Printable View
Christian morality? Morality has been around, and almost exactly the same as it is now, for much longer than Christianity has. If we were following Christian morality we would be going around casting plagues at infidels and killing our children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I believe in God because there are good things and good people in the world.
I believe that if God didn't exist no one would ever act beyond their own natural instinct. They would live for the purpose of producing healthy offspring then die.
But because God exists, and because we are made in his image, we think, we feel, we learn, we create, we love. We have a purpose in life.
I just can't believe that we are all a coincidence, an accident. When you see a beautiful painting, or read an inspiring book, or hear an incredible song. How can the people who created these things - whether they believe in God or not - have simply been an accident?
Can you really look at someone you love dearly and tell them that they're here by accident, that it's all just a coincident that you ever met them?
That's why I believe in God, because any other concept just makes me feel worthless and hopeless.
I was really glad to read this, you wrote very well, and I would like to reply to your points. My understanding is very similar to yours. First I believe the entire material universe is actually manifested in Brahman. This is the first reason why so many sages throughout the world have identified a transcendent level being free from attachment or illusion, and thus being free; also free from pain and any kind of suffering. Plato identified this and called it coming into the light, from as if being chained in dark cave. There is more to his analogy, and if you follow it you see it is similar to Buddhist and Hindu ideas of maya, illusion, and enlightenment. Each of us is playing a role, but the role is an illusion, and we are illusioned to think that everything is acting upon us, giving us suffering, etc. I know it is an unpopular thing to say things are an illusion, but the illusion is this; we are illusioned into thinking we are matter, only material bodies, but actually we are spirit. Actually we come from spirit and God.Quote:
Originally Posted by laidbackperson
And so since we are illusioned, we have desires, and these desires make us come back into this world for birth and death.
So this talk of illusion, maya, and the material universe, but what does it mean, and is any of it true? I know there are those who may read this who will never agree with me, and that is fine. But since this is a public forum, I can only speak to everyone here. Since I am, I will ask a question of all of you. What is consciousness? Who am I? What is there? This last question I mean to explain as, "what is there in terms of the possible states of consciousness?" If we decide that we are consciousness, then we cannot know any existence other than consciousenss. And then comes the question, what exists besides consciousness? If nothing exists besides consciousness, then there is never anything besides consciousness. There is never "No consciousess." For if there is "No consciousness," then there is nothing at all, and it cannot be that there was never not anything. Time is a construct which comes from consciousness which has divided things into qualifications. Since time came after consciousnes; consciousness came before time and will remain after time. Consciousness before time would be the vegetative consciousness, but actually all consciousness came before time and exists after. Thus we see that consciousness is actually not affected by time.
The other part of the question is "what consciousness is there?" We know there is the consciousness of we, the humans, although we can tell that this does not mean anything, since there are infinite varieties or shades of this consciousness. We can delude our consciousness into more physical or vital consciousnesss, or we can come to the mental platform, or we can ascend into the spiritual or divine consciousness. Generally we are ignorant of the spiritual side, and we are only in the mental, which we dull to some degree in order to better enjoy physical consciousness. But actually we are eternal because although there infinite degrees of consciousness, all of them exist and none of them are unique or separate, and they all exist eternally.
We can know there are levels of consciousness above and below our own. On this website communicating with language, we are on a mental level. The other states would differ in what we designate them, but we generally see them coming from nothing and going toward the infinite. No consciousness would be rocks and other inanimate things. Notice that 99% of anything which exists is inanimate and not conscious. Then we know of bacteria and the most basic lifeforms, these are the lowest type of consciousness. Notice that this accounts for 99% of the variety and diversity of life on earth. Then after that there is vegative consciousness, plants, which covers a similar percentage of the complex life forms of consciousness. After plants are animals and then, most refined of all are humans. But is final premise correct? How do we know. In all our knowledge we have finally come to the conclusion that life is subjective. Have you ever seen a star-nosed mole? Have you seen geckos? There are near infinite varieties of life on earth and they understand the world with a similar array of devices, senses, or "windows." No wonder the most common operating system is "Windows."
Consider that dolphins have a greater brain than humans, in relationship to their body size. So why again do we think we are all-superior? It is a blindness. A separation from reality. There is no reason which we need to lord it over the whole world, and destroy other species'. I know I participate in it and I do not keep myself above or separate, but I am trying to explain another point. We are part of a collective consciousness of sorts; we are not supreme but we are only a part of the myriad, beautiful, collection.
