

God is the source of morality. It isn't external to Him, but external to us.

One of my favourite Bible verses:

Jeremiah 29:11 wrote:

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

For the most part yes. There are other differences in our positions. Evolution is a process, it isn't a source. Evolution gives us the capability to be moral, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that it is the source of right and wrong. If we derived what was right and wrong from evolution, we'd be living in a grim and heartless world.

There's a difference between saying that natural selection and mutation gave us the ability to be moral (something I'm very much open to), and saying that evolution tells us what is right and wrong (something I'm very much opposed to given such understandings have justified eugenics and Social Darwinism).

It's truly depressing that you're still erecting this straw man after I have attempted so many times to knock it down. Truly depressing. You are confusing evolution giving us some moral senses that are useful (such as the fact that not killing each other willy nilly leads to greater survival of the species) with us modelling our morality after the process itself which would of course lead to us murdering anyone but the "fittest" individuals. But you already know that because I've explained it more times than I care to remember.

philologos

It's not a strawman in the case of doctoremma.

She claims that evolution is the source of moral behaviour, good and evil, right and wrong. If I have misquoted her, she can correct me. I prefer to let people speak for themselves.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not a strawman in the case of doctoremma.

Yes, yes it is. It was a straw man the first time you were corrected on it and it remains a straw man the 100th time.

Jakkass wrote: »

She claims that evolution is the source of moral behaviour, good and evil, right and wrong. If I have misquoted her, she can correct me. I prefer to let people speak for themselves.

The process of evolution explains the origin of some of our moral senses. That is not the same as saying that our morality is modelled after the process of evolution. The output of a process is not the process itself.

I can tell you right now that she isn't saying what you think she is because if that is what she was saying then she is not only retarded but dangerously deranged and should be locked up for everyone else's safety.

Note that I am not saying she is any of those things, I am saying you have misunderstood her

philologos

I'll be letting her reply to me for herself rather than having you do it for her I mentioned Social Darwinism more to explain the fallacy of regarding evolution as a moral source, and I asked her to answer it for clarification purposes.

If evolution gives us the capability to apply moral standards to our lives, all well and good, if evolution is the moral source then that's just terrible.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

God is the source of morality. It isn't external to Him, but external to us.

Yeah well I'm thinking the opposite.:p

Anyways, it matters not because you're argument is that Objective moral values cannot exist without some source - how do you know this?
All one has do is look through history and see that morals were relative between societies, even the contrast between the OT and NT shows this. This isn't saying all morals are relative, it is however saying that if absolutes exist then morality itself follows some sort of phylogeny tree that evolve slowly over time and often branch into different societies. Meaning two things :

1) Morals may converge on some absolute ultimate state.
2) Morals can change over time i.e What's good for us might be evil in a few generations time, or sadly, what's bad for us might be considered good in a few generations of time. (The latter has to assume some sort of destruction to modern society.)

If God is the source, one would have wonder why he chose such a crazy path to implant morals into humans and other animals. The only valid argument that I can presently see is that morals are independent of God and that he has no control over how they evolve between societies, only that he can help guide people because he has a higher sense of morals than anyone else that lives on Earth.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll be letting her reply to me for herself rather than having you do it for her

doctoremma could you just copy and paste my reply please? Or of course you could write your own reply that says exactly the same thing because I, unlike Jakkass, know what you are saying ans know that you are not criminally insane.

Jakkass, the reason we have an unconscious compulsion not to kill each other, the reason we have this conscience that nags at us to do good, is that our ancestors who had these compulsions survived better than the ones who didn't because they were able to live and work together for their mutual benefit where the others were left alone and were more vulnerable. That is not the same as saying that we should model our morality after the process of evolution and kill off anyone but the fittest individuals.

That is what she's saying, that is what I'm saying, that is what everyone on the planet except for believers who like to think that the only way to be moral is to believe in their god is saying.

philologos

They wouldn't be objective if they were only dependant on human opinions, but rather subjective.

However, any reasonable person can recognise the existence of moral absolutes.

I'm not sure if I can really agree with 2. Moral changes over time would be down to morality being based on human opinion.

I don't see how it is crazy to provide guidelines for living to Creation.

Morals cannot be independent of God, because if they were they wouldn't be dependant on Him, He would have no reason to reveal them to us, and we would be following someone or something else. This doesn't seem logical to me at all, and is far more crazy than what I have suggested.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

If evolution gives us the capability to apply moral standards to our lives, all well and good, if evolution is the moral source then that's just terrible.

Even it is worst possible thing in the world, you can't use that argument above as a reason to invoke God.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Even it is worst possible thing in the world, you can't use that argument above as a reason to invoke God.

Please follow. I am using that to question doctoremmas position.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll be letting her reply to me for herself rather than having you do it for her I mentioned Social Darwinism more to explain the fallacy of regarding evolution as a moral source, and I asked her to answer it for clarification purposes.

As soon as you mention social Darwinism you show unequivocally that you have missed the point. Please please just heed what I am saying here and try to comprehend why mentioning social Darwinism shows that you have missed the point. It's so frustrating to see you repeat that fallacy over and over again no matter how many times I try to explain your misunderstanding. You are confusing the process, which is survival of the fittest, with the output of the process, which is a set of tools that allow organisms to survive such as an instinct to look after his pack or tribe.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

They wouldn't be objective if they were only dependant on human opinions, but rather subjective.

Jakkass,

Look back through the history of this planet, and look at the current models on how morals evolved. There is nothing to suggest that anyone was aware of an absolute. This doesn't say that morals aren't objective. People weren't aware of Newton's Theory of Gravity. Yet it was still there operating around their lives. Now we are aware of his objective Theory of Gravity. Morals came about slowly, real slow, but it doesn't say anything to prove or disprove an objective moral absolute. They may appear subjective within a society but you cannot deny that there has been a slow forward and backward progression that, I argue, may have the potential to converge on an absolute level.

Morals cannot be independent of God, because if they were they wouldn't be dependant on Him, He would have no reason to reveal them to us, and we would be following someone or something else. This doesn't seem logical to me at all, and is far more crazy than what I have suggested.

You've got to start looking at reality here, it isn't always logical or intuitive, but it is what's real. To use an analogy:

I'm appalled at some of the actions committed in the past by human beings. It is pretty clear to me that my level of morals is more evolved and developed than their's were. If I was alive back in the distant past with the same morals as I do now, I would do everything morally possible to convey my levels of morality onto those people. My argument is that God is the person from the absolute future trying to convey His morals to us through education and scripture. He reveals His moral standard to us, because He, like anyone with a higher evolved sense of empathy, cares.