"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I hear Norway has more atheists than theists. Can you point to some problematic trends over there? Japan has no Judeo / Christian values and it’s people are as irreligious in practice as they come. Can you point to problems over there?

I might be misunderstanding pogi, but I think he's saying that most atheists claim no belief in God or a higher power, but then act as if there actually is something in the universe which has endowed them with certain rights and which has declared certain basic undeniable morals.

I think he's saying this because he believes that the only logical conclusion of atheist is nihilism.  If nothing matters then there is no morality and there is no right and there is no wrong.  If nothing matters, then killing someone is no different than a lion killing a gazelle.  You're life doesn't matter.  The child down the streets life doesn't matter, etc.  What one person's (or a government) says is right or wrong cannot be binding on anyone else because government's don't matter.

So, I think he would answer your question that the reason atheist countries have no problems is because they are not behaving according to their beliefs.  They are behaving like someone would who believes in a higher power than humans.

Edited September 7, 2018 by bluebell

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I might be misunderstanding pogi, but I think he's saying that most atheists claim no belief in God or a higher power, but then act as if there actually is something in the universe which has endowed them with certain rights and which has declared certain basic undeniable morals.

I think he's saying this because he believes that the only logical conclusion of atheist is nihilism.  If nothing matters then there is no morality and there is no right and there is no wrong.  If nothing matters, then killing someone is no different than a lion killing a gazelle.  You're life doesn't matter.  The child down the streets life doesn't matter, etc.  What one person's (or a government) says is right or wrong cannot be binding on anyone else because government's don't matter.

So, I think he would answer your question that the reason atheist countries have no problems is because they are not behaving according to their beliefs.  They are behaving like someone would who believes in a higher power than humans.

Yes, he believes the only logical conclusion is nihilism. I'm just pointing out that in real life, atheists get by just fine. That non judeo-christian nations get by fine. Japan, a bastion of irreligiosity, does fine. The evidence shows that values stay. They stay because they transcend religion. They stay because we want them to. They stay because they are human. 

I also challenge the assumption that the right to life is a Christian value. Christian teachings and practice are full of people killing others in the name of God. Today our society believes that killing in the name of God is wrong. Why is this? Where did we get an inalienable right to life? Certainly not from our Judeo-Christian values. It came because we as a society decided we wanted it. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes, he believes the only logical conclusion is nihilism. I'm just pointing out that in real life, atheists get by just fine. That non judeo-christian nations get by fine. Japan, a bastion of irreligiosity, does fine. The evidence shows that values stay. They stay because they transcend religion. They stay because we want them to. They stay because they are human. 

Here's how it all boils down:  

If we say (or act like) morals exist outside of what a society or person says they are--that they exist outside and independent of what people decide they are--then that means that morals must come from a higher authoritative source than humans.    

If we say that morality is determined by humans, we have to deal with the problem of people who disagree about what is moral and what isn't.  If one person decides that it's moral to murder, and another person says it's immoral to murder, who's right?  Well, if morals are dependent upon humans then they are both right, and they are both wrong, because they are both humans and whatever they decide is moral is moral.  There is no higher power to appeal to.  So, under that system, morality doesn't actually exist.  Every person is a law unto themselves and morality is functionally meaningless.

And lastly, if morality is determined by humans and based on consensus, then all we are really saying is that morality is decided by majority vote (which is how most societies in this day and age handle the issue most of the time, because most governments have separated their morality from religion).  If morality is decided by majority vote then anything can be moral if enough people choose it.  And if anything is moral, then it is also true that nothing is moral.  Thus, morality is essentially still meaningless.  

Quote

I also challenge the assumption that the right to life is a Christian value. Christian teachings and practice are full of people killing others in the name of God. Today our society believes that killing in the name of God is wrong. Why is this? Where did we get an inalienable right to life? Certainly not from our Judeo-Christian values. It came because we as a society decided we wanted it. 

It comes from a belief that certain inalienable rights come from God.  That's what it says in our constitution.  If those rights came from society then it would mean that morality was relative.  It would mean that it would be just as moral for society to decide that slavery is o.k. as it is for them to decide slavery is wrong.  Both positions would be moral if society get's the final say.  And if contradictory and opposite positions are both moral than morality doesn't actually exist.  It's meaningless.

And I don't think that pogi is saying that it's either nihilism or a belief in the Judeo-Christian God.  What he's saying is that morals can only exist and be applicable to everyone if they come from a higher power (whatever higher power that may be).  

[california boy]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

I might be misunderstanding pogi, but I think he's saying that most atheists claim no belief in God or a higher power, but then act as if there actually is something in the universe which has endowed them with certain rights and which has declared certain basic undeniable morals.

I think he's saying this because he believes that the only logical conclusion of atheist is nihilism.  If nothing matters then there is no morality and there is no right and there is no wrong.  If nothing matters, then killing someone is no different than a lion killing a gazelle.  You're life doesn't matter.  The child down the streets life doesn't matter, etc.  What one person's (or a government) says is right or wrong cannot be binding on anyone else because government's don't matter.

So, I think he would answer your question that the reason atheist countries have no problems is because they are not behaving according to their beliefs.  They are behaving like someone would who believes in a higher power than humans.

I hope this is not what he believes, because I find this kind of thinking nonsense.  To suggest that just because you don't believe in God then you can believe killing someone is ok is beyond the pale.  To suggest that if a person does not believe in a God then their life has no meaning is just as ridiculous.  God has nothing to do with any of those things for many people.  It does not take God to value another human life.  That is so completely obvious.  Dogs protect people all the time.  Does that mean they do it because they believe in God?  All animals protect their young as well as other species at times.  Does that mean they have a belief in God?  

This is a case of believing so much in your point of view that you also believe others share that view even when they don't.  

[Glenn101]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not really. Have you read the bible, compared the morality expounded in the bible over time and then looked at modern morality? Do we stone adulterers? Do we kill people who mix the fabric of their clothes? Native American's were conquered and enslaved in the name of Christianity. Genocide is taught in the old testament as legitimate. It seems to me that morality from the Christian God is pretty subjective and has changed quite a bit over the years.

Firstly, please point to where the punishment for wearing clothing woven of mixed fabric was punishable by death. I recall such a ban, but I cannot find where it was punishable by death. But yes, I have read the Bible. Some of the things you describe are the punishments for breaking moral laws. Some of the rules of the Mosaic law were ritual in nature and some based upon moral values such as adultery, murder, etc. The genocide was carried out sometimes by God (flood, fire and brimstone, etc.) or at the command of God because of the wickedness of those being destroyed. That wickedness involved things like child sacrifice, etc. (I am not going to get into  a debate on the advisability of killing on a supposed order from God. I am only raising the point because that is what the Bible has on record.)  Whether we kill people nowadays for adultery or breaking the Sabbath is not relevant to the discussion of whether adultery or breaking the Sabbath is part of an objective morality. Likewise, the fact that people have done some incredibly evil things in the name of religion is not pertinent. Those evil things done in the name of religion but not commanded by God are still evil and against the moral code.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I hope this is not what he believes, because I find this kind of thinking nonsense.  To suggest that just because you don't believe in God then you can believe killing someone is ok is beyond the pale.  To suggest that if a person does not believe in a God then their life has no meaning is just as ridiculous.  God has nothing to do with any of those things for many people.  It does not take God to value another human life.  That is so completely obvious.  Dogs protect people all the time.  Does that mean they do it because they believe in God?  All animals protect their young as well as other species at times.  Does that mean they have a belief in God?  

This is a case of believing so much in your point of view that you also believe others share that view even when they don't.  

I believe that you missed bluebell's point. She did not say that because a person does not believe in God that you can believe that killing is okay. I do believe though that you are confusing belief with an assumption used for the sake of an argument, which is what bluebell was doing. She said that without there being a higher authority, that all moral laws are completely subjective. If one person decides that killing is okay and another that killing is not okay, neither one is right or wrong because there is no higher authority to decide right or wrong. Societies have banded together and decided on some rules which are pretty basic in order to protect their society. Murder is one of the basics. Stealing is another. In the animal kingdom a mother protects her young as part of the survival of the species instinct, although a father may try to kill his own male offspring probably because he sees them as future competition. No, it does not take God to value another human life, but without God, the value of human life is still subjective. There are people today that do not value human life and even societies that do not value human life. North Korea is one such an example. The only value that a human has is their ability to contribute materially to the society. Without a God, without a higher authority, who is to say that perspective is morally wrong? Without a higher authority, it is a might makes right world and universe. Surely people can find meaning in their life without belief in God. But without a God everything about huma life is eventually meaningless, consigned to an unknowing, uncaring oblivion.

Glenn

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If Christian God exists, morality is objective and eternal.

 

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not really. Have you read the bible, compared the morality expounded in the bible over time and then looked at modern morality? Do we stone adulterers? Do we kill people who mix the fabric of their clothes? Native American's were conquered and enslaved in the name of Christianity. Genocide is taught in the old testament as legitimate. It seems to me that morality from the Christian God is pretty subjective and has changed quite a bit over the years.

 

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Firstly, please point to where the punishment for wearing clothing woven of mixed fabric was punishable by death. I recall such a ban, but I cannot find where it was punishable by death.

You are correct. I made a mistake. I will correct the original post. Death penalty was reserved for things like Sabbath breaking, blasphemy, and cursing your parents.

 

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

 

But yes, I have read the Bible. Some of the things you describe are the punishments for breaking moral laws. Some of the rules of the Mosaic law were ritual in nature and some based upon moral values such as adultery, murder, etc. The genocide was carried out sometimes by God (flood, fire and brimstone, etc.) or at the command of God because of the wickedness of those being destroyed. That wickedness involved things like child sacrifice, etc. (I am not going to get into  a debate on the advisability of killing on a supposed order from God. I am only raising the point because that is what the Bible has on record.)  Whether we kill people nowadays for adultery or breaking the Sabbath is not relevant to the discussion of whether adultery or breaking the Sabbath is part of an objective morality. Likewise, the fact that people have done some incredibly evil things in the name of religion is not pertinent. Those evil things done in the name of religion but not commanded by God are still evil and against the moral code.

Glenn

My point is only that morals as expressed in the Bible are not constant over time. You can say that there is an objective morality, but in practice this doesn't matter. Look at Latter-day Saints on this board. I participated in a modesty debate and there was strident disagreement expressed there between members. Latter-day saints don't agree whether banning an entire race of people from Temple and priesthood blessings is moral. After the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Wilfred Woodruff recorded Brigham Young saying "Vengence is mine and I have taken a little." (No I don't think Brigham was involved, but Brigham apparently thought God was fine with the Massacre at the time). John Mason in what would become Connecticut massacred Indians (men women and children) in the name of God and justified it with the bible after running it by Church authorities. People expressing Christian beliefs range from Westboro Baptists to the Community of Christ. 

Look, I'm not saying religion causes bad things. I think most religious people are good, just like most atheists are good. But appealing to some objective morality that we have no access to is just really weird to me. Maybe it exists, but in practice everyone's morality is subjective, and prone to bias. 

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

the only logical conclusion of atheist is nihilism.

The existentialists would vociferously disagree with this statement.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Here's how it all boils down:  

If we say (or act like) morals exist outside of what a society or person says they are--that they exist outside and independent of what people decide they are--then that means that morals must come from a higher authoritative source than humans.    

If we say that morality is determined by humans, we have to deal with the problem of people who disagree about what is moral and what isn't.

I do say that all morality comes from humans. I think this is self evident. God may be up there somewhere, but even if he is, we only have his teachings as revealed through humans. Humans disagree with what those teachings mean. See my response to Glenn. 

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

 If one person decides that it's moral to murder, and another person says it's immoral to murder, who's right?  Well, if morals are dependent upon humans then they are both right, and they are both wrong, because they are both humans and whatever they decide is moral is moral.  There is no higher power to appeal to.  So, under that system, morality doesn't actually exist.  Every person is a law unto themselves and morality is functionally meaningless.

How does that work for us now? As I mentioned to Glenn, the early settlers in Connecticut, slaughtered the local Indians and used the bible as justification. They even ran it by the church. Latter-day saints have the Mountain Meadows Massacre in their own history. Who decides what is moral? What is right or wrong. Is slavery right or wrong? Is interacial marriage okay? Should practicing homosexuals be jailed or killed? Is banning an entire race of people from Temple and Priesthood blessings moral? Christians disagree on these issues. It seems to me that people have been deciding what is moral is moral for a long time. There may be an objective morality somewhere, but we are really bad at finding it. It seems to me that every person is already deciding for themselves what is moral and what is not. Even members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints have widely different views on many moral issues. 

Becoming an atheist changes very little. Atheists still hold strong moral values (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality). Sometimes they agree. Sometimes they disagree. They argue and fight. Just like religious people. Somehow morality hasn't functionally become useless. Morals are dependent on humans. I think killing in modern society (including capital punishment) is always wrong. I think someone who disagrees with me on this issue is wrong. And I don't believe in God. 

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

And lastly, if morality is determined by humans and based on consensus, then all we are really saying is that morality is decided by majority vote (which is how most societies in this day and age handle the issue most of the time, because most governments have separated their morality from religion).  If morality is decided by majority vote then anything can be moral if enough people choose it.  And if anything is moral, then it is also true that nothing is moral.  Thus, morality is essentially still meaningless.  

I guess I don't see it that way. I see an evolution of morality over time that has nothing to do with God. If you give me the choice of living in a society where morality is decided by the masses vs a society where morality comes from religion, I know which one I will choose. Can you think of any modern or ancient theocracy that you would rather live under than the secular United States government?

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

It comes from a belief that certain inalienable rights come from God.  That's what it says in our constitution.  If those rights came from society then it would mean that morality was relative.  It would mean that it would be just as moral for society to decide that slavery is o.k. as it is for them to decide slavery is wrong.  Both positions would be moral if society get's the final say.  And if contradictory and opposite positions are both moral than morality doesn't actually exist.  It's meaningless.

And I don't think that pogi is saying that it's either nihilism or a belief in the Judeo-Christian God.  What he's saying is that morals can only exist and be applicable to everyone if they come from a higher power (whatever higher power that may be).  

It's actually in the declaration of Independence, which was penned by an non-Christian deist. He didn't quote scripture, and he didn't say that God told him where those values came from. He said they were self-evident. I'm sure you are aware that the bible was used to justify slavery. Abraham married his wives slaves. Israel turned their captives into slaves. So is slavery moral to God or not? How did we decide that? For me, I think slavery is not moral. At the same time I understand that people living long ago thought that it was. Does this make it moral? No. I think they were wrong. I assume you think it is wrong too? That God is against it? If this is the case, why isn't there any anti-slavery rhetoric in the bible?

 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The existentialists would vociferously disagree with this statement.

And that is part of the fun of these types of conversations. 😆

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

And if anything is moral, then it is also true that nothing is moral.  Thus, morality is essentially still meaningless.  

Joseph Smith said "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is..."

In other words actions that are immoral are moral. Is morality therefore meaningless? This to me seems like the ultimate in moral relativism. 

[Glenn101]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

 

You are correct. I made a mistake. I will correct the original post. Death penalty was reserved for things like Sabbath breaking, blasphemy, and cursing your parents.

 

My point is only that morals as expressed in the Bible are not constant over time. You can say that there is an objective morality, but in practice this doesn't matter. Look at Latter-day Saints on this board. I participated in a modesty debate and there was strident disagreement expressed there between members. Latter-day saints don't agree whether banning an entire race of people from Temple and priesthood blessings is moral. After the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Wilfred Woodruff recorded Brigham Young saying "Vengence is mine and I have taken a little." (No I don't think Brigham was involved, but Brigham apparently thought God was fine with the Massacre at the time). John Mason in what would become Connecticut massacred Indians (men women and children) in the name of God and justified it with the bible after running it by Church authorities. People expressing Christian beliefs range from Westboro Baptists to the Community of Christ. 

Look, I'm not saying religion causes bad things. I think most religious people are good, just like most atheists are good. But appealing to some objective morality that we have no access to is just really weird to me. Maybe it exists, but in practice everyone's morality is subjective, and prone to bias. 

 

 

What you are observing is not the morals themselves but people breaking the moral codes and trying to justify them. People like John Mason or the people from the Westboro Baptists church expressing their interpretations of the Bible but still violating the moral codes that it espouses. There is a difference.

Religion does not cause bad things. It is how people interpret things in their religion that are the problem. Infidelity now has become accepted as a defacto part of existence, yet the religious edict against it has not changed.  There a lot of other things that people's attitudes have changed about, but the moral code remains the same. Saying that someone is good or bad has no meaning without a moral code by which to define what is good or bad. In North Korea Kim Jong-un gets to decide what is right or wrong, good or bad. Without an objective moral code with what authority can one declare that what he does is evil?

Glenn

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

What you are observing is not the morals themselves but people breaking the moral codes and trying to justify them. People like John Mason or the people from the Westboro Baptists church expressing their interpretations of the Bible but still violating the moral codes that it espouses. There is a difference.

Religion does not cause bad things. It is how people interpret things in their religion that are the problem. Infidelity now has become accepted as a defacto part of existence, yet the religious edict against it has not changed.  There a lot of other things that people's attitudes have changed about, but the moral code remains the same. Saying that someone is good or bad has no meaning without a moral code by which to define what is good or bad. In North Korea Kim Jong-un gets to decide what is right or wrong, good or bad. Without an objective moral code with what authority can one declare that what he does is evil?

Glenn

If people are so bad at interpreting the clear objective morality handed down from God, can you perhaps point me to where I can find it?

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Joseph Smith said "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is..."

In other words actions that are immoral are moral. Is morality therefore meaningless? This to me seems like the ultimate in moral relativism. 

It is not moral relativism. It places all moral authority in the hands of a higher power, God, who is the person that has the knowledge and wisdom to understand when removing someone from a mortal state is proper. (This could lead into a discussion of the death penalty but let's not go down that path right now.) Now reread your quote. The last part says "This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is.."

Glenn

[Glenn101]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If people are so bad at interpreting the clear objective morality handed down from God, can you perhaps point me to where I can find it?

Look for and at people that do follow the clear objective morality handed down from God. But that is not really relevant to the discussion, i.e. how people interpret their religious moral teachings. The point that has been made and yet to be addressed is that if there is no God, there is no objective reality. It is entirely subjective and devised by individuals or groups of individuals and there is no authority that can edict that the morals of one society is wrong and that of another is right. One society can impose its moral scheme on another by conquest. Might makes right. It is done all of the time. And without God, there just is nothing to say with authority that it is wrong. Looking at Kim Jog-un's acts from afar, one may not like what he is doing, but without God, there is no other consequence for him because he is neither right or wrong, but just in power and able to do whatever he wants.

Go back to another point that bluebell made. If there is not God, would one man killing another be any different morally from a lion killing a gazelle?

Glenn

Edited September 8, 2018 by Glenn101

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Look for and at people that do follow the clear objective morality handed down from God. But that is not really relevant to the discussion, i.e. how people interpret their religious moral teachings. The point that has been made and yet to be addressed is that if there is no God, there is no objective reality. It is entirely subjective and devised by individuals or groups of individuals and there is no authority that can edict that the morals of one society is wrong and that of another is right. One society can impose its moral scheme on another by conquest. Might makes right. It is done all of the time. And without God, there just is nothing to say with authority that it is wrong. Looking at Kim Jog-un's acts from afar, one may not like what he is doing, but without God, there is no other consequence for him because he is neither right or wrong, but just in power and able to do whatever he wants.

Glenn

So you can’t point to the objective morality handed down from God? In other words it’s just people making up their own morality based on their lives experienced and interactions with others. Sounds just like atheists. Sure maybe they try to base it on what they think God wants, but in a room filled with any two believers, you are not going to find alignment on every issue. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Joseph Smith said "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is..."

In other words actions that are immoral are moral. Is morality therefore meaningless? This to me seems like the ultimate in moral relativism. 

I could be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are talking about the never-ending philosophical debate on morality and the actions of God that is often called the Euthyphro Dilemma (which you've probably studied but for those who haven't it's an argument put forth by Plato, which basically is “Are good things good because the gods approve of them, or do the gods approve of them because they are good?”). 

From my perspective, actions can appear to be falsely moral or immoral based on faulty knowledge, information or understanding.  So, it's not that morality is relative, but that God has the knowledge and understanding capable of always knowing exactly what is moral and what isn't in any circumstance, while we don't.   

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I do say that all morality comes from humans. I think this is self evident. God may be up there somewhere, but even if he is, we only have his teachings as revealed through humans. Humans disagree with what those teachings mean. 

Not from the Latter-day Saint perspective.  The church's teaching is that our morals come from the light of Christ, which everyone born receives and has access to until/unless their choices put it out.

Quote

How does that work for us now? As I mentioned to Glenn, the early settlers in Connecticut, slaughtered the local Indians and used the bible as justification. They even ran it by the church. Latter-day saints have the Mountain Meadows Massacre in their own history. Who decides what is moral? What is right or wrong. Is slavery right or wrong? Is interacial marriage okay? Should practicing homosexuals be jailed or killed? Is banning an entire race of people from Temple and Priesthood blessings moral? Christians disagree on these issues. It seems to me that people have been deciding what is moral is moral for a long time. There may be an objective morality somewhere, but we are really bad at finding it. It seems to me that every person is already deciding for themselves what is moral and what is not. Even members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints have widely different views on many moral issues. 

I still think you are thinking to specifically by trying to frame this debate completely in a Judeo-Christian belief system.  From my perspective, the argument is actually much broader than that.  It's not that any one group of people or religion can claim authority for morality.  Like you said, that still leaves morality dependent upon human beings, and humans are often wrong (as you pointed out above).

Quote

Becoming an atheist changes very little. Atheists still hold strong moral values (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality). Sometimes they agree. Sometimes they disagree. They argue and fight. Just like religious people. Somehow morality hasn't functionally become useless. Morals are dependent on humans. I think killing in modern society (including capital punishment) is always wrong. I think someone who disagrees with me on this issue is wrong. And I don't believe in God. 

That's fine.  But you have no way to argue that you are right if you are the ultimate authority on the subject.  All you can do is appeal to yourself or appeal to the majority, which is easily disagreed with.  You can think that others are wrong but what you think doesn't impact them in any way.  

Quote

I guess I don't see it that way. I see an evolution of morality over time that has nothing to do with God. If you give me the choice of living in a society where morality is decided by the masses vs a society where morality comes from religion, I know which one I will choose. Can you think of any modern or ancient theocracy that you would rather live under than the secular United States government?

Nope, I can't, because all theocracies have been imperfect since they are essentially human-driven.  And like you said, humans are very flawed.  

Quote

It's actually in the declaration of Independence, which was penned by an non-Christian deist. He didn't quote scripture, and he didn't say that God told him where those values came from. He said they were self-evident. I'm sure you are aware that the bible was used to justify slavery. Abraham married his wives slaves. Israel turned their captives into slaves. So is slavery moral to God or not? How did we decide that? For me, I think slavery is not moral. At the same time I understand that people living long ago thought that it was. Does this make it moral? No. I think they were wrong. I assume you think it is wrong too? That God is against it? If this is the case, why isn't there any anti-slavery rhetoric in the bible?

Thank you, I knew it was one of those and I took a shot without checking, figuring I had a 50% chance of being right, but even if I was wrong you'd know what I was referring to.

Yes, the writers of the DoI believed that certain rights came from a source higher than humans.  He argued that there was a form of moral authority that transcended human choices and decisions and He believed that it was self evident that such was so.  I agree with him.  I think it's self-evident that morals come from a source higher than humans as well.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Go back to another point that bluebell made. If there is not God, would one man killing another be any different morally from a lion killing a gazelle?

Yes. We are not lions and gazelles. We have the ability to reason abstractly, to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. The golden rule does not mention God -- it is based on the ability to see things from another's perspective.

Also, lions eat gazelles to survive. Humans don't kill other humans to eat them.

Finally, being moral out of fear of punishment from God or out of hope of reward from Him is pretty low level moral reasoning. I'm pretty sure He wants more out of moral reasoning than fear or desire, which are both at their heart selfish.

[MiserereNobis]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I could be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are talking about the never-ending philosophical debate on morality and the actions of God that is often called the Euthyphro Dilemma (which you've probably studied but for those who haven't it's an argument put forth by Plato, which basically is “Are good things good because the gods approve of them, or do the gods approve of them because they are good?”). 

From my perspective, