08-04-2008, 04:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Morality, again...
Someone on another forum, a Christian, wrote the following, which I gather is a rather common reaction when confronted with non-god-based morality:
Quote:
Think of it this way, what evolutionary power would morality have if it was easy to disdain? The sense of morality as absolute is itself evolutionarily inculcated because group dynamics must operate within a certain limited sphere in order to be of advantage to the species in question. In other words, the sensation of moral absolutes, the very sense of righteousness itself, is an evolutionary by-product. A good example of this is "the sanctity of life." From the perspective of the selfish gene, the sense that life is sacred is a great trick, an illusion, for the maintenance of the genetic line. When Catholics (or anyone else) say No Condoms, No Abortion, No Capital Punihsment, they are playing the Darwinian game to a T and are in fact being ruled by the very thing they think they're battling against: nature, red in tooth and fang. Why does this go unnoticed by most? Because it's "culture." Culture has been called everything that people do when they're not paying attention. A good example of this is regional accents. When you stay in your own region and consequently come in contact almost exclusively with people in your own region, you think you have no accent and think the same of the people around you. When you go somewhere else, you naturally think the people there have an accent, from which is inferred that you are the one speaking properly. This is identical to your sense that you have access to the one proper morality. What you should say to yourself, even more so the more minor a moral infraction is in terms of real effect (i.e. blasphemy), "My reaction is a result of my moral accent, which comes from too much clubbing with my own kind." This kind of statement is often taken to mean that morality is somehow "subjective" in that it is whatever you or I say it is. This is wrong on every level. Collective morality is a result of evolutionary effects on group dynamics, with group dynamics itself having been selected as evolutionarily advantageous. Morality is independent of us individually and thus capable of being dispassionately observed, which is what "objective" means. 
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
08-05-2008, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kmisho,
There is a language barrier affecting you and the person you are debating, I'm sure. Your definition of "objective" is in most cases quite sufficient. However, in discussing moral objectivism with a theist, the big difference is usually a meta-ethical question of the nature of objective morality itself. Most theists are moral realists who reject the notion of ethical subjectivity. To the theist, moral objectivity usually means that certain actions are right or wrong independent of human opinion. Not just that certain things are wrong today but ok 50 yrs ago or what have you, but they are wrong now, and always were wrong, and ever shall be wrong. They are wrong even if we do not have the knowledge that they are wrong. For example, murder. A moral realist could say, based on the objective morality of God (for example), that murder will always be wrong. It will remain wrong even if society evolves and murder becomes acceptable. Even if mankind never discovered it was wrong, it is still wrong. Of course, then the argument usually goes differently at this point, and the question arises how we know for certain what is right, and what is wrong, etc etc. Anyway, I just wanted to point out a couple different ways of looking at moral obectivism and simply advise that often the atheist and the theist are not always speaking the same language. Blessing
__________________
"For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
|
|
08-05-2008, 05:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Shakespear put it quite well.. Nothing is evil lest thinking makes it so. There is only cause and effect beyond that... is people choosing what either serves them or doesnt serve them, what is beneficial or not beneficial based on their own values which have been formed from either they think is important or what others think is important.. Its from this mankind has formed its own civil laws based on deciding what serves or doesnt serve them and even that has not been decided very well as how wealth is distributed is an example. Most of society's important laws have been formed from organized religions most came about through thinkers, teachers and then by others who interpretated.. etc followers... through this some have been misinterpreted and some haven't Some work very well and some dont in maintaining a degree of harmony Many of these observations and teachings have become the basis of some of the most influential religions.. and have formed cultures At the basis of them all is Belief, as what people believe determines how people behave, what people want or dont want, what they look for and what they dont, what they choose and what they dont.. what they save , what they destory.. and also what they justify The worlds cultures have emerged from beliefs, and many of those beliefs have become Religious Doctrines which then go on to tell others not what humans want and desire but what God wants and desires.. For example... Marriage of same sex Many countries have laws against it.. not a lot support it. Some feel that it damages our moral fiber. Many have decided that it should be prohibitied by civil law on the basis of it being immoral Many would have laws be passed based on immoral behaviour.. yet that would have a tough challenge in todays world. Their would be tons of laws written.. everything from subtle to ludicrous..such as advertisements