Now, I come to one problem in what I am saying, which this. I am mixing and going interchangably between my own views and ideas, and those which I have picked up from others. When I speak of God or spirituality, I am being honest when I say I believe it is what exists, it is what is out there. I cannot emphasize any more when I say that I do believe all of this is true.
I used to be an atheist and I cannot imagine how I would guess if someone approached me this way, and asked me to try to understand what consciousness was, in this way. What I am trying to say is that there is divine consciousness. If there is supreme consciousness, then all comes from that supreme consciousness. We are not supreme, not in consciousness or within life on earth; although we are part of the supreme. We can only be conscious of ourselves individually, and cannot know what God knows. And yet-- we can dovetail our lives to the will of the supreme if we follow that will with love and devotion. There are specific modes for that path, which result in a reawakening of our divine consiciousness.
What is the divine? This has been discussed and worked out for the entire history of our race, perhaps even more. I have for a long time searched about spirituality and different things of this nature. Plato, perhaps, and Emerson, and many others have studied the Vedic scriptures from India, I have also studied these; and yet there are other mystics from all cultures who have understandings of the divine. They do not all speak the same language but if you understand them enough, they are communicating the same message. The first step in understanding the divine, which is the source of everything; including reason ;)... is to understand that we are not matter, but spirit. I would perhaps get into this more but this is already lengthy enough, I realize...and there is time of course for this more.
One last point, and I know I will think more before I post again, is this... just because we do not understand the divine with our normal perceptions and thought consciousness, does not mean it does not exist. This is the primary point I would wish to press. In fact the divine cannot be understand with normal perceptions and consicousness. But just because we are particular consciousness - and that consciousness must be fully understood before anything else - this does not mean consciousnesses such as the divine do not exist. The spectrum of consciousness could be compared to the spectrum of light. We cannot see all light on the spectrum, but only certain kinds. In fact if we could see all of them we could not make any sense of it. The same is true with consciousness. We are socially required to follow a very rare path which is always afraid not to seem to conform. But actually we are connected to the same source of everything. We are not supreme at all but we are merely an infinitesimal part of a much greater, divine, supreme. I agree with laidbackperson in saying that our conceptions of time and space are way off, and they main came to exist after our associations with the body, based on desire for sense gratification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sk8ynat
I've studied many philosphers, poets, writers, etc., and I will never stop learning; and I also believe in God. I wrote a very long post which you may or may not wish to read any part of, but I also believe in God, the divine, who I think is both the supreme lord, and also the source of all the forms in the universe. All comes from the divine and it is only by misconceptions or perception that we think we doubt its existence. People are scared of the idea of God, but actually God is simply the divine Godhead, the source of love, perfection, and truth.
As I said in the other post; the general conception is that "rationality" reigns supreme, and there is nothing such as the soul or God; but in actuality, we are not supreme but rather we are part of the divine supreme; our efforts deny the divine are not denying something which is somehow not existant, but rather it is turning our back on the divine. I know I repeated that word because it is something which actually exists; the source of all love and all the material manifestation. Yes, when we look into what exists, and don't actually see a personal supreme god, we think that god may be unintelligent. But actually God, who is the divine source of everything, is way more powerful than an impersonal spiritual effulgence. But if we discovered that all was part of the spiritual effulgence we should not quit looking for it, actually we should be comforted and spread the message as much as possible that " You are not separate from the world, you will not cease to exist when you die, but rather you are part of that supreme whole and source, and you cannot have any shorter lifespan than the lifespan of the Whole. "
Cheers.
And what established this morality that has existed for so long, good Dr.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
Your absurd final sentence is almost beyond comment. Care to substantiate it a bit? Or would you rather just have it sit as it is - incomprehensible?
I said I wouldn't return to this debate but I am. I am fickle.
Morality is generally inherited from a mixture of emotion and logic. Doesn't have to be from the bible, although it's impossible to ignore the bible as a massive cultural influence.