displaying men and women in underwear to drawing pictures of people and animals ( graven images )... playing music that was not Religious, for some.. females leaving houses without being covered from head to toe.. or being unshaven in a business From this consequences could and do end up going from behind doors punishment to open square floggins when the Moral police find out Some would say tis does or would not happen worldwide But given the chance for fundamentalists to take charge and force society to obey its laws based on Morality.. well thats another thing.. It wouldnt take much if people in highly influenctial places convinced people about rightness and wrongness concernign say same sex marriages.. Most dont support morality based on Legislation, only on issues which are non serving and harmful such as outright murder. yet.. there are those who are influential that are capable and have convinced people on various issues like such.. In 2003 the Vatican launched their own campaign against gay marriages and classed it gravely immoral and urged non catholics to join in with what they classed offensive... There was a 12 page guideline that was drawn up that had Pope John Paul 2nd approval o prevent the increase in laws allowing legal rights to homosexual marriages in europe and America It was said that aall should vote against a law that was harmful and gravely immoral A lot of opposition came to this document one person said.. "This hierarchy which also rules on other issues like fobidding the use of condoms to avoid adids is far from reality" Most objections are not based on civil law.. they are based in moral judgement that people have made.. and that moral judgement comes from peoples understanding of WHAT THEY THINK Gods wants in regards to it all.. this is just one of MANY MANY examples over history, where things have been allowed based on WHAT PEOPLE THINK god wants Or what people THINK God doesnt want. The whole gay marriage is based on the idea that God has a preference in the matter of how people behave sexually.. this same thinking has kept laws preventing sexual practices while not allowing others... including mixed marriages between races If the pope or respected religious folk said that God had nothing against this it would effect the legal system and destroy alot of moral justification on many laws that hav ebeen put in place today and in the past.. Many have made judgement calls on homosexuality and in doing so religious teachings have become part of non religious civil culture even if people dont believe in God or they do. Another example is thoughts on Utero Genetic Manipulation.... it may not be in effect now but at some point there may come a time when a doctor tells a parent before birth that their embryo has a geneitic predisposition to hodginkins disease but if they make a genetic adjustment they could eliminate that and its likely the child would not get that.. this would require an adjustment whil the fetus is in the utero.. Most would say no.. partly fear, partly because they would think they are playing God creating designer babies.. As of course its up to God to decide what illness or disease a human should have.. thats Gods will and not something we should interfer with... Case is convince enough people and a law can be passed against the practise of prebirth manipulation Yet after birth people would be more than willing to allow doctors to do whatever they can to get rid of the disease.. So really it seems its not a case of if God wants the child to suffer or not, its just a question of whats Gods preference with regard to when you intervene People will even pray to God for their kid to be spared.. yet the thought of prebirth solution is considered against Gods will It seems to be Gods timing is messed up.. God would not have you mess with before birth but it's fine after Societies create laws based on these judgements... culuturees emerge from our beliefs about things,not what we know for sure.. but merely beliefs Most come from humanitys ideas about God.. so today we have the Religious community bearing down on tv, movies, video games classing what is right and wrong.. Govenments tell people to go to war and people can be against it yet if God tells people ah.. thats another thing.. The Rev Charles Stanley told his tv views and the internet that " God batles with people who oppose him who fight against him orhis followes.. so even though he hates war.. God is not agains tit and the old Test is proof of this.. God has divine reasons for choosing to use war to accomplish his will and that despire other peoples opinions about war.. according to him..what is most important is Gods viewpoint..and war has Gods stamp of approval. And it goes on and on... As I said before Culuturees emerge from our beliefs about things,not what we know for sure.. but merely beliefs, Some work well some dont.... but it is man who is deciding what is right and wrong.. any suggestion its God is merely a belief which isnt backed up other than by writings written by man.. and people have seen the various results and interpretations that come from deciding what should or shouldnt be done and so until they come direct from God their will always be opposition and the other side of the coin views
__________________
-----===Change is Inevitable===----- Last edited by JM : 08-05-2008 at 05:42 PM.
|
|
08-06-2008, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There definitely is a right and wrong. Anyone that goes out to the theater to see the new Batman movie can acknowledge this. The only blockbuster movies you have are these superheroes. Why? Because they are people fighting for truth, justice and, dare I say it, the American way, that it is good conquering evil, that good doesn't somehow or another become evil. It is tempted to become evil but it doesn't.
You speak of law. Law is not a true indicator of what is intrinsically right or wrong. Hitler's first law when coming to power was forbidding Jews to bathe with Aryans. It was a law. It was perfectly legal. But it was wrong. There is something beyond what people believe and are taught about what is good and what is evil. It transcends cultures. Sure, in governments hands, any moral code has the chance to become enforced by police power. That's what liberty and freedom is supposed to prevent. In this day and age of the new morality of political correctness, new laws are being written to give certain groups extra privileges not available to all. In enlightened Europe, hate speech is punishable by police action in several countries. In the US, special "hate" crimes have been added to the books to make punishment more severe if it is caused by hatred. You seem to want to target fundamentalist theists in your response, and I am not sure if you are singling them out....or if you are using this as an example. Progressives are just as guilty of doing this through political correctness and the forcing of a new morality upon the masses. When gay marriage is legal, will I, an heterosexual male be allowed to marry my best friend, another heterosexual male so that I can help him out by putting him on my insurance while he is battling cancer? Can me and all my friends marry each other for the same or different reasons? Where does this end? Blessings
__________________
"For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
|
|
08-06-2008, 08:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hollywood has always used the Hero and Villain role, this doesnt tell us what is truth by God, it only shows the battle that has gone on for years as people have tried to live in harmony with each other and peoples choices have underminded another persons values. Everyone is the villian and everyone is the hero depending on each persons perspective of themselves. Most stems out of people living in the illusion of being seperate from each other and seperate from God.. out of this choices are made which seek to harm, and protect ones own castle Most of what religious folk class right and wrong is based only in a belief they have about what they THINK God prefers or hates. When it comes down to it.. they cannot validate Gods preference other than to point to their reglious scriptures which varies from one religion to the next, from one offshoot to the next. As for your comment on " When gay marriage is legal, will I, an heterosexual male be allowed to marry my best friend, another heterosexual male so that I can help him out by putting him on my insurance while he is battling cancer? Can me and all my friends marry each other for the same or different reasons? Where does this end? " The above is no different than male and female.. people grind their teeth and get all up in arms because they have been told God hates it, God prefers XYB.. So when does it end? When a person chooses a new belief about whatever they are questioning
__________________
-----===Change is Inevitable===----- Last edited by JM : 08-06-2008 at 09:04 PM.
|
|
08-07-2008, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with what you are saying and I disagree with what you are saying. I agree that there is no real separation from God, and that it is an illusion. A very very powerful illusion, but illusion nevertheless.
I also agree that on one level God is not hung up about morality like we are in our present condition. Originally there was no veil between us and God, and mankind ate freely of the Fruit of the Tree of Life. The operative word being fruit, the same sense as is used in "fruit of your labor". I'm sure this was a spiritual existence, not the physical existence that is our state of being now. Something changed though, and a veil was placed between us and this Tree of Life. The ancient Hebrews hung a veil across the entrance to the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and later the Temples that Solomon and Herod built to represent this illusion. There wasn't a wall or a door or anything substantial between us and God, just a veil. The Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil bears fruit too. This is the Tree Adam chose to eat from. Once Adam ate of it, that is, once he partook of the FRUIT (the effect or consequence of knowing good and evil) Adam saw his own flaws and began building up an illusion of inadequacy and he hid in fear of God. This is the veil that we live under when we live in Adam. This is the veil that was rent when Christ was crucified. We chose this world, and Christ offers us the chance to return home and eat of the fruit of Life. Through Christ within us all, we can can be in Christ, as he is in the Father. That is, the illusion of separation can be rent. If Christ is in God, and we are the body of Christ, how can there be separation? Our choice today is the same as it was in the Garden story. Live under the knowledge of Good and Evil or live under Life. This is why Paul wrote that the Law is Death. That is where we agree, although I am sure we come to this agreement from completely different sources. My reason for this belief is from the Bible itself. Where we disagree is on the issue of morality. Man eats of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, but that does not make man the inventor of it. Mankind may twist morality, disregard morality, encode morality, enforce morality, and have many beliefs about morality. None of this means that man invented or created it in the first place. Let me explain a little. Consider a parallel with something scientific a moment. Gravity. At one time gravity was just the belief that certain things had a natural place. Rocks and people belonged on the ground, so when lifted, they fell to their natural place. Steam on the other hand belonged in the air with the clouds, so it naturally just went to where it was supposed to be. Later scientists wanted to explain this effect better, so they investigated and came to the conclusion that masses tend to attract toward each other. Gravity was like magnetism, and any two masses would pull towards each other because of this effect. Then it was noted that as light, which has no mass, passes near objects in space, it tends to bend slightly towards that object. So current theory is that gravity is the result of the fact that objects with mass cause a curvature in "space-time". This does not, though, mean that there is no objective law of gravity which exists independently of human society. The beliefs in gravity which I described are attempts by human societies to approximate reality. Clearly, some approximations are better than others. Perhaps the current belief in the curvature of space-time is also incorrect and will later be replaced by an even better approximation. However, most people would have no problem agreeing that the curvature of space-time explanation of gravity is a better approximation to reality than the explanations which came before it. The reason that we believe that a rock will fall to the ground when we let it go is because that is what always happened in the past. There is a little more to it than that, of course, but not much. Our current theory of gravity predicts many specific phenomena. The only reason why we do believe in our current theory of gravity is because every time we have observed these phenomona, what we saw corresponded with our predictions. If we are deprived of these observations, we wouldn't have any reason to believe in gravity at all. There is no way, using logic alone, that a person can prove that gravity exists, or that one belief about it is better than any other. Morality is like that. This is getting long and my time is short......hopefully you are getting some idea what I am trying to say. Blessings
__________________
"For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." Last edited by Someday : 08-07-2008 at 04:59 PM.
|
|
08-08-2008, 03:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
yes i understand where your coming from.. your repeating what scripture says. but retelling a story does not make a story true I do not agree with that story and believe that their is no physical or spiritual seperation between God and Mankind, the illusion that exists is one of people not paying attention and one of confining God to being seperate from life and life seperate from Mankind. We assume Christ caused the story of the veil being torn, it makes for nice story telling but it only plays into the original big illusion which is a God of need, and free will which is really not free will. The Fruit that you use in your morality explanation again continues the story above and you use it like a person says.. its raining today as though people would have no reason to dispute it.. There are many reasons to dispute that story and many have.. So as Ive mentioned before nothing is right and wrong intrinsically. Their is only Cause and Effect beyond that is our observation of the effect and our choice to decide what either serves or doesnt serve us ( humanity ) In each generation what is right and wrong has evolved through our experiences of cause and effect. Some work well to keep people in harmony with each other and some dont. But the idea that God has preference one way or the other is and always will be debatable.. Keeping personal beliefs about Absolute Morality as only ever personal. Beyond that we have Civil Law which has come about through our experiences.
__________________
-----===Change is Inevitable===----- Last edited by JM : 08-08-2008 at 03:39 PM.
|
|
08-08-2008, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Are you becoming so anti Biblical that even if my belief coincides with yours, I mustn't use it to agree with you? Blessings
__________________
"For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
|
|
08-08-2008, 05:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But the same applies.. Must i use it to agree with you? Story, Parable.. all the same.. Open to Interpretation and then its safe to say it shouldn't be used as a means of telling people what is truth for everyone only for oneself unless their is something more credible to submit than another parable in the same book of parables. Sidenote: Some dont think its a parable they think its literal.. and some dont think its either.. because no one can determine if it was a parable or literal.. so if it was used in a court of justice it would be thrown out as being insufficient
__________________
-----===Change is Inevitable===----- Last edited by JM : 08-08-2008 at 05:15 PM.
|
|
08-08-2008, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fair enough I guess. What is your proof there is no real separation from God?
Blessings
__________________
"For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
|
| Sponsored Links |
Linear Mode
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8 © 2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2005 Inthepursuitofgod.com All Rights Reserved
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