The bible does contain rules and regulations that God wants us to live, I believe it is one of the most important guide to life, the guide to how we can make most of life, and make it worthwhile. The bible contains also wisdom and virtue, something we should learn to become better people. The bible is a source of inspiration, strength, confidency and also of happiness and relief.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
An Atheist cant be remarked as more creative than a Christian or any other religious follower. The only difference between a religious and an atheist is the choice of having faith or belief in God.
What do you mean by fresh approaches to fresh problems? How often does an atheist come across a fresh problem that the believer doesnt? There arent much choices for an atheist to solve a problem that a Christian cant do. Maybe committing sin to solve a problem may be one however, arent they the least of people that can recognise that leaving the problem the way it was is worthwhile than committing sin in attempting to solve it?
There is no "choice" involved: I can no more choose to believe in god(s) than I can shoose to believe in the tooth fairy. The only thing I suppose I could choose to do is to lie about it and say that I believe in god(s) when I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by skasian
Atheists don't have the notion of sin as a moral category as you seem to do. Atheists adhere to different moral codes or none (I know of at least people who claim to be nihilists). Since they don't recognise sin, they don't worry about committing it.Quote:
[...]Maybe committing sin to solve a problem may be one however, arent they the least of people that can recognise that leaving the problem the way it was is worthwhile than committing sin in attempting to solve it?
Peace and loving kindness,
Z
I am sure there must be atheists who believe in sin. I am not saying the majority. But that it is not really important. But I agree with you. Atheists' moral code can vary from anything between nihilist and er, well, obviously anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by zado k
I like to think that basic human nature established the morality we now hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
W a r n i n g
Posts containing inflammatory comments and ad hominem attacks will be deleted without any further warning.
Human nature is generally self-serving. It's primary goal is "taking care of #1." The default position for human nature is selfishness, not selflessness. Selfishness comes naturally; selflessness must be taught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
taking care of #1 naturally involves taking note of #2,3,4,5,....in that being good to others brings good my way by way of people treating me dandy since i did them dandy. smart selfishness mirrors selflessness.
I can't make sense of an atheist believing in sin at all I'm afraid. I suppose you might make "sin" just mean "doing wrong" and that would work. I don't think an atheist's moral code can include anything - at least not coherently. It can't include "This is wrong because god said so" for example, without being nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Peace and loving kindness
Z
Well, if it's just a matter of having a higher authority to tell you what's right or wrong, most of us live in country's that do that for us through their legal systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by zado_k
The question is, if you're just doing things because a higher authority told you to, does that constitute a moral code? I would have thought a moral code would be something based on your sense of what was actually right and wrong, not just what you'd been told was right and wrong. This sense of right and wrong can be worked out through reason of the sort billyjack was engaging in in the post above yours and through empathy, e.g. I don't like to hurt others because I know what it's like to feel bad.
This world is full of people who do evil things, but it's also full of people who do only good. God gave all of humanity the ability to choose his/her own way. Science, though needed, doesn't supply all the answers. Only God in his infinate wisdom knows everything.
If you believe and trust in him you'll eventualy find the trueth.
May God Bless you all.
Once again, go toQuote:
Originally Posted by Sk8ynat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
and click 2.8 the design argument
all the best.
Reading threads like this I come to the conclusion that atheists are the only optimists left out there. Are humans really so bad that without some outside force intervening and supplying us with "morals" we would be chomping at one another's throats? Can we not be credited with anything?
Isn't that sort of reasoning dangerous, when even ourselves, as well as others, become animal or thinglike?
Yes, it can look like a self-fulfilling prophecy at times - supposedly sinful desires are suppressed until finally they explode in a televangelist 'love' scandal or similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Penseroso
That's the flipside of this idea that we need a God to supply us with morals. Many of the morals supposedly supplied by her, him, whatever, appear arbitrary, illogical and painful rather than to spring from the real needs we see around us.
You mean the same morality that christians inherited from the ancient Greeks. Don't kid yourself that there is anything original about christian morality. There isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Sometimes I hear believers say that without their faith, they wouldn't know what is the right thing to do. In fact, I've even heard a minister saying that the bible tells him what to do, and whenever he is unsure about how to act, he asks god for advice. That seems to me to be tantamount to admitting an ignorance of morality and having to live life from a rule book because of moral incompetence. If you don't know the difference between a right action and a wrong one, then you need to study ethics. The last thing you need is to have a list of do's and don't's like some automaton responding to command. Think about what is right, don't just respond because a book, some arrangment of words tells you what to do.
interesting stuff folks.
i wonder why a benevolent god would give us the ability to think for ourselves and then have us neglect this gift and dwell within the confines of a rulebook he created. seems, um....sort of evil--- like giving a kid the sweetest toy ever, say the hoverboard from back to the future 2, and then commanding him that he can only use it as a place to sit while he reads.
I implied nothing of the sort. I asked where the atheist's idea of morality comes from. I'm still waiting for an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
The Bible gives good advice. Remember: we believe it's divinely inspired - as such, assuming that God inspired it, why wouldn't we seek counsel from a Being far wiser than we? Don't most people seek counsel from those wiser and more experienced?Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
And where does our "knowledge" of morality come from? What do YOU follow in making your moral choices? Weren't you taught it from somewhere?
Not everybody seeks the Bible's counsel because they are automatons: many of us consult it because we try to understand why so many of our own choices ended up causing such problems in our lives.
if i might jump in since its not a secret. here's a few:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
*secular law: cops, judges, prisons, fines
*enlightened self interest (treat well, be treated well)
*Kant's categorical imperative: Whatever you do, consider the consequences if your actions were a universal law.
*humanism: compassion and altruism for self and others
*rejection of moral absolutes (bc there are none)
*rejection of a creator and his word (frees us up from holy wars)
*rejection of the apacolyspe mentality bread by religion (makes our planet's health important to us, since we want it to last as long as it can, thereby makes us green to some extent)
*rejection of jesus' vicarious repentance of sin (personal responsiblity should be placed on oneself, not on another)
*not to mention the morals of some atheist philosophers: Hume, Bacon, Ayn Rand, Russel, Nietzche, Freud, Feuebach, epircurus, buddhist texts, lao tsu, chung tzu, socrates (he believed in spirits, but not a god), thoreau (i know he didnt believe in any idea of god), same could be said of emerson.
i think there's plenty more too, but its late
The atheists get it the like everyone else. It's inherent. Without an idea of justice, and ethocentricity societies could never congeal. Doesn't the uniform devlopment of the golden rule prompt you to believe that humans even prior to recorded history were already pretty much moral. Highly developed mammals also have morality so asking the atheists where they get their morals would be the equivalent of asking higly developed mammals. Its inherent to them. The individuals with a lesser sense of morality and social awareness were castigated and probably did not breed. You really have no need for a divine being to institute it.
Of course what I think you're saying Redzep is that being inclined to something good does that mean you have to by some absolute decree. I will have to agree with you in that case because for atheists or anyone for that matter you do not have to do whats best for your or society. You are only inclined to do so.
However even if God existed that doesn't you have to act morally as well. Technically you or anyone is not physically prohibited to harm others even with existence of God. I've never seen God stop a murder. Unless of course you want to qualify Him letting the murder proceed only to serve as a warning on earth. In that case what about the victim? Doesn't God owe him/her anything?
Basically that is what I meant, yes, that sin is doing wrong. Atheists as you said are not restricted by a belief system, so there could be an atheist which believed in anything, unless that belief would make him a pantheist, deist, theist, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by zado k
You ask why does anyone die? Why do they suffer? Do you know they actually die? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohmyscience
But would you argue with the existence of suffering against ANY other good thing, any other holy or sacred thing such as love, family, happiness, virtue? To use the argument of suffering against the existence of the divine is very similar to use it against the existence of anything such as love, virtue, goodness, etc. The divine does not exist because we NEED the divine to exist, although we do. The divine is the complete whole of the universe... we think of it is as spiritual only because we find some spiritual or mystical nature to that which is infinite to us, to that which is perfect to us in all respects - the complete whole, the natural universe, which to us is entirely supreme. We don't know anything outside it. If we do then it is still not farther than reality from us, so it is included in "reality". This means that we cannot know if there is a super-being or not, but we do know that there is an "infinite reality." The understanding of this reality comes in infinite forms, and they are all equally valid, they are just part of reality. No part needs to be justified, no part needs more power, less suffering, no part needs to be any more or any less, because all is part of all.
Then you seem not to have been paying attention. I gave an answer at the bottom of the previous page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yes. When I was about six or seven, I asked my Dad (an atheist) why we couldn't just imprison or kill the people he was always grumbling about while reading the newspapers. He explained that if you could imprison or kill people just because you disagreed with them, then at some point someone who disagreed with you might have the power to do the same to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I would say this was the beginning of my moral education, and that it was, in some ways, in conflict with the moral absolutism of religion. The democratic code that recognises a diversity of opinion, must, by definition, allow a diversity of moral codes to coexist. The governing principle is something like JS Mill's idea that individuals ought to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else - which, as my dad's explanation shows, is, in a large measure, a matter of practicality. We agree this overall code as a society - and enforce it when it breaks down - as a means of allowing the greatest possible benefit and freedom to the greatest possible number.
To be fair, similar ideas are found in certain versions of religious morality: Augustine's 'Love and do what thou wilt.' and the Wiccan, 'an it harm no one, do what thou will.' There seems no reason for this code of freedom to come into conflict with religion in practice (though it frequently does), but, likewise, there seems to be no requirement for religion to derive the principle since it's based on a practical assessment of what will be fair and cause least trouble.
No, it's to do with having a god as the higher authority. Of course there are/have been atheists who submit to authority - even for moral guidance and whether this is a good or a bad thing is a different question. But an atheist submitting to god as moral authority is being incoherent.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
I can see prefering an moral code that people worked out for themselves but I don't see any reason to deny that any other kind is really moral. It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine an authoritarian dictator of morality who makes perfect moral choices for his subjects and ask is that good?
Where would god get her or his morality from?Quote:
Originally Posted by zado_k
Just to be clear, I never said anything about atheists submitting to god as anything at all.
Well, I agree it might be a little early to consider the question settled. I can't help pointing out however, that it was you who said you couldn't imagine how one could have morality without god. Ergo, you were denying non-religious moralities. I'm glad to see you've changed your opinion. ;)Quote:
I can see prefering an moral code that people worked out for themselves but I don't see any reason to deny that any other kind is really moral.
It's a big question. I would say volition is a key component of morality - not necessarily that all morality must be innate, but that, in committing moral acts, one must, at least, understand the reasons for them. This is not just because, without that understanding, it's hard to really qualify the acts as moral.Quote:
It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine an authoritarian dictator of morality who makes perfect moral choices for his subjects and ask is that good?
Well, b, that may be true. The other option available is that I saw your post and did not find that it sufficiently answered my question. I'll let you decide which one is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Your father was very practical in his outlook. So what philosophy does his answer point to? From where I'm standing, his answer suggests that the only thing that controls our behavior is fear of retaliation. But isn't that fear predicated on the idea that the other has the power to retaliate? What if I'm stronger? Then what need I fear? Why do the right thing if the other whom I wrong doesn't have the power to return evil upon me? Now what stops me?Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
While there will certainly be cultural norms that come into play, once we entertain the idea of "a diversity of moral codes" we now step into ethical quicksand because not all moral codes will agree - and without a transcendant moral code that exists beyond human establishment and manipulation, how do we adjudicate conflicts between moral codes? If they're all equal, then who are we to criticize those inflicting genocide in Darfur, female genital mutilation in Africa, piracy in Somalian seas?Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Doesn't Mills idea require that we have some sort of frame of reference in deciding what "harm" is? Just because someone says they're "harmed" by my behavior, are they really? And, conversely, just because someone tells me their behavior really doesn't hurt anybody, can't that also be denial in action? How do we decided the nature of "harm" and whether or not it's legitimate?Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
But that's part of the problem, b - how do we - selfish and self-interested humans - fairly decide on our own what is "fair" and "causes the least trouble"? History has shown that human law can be bent to serve the will of a tyrant. Without the higher law of nature/God, who can look at the legal slaughter of people under Hitler and Stalin's regime and challenge it? They were LEGAL as judged by society. That is the ultimate end of humanly established law and morality - it can be tweaked to serve power.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
I get to decide? Gee that's nice. Not much of an argument, was it, just saying your question hadn't been answered when it had. OK, I'm going to decide you didn't see it. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Pragmatism? Libertarianism?Quote:
Your father was very practical in his outlook. So what philosophy does his answer point to?
I don't think fear of retaliation is really the main thing that's going on here. My question was based on a childish, solipsistic assumption that we, as a family, represented an unquestionably right-thinking majority and it should be a simple matter for the right-thinking people of the world to put a stop to what we thought was wrong. What I really began to understand at this point was that other people held different opinions and our own moral superiority wasn't guaranteed. The further insights that flow from this make it clear that it's not even a desirable position to be able to oppress and silence the opposition because then you don't learn anything. Anyway, from families to governments, tyranny creates instability.Quote:
From where I'm standing, his answer suggests that the only thing that controls our behavior is fear of retaliation. But isn't that fear predicated on the idea that the other has the power to retaliate? What if I'm stronger? Then what need I fear? Why do the right thing if the other whom I wrong doesn't have the power to return evil upon me? Now what stops me?
This is all still in the realms of the practical, but I don't see that that necessarily implies it's not also a philosophy. If it's not, I don't see why that should lessen its validity.
Of course, situations do arise constantly in which one individual or group oppress and silence all opposition. Many of these situations are driven and supported by philosophies of one sort or another. The practice of religion is, sadly, no bulwark against this and, in a number of these situations, the religion has actually been the driver of the oppression: the Spanish Inquisition, say. And in others, religion has been a constituent of the oppression or religious leaders have been collusive in it. Please note, I'm not saying this to designate religion the only driver of oppression - Stalinism was dogmatically atheistic, to give a notable example - just to suggest that using a too coherent philosophy may not be the best method of creating a stable society.
The philosophy that drives European and American-style democracy may be a little more ethereal, but it does, to use your term, lead to philosophy. Richard Rorty, with his attempts to come to terms, philosophically, with the multiple voices of modern democracies, might be said to be an example.
I'm a bit surprised at this question since I'd already laid out, if not a philosophy, a governing principle. I'll use the Wiccan version: 'An it harm no one, do what you will.'Quote:
While there will certainly be cultural norms that come into play, once we entertain the idea of "a diversity of moral codes" we now step into ethical quicksand because not all moral codes will agree - and without a transcendant moral code that exists beyond human establishment and manipulation, how do we adjudicate conflicts between moral codes? If they're all equal, then who are we to criticize those inflicting genocide in Darfur, female genital mutilation in Africa, piracy in Somalian seas?
These discussions are ongoing in democracies, which, as a founding principle, allow freedom of speech to navigate just such conundrums. However, I must say, your examples seem to me to be pretty unambiguous instances of 'harm'. Shucks, maybe I'm just a victim of cultural conditioning.Quote:
Doesn't Mills idea require that we have some sort of frame of reference in deciding what "harm" is? Just because someone says they're "harmed" by my behavior, are they really? And, conversely, just because someone tells me their behavior really doesn't hurt anybody, can't that also be denial in action? How do we decided the nature of "harm" and whether or not it's legitimate?
Wow I'm being mocked by synchronicity. Darfur's on the news right now and they're talking about the difficulty of establishing someone's guilt as a war criminal.
But the difficulties of these kinds of question are the precise reason we need room to manoeuver without overly strict dogma, freedom to judge each instance on its merits and try to arrive at the fairest outcome. Yes one can certainly have discussions about what words like 'merit' and 'fairness' should properly mean and philosophers since Socrates have, at millennial length, but even the religious ones, such as Socrates, have not found that religion helped decide the argument.
See my remarks above. However, the designation of humans as selfish, at least as a defining characteristic, is highly open to question and both philosophers and scientists have been busy questioning it. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek has referred to the way in which humans are frequently 'spontaneously moral'. Richard Dawkins, though he posited the theory of the selfish gene that does everything it can to survive, states emphatically that this must not be assumed to apply in human personality, suggesting that qualities such as empathy, compassion and the desire for social interaction and cooperation are genetically embedded and a big part of what has allowed us to survive as a race.Quote:
But that's part of the problem, b - how do we - selfish and self-interested humans - fairly decide on our own what is "fair" and "causes the least trouble"? History has shown that human law can be bent to serve the will of a tyrant. Without the higher law of nature/God, who can look at the legal slaughter of people under Hitler and Stalin's regime and challenge it? They were LEGAL as judged by society. That is the ultimate end of humanly established law and morality - it can be tweaked to serve power.
Perhaps that's why philosophical approaches to morality such as Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics so often seem, rather than laying down the law, to be telling us what we already know implicitly. What this points to, obviously, is a sense of morals that goes beyond the practical - but still without the need for a divinely imposed moral law.
When did I say this? Please quote or retract.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Volition seems a precondition of morality. We don't ascribe moral judgment or blame non-volitional entities usually. To be responsible for a thing morally you have to be at least able to will it should be so, no? No idea what this has to do with morality being innate. I suspect that behaviours that might be subject to moral judgment could be innate - aggression, nurturing for example - but I doubt that morality as such could be. Which morality would be innate? Kantian? Sartrean? Rule Utilitarianism? Is a child born Mill's moral calculus?Quote:
It's a big question. I would say volition is a key component of morality - not necessarily that all morality must be innate, but that, in committing moral acts, one must, at least, understand the reasons for them. This is not just because, without that understanding, it's hard to really qualify the acts as moral.
By moral acts you mean acts that are properly the subject of moral judgments? (Rather than say acts of morally judging). I'm reading you this way: to say that one is only subject to moral judgment if one could understand the reasoning by which an act is determined to be moral or immoral and that if you can't understand that reasoning then you are incapable of morality (which is not a criticism or slur: infants are lovely in all ways but are clearly not moral persons for a long while after birth).
I am unsure about the relation between understanding and moral responsibility - it's an age old question: is a man capable of some monstrous action (say, genocide) sick or evil? I want to say that there is evil on the one hand but my sympathies for the human condition make it nearly inconceivable to me that somone who does a truly wicked thing is not in fact in some way damaged and perhaps not fully responsible. Theoretically I'm clear: there is moral responsibility in competent people.
Z
Zado, it wasn't that hard to find. It was the point I was responding to in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by zado_k
Quote:
Originally Posted by zado_k
Other than getting morality from God, the options seem to be, getting it from other people and getting it from yourself. As I said in my long reply to RedZeppelin, there do seem to be reasons for imagining that some morality is genetically inherited. You go on to mention Kant and, from what I can gather, yes, there's a suggestion of innate morality in Kant too. In The Dignity of the Moral Will from The Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morality he argues, what he hopes, I think, will be conclusively, for 'autonomy', by which he means moral freedom, stating (after some painstaking proofs) '...it is evident that all moral conceptions have their seat and origin in reason a priori [by which he means prior to any experience], and are apprehended by the ordinary reason of men...' In other words, he thinks each individual is privy to a shared, innate sense of morality. Further, he doesn't really think a coherent system of morals is possible unless this is the case. It's a rather beautiful argument, but I wasn't even trying to go that far. I was saying, even without innate morality, it seems to be possible to have a morality without God or belief in God.Quote:
Originally Posted by zado_k
I'm afraid I don't know enough about the other philosophers and philosophies you mentioned to say whether they had any belief in innate morality. I suspect not from what I do know about them.
Perhaps it's best if you define your terms. You began by sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by zado_k
Perhaps you should explain what your conception of a moral code was, just so there's no misunderstanding.Quote:
I don't think an atheist's moral code can include anything - at least not coherently.
Well, speaking of innate morality, here's a bit of moral philosophy I favour, from the I-Ching, Richard Willhelm edition, hexagram 61, Inner Truth:Quote:
Originally Posted by zado_k
'Wind stirs water by penetrating it. Thus the superior man, when obliged to judge the mistakes of men, tries to penetrate their minds with understanding, in order to gain a sympathetic appreciation of the circumstances. In ancient China the entire administration of justice was guided by this principle. A deep understanding that knows how to pardon was considered the highest form of justice. This system was not without success for its aim was to make so strong a moral impression that there was no reason to fear abuse of such mildness. For it sprang not from weakness, but from a superior clarity.'
Just pointing out that your conclusion was one of two possiblilities. I didn't read your post - but once I did, I didn't find its answer convincing.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Probably the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Part of our conception of the roots of morality come from our idea of human nature; you can be a Rousseau and think we're inherently good, or a Hobbes and believe that we're inherently bad. I - because of my Christian world view - tend to be more Hobbesian: human nature's default behavior is selfishness. Our views of morality are directly linked to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
At a collective level, yes; on an individual level, self-interest will generally be the primary motivating factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
A fair statement applied to history - however, most examples of Christian misbehavior on a large scale can only be found by going back a few hundred years. Radical Islam now wears that crown proudly. I don't think America's prior history with slavery makes it a terrible country now.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
I appreciate your fairness; both examples suggest that ideology ultimately can be warped to serve flawed and self-interested human beings who also happen to agree with a certain ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
The Wiccan ethical admonishment sounds nice, but I'm uncomfortable with its emphasis on will - on what I desire, what I want. It provides a mitigating condition, but its primary thrust deals with doing what one wants. That is very different from Christian theology which pretty much bypasses what an individual wants to what an individual should do. There's a difference. Acting in a way that "harms" nobody is very different than acting in a way that benefits other people. I'm not dismissing the validity of the Wiccan assertion - I'm pointing out how different it is from Christian ethics which says avoiding evil is not enough - one must actively do good.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
But that's the point, b: YOU see them as harmful - but the governments/groups enacting these atrocities have defenses for them - and without a stable moral frame - a transcendant morality that exists beyond cultural differences - we have no ground from which to condemn them. If we do condemn them, we are automatically implying a standard of morality that they should acknowledge as well - but if it's simply OUR morality, what gives us the authority to condemn/judge at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Don't you love it when that happens?Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
I will - to an extent - agree with you. The Biblical injunction against lying - IMO - is suspended if my telling the truth (here comes the cliched "Jews in the cellars, Nazis at the door" scenario) will end up in the suffering and death of an innocent person. But in that instance, I have violated a "smaller" restriction in favor of the greater good - because the saving of a human life outranks truth-telling (especially truth-telling that cooperates with evil). That said, we cannot make all ethics situational - but we should clearly be using a set of noncompromising principles to guide us.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Scientists can argue away - our day to day decisions and behaviors suggest otherwise (notwithsanding random acts of morality that occur - with far less frequency I would suggest than in decades past).Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
But the Bible does that as well - most people who follow the Biblical commands to give to the poor, to offer compassion to the suffering, to serve the community rather than the self - find that they are more satisfied and fulfilled than when they serve themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Divinely inspired law has one unbeatable advantage over human-made law: it cannot be manipulated by those in power; it cannot be changed by fickle masses. Therefore, its stability is considerably higher than law established by human beings.
That's absolute nonsense. How did culture, society and civilization develop if we are all programmed towards selfishness? This is the kind of tired weary cliched response that believers trot out when they are too lazy to think about human development. Co-operation is as much inherent in us as is selfishness. Although some choose not to see it that way, as it spoils their treasured view of humanity and its assumed needsQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Quote:
Originally Posted by skasian
So what can be known about God?
you were denying non-religious moralitiesQuote:
Originally Posted by blp
Not in anything you quote I'm not.
Peace and loving kindness,
Z
Oh for...Quote:
Originally Posted by zado_k
You can deny it all you want, but I don't see how you can logically claim that
is not a denial of non-religious moralities. Care to elucidate?Quote:
I don't think an atheist's moral code can include anything
The remark quoted above was the sum total of what I set out to answer.
When I had, you appeared to retreat to the following more equivocal/relativist position:
As if to suggest that it was I and I alone who had a narrow sense of what could constituted a moral code, when it was you who had begun the exchange by saying, I'll quote it again, lest there be any confusion or doubt:Quote:
I can see prefering an moral code that people worked out for themselves but I don't see any reason to deny that any other kind is really moral.
Quote:
I don't think an atheist's moral code can include anything
Hmmm..."nonsense," "weary," "cliched," "lazy." Well, don't hold back now, OK?Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
You'll note - or at least I hope you'll note - that I said selfishness is the "default" position of human nature. That doesn't mean we are incapable of rising above it - it means that we will - especially under certain circumstances - drop into that mindset quite easily, quite naturally. Selfishness is not a behavior that most cultures claim to value; as such, most cultures teach their children the idea that selfishness is not conducive to harmonious relationships - but understand that they need to be taught that. Children will not generally grow up to share and put others first without explicit instruction to do so.
Under moments of stress, fear and duress, human beings will generally default to taking care of #1. There is no shortage of examples from history or contemporary society of individuals who callously abandoned those in need in order to preserve their own property, their own lives, their own interests. Call it "nonsense" if you wish - human behavior throughout history flatly contradicts you.
The "lazy" comment merely reflects your opinion of why others do what they do - but unless you're God and know the contents of all hearts, you have no such knowledge as to why believers believe as they do. As such, your opinion is largely groundless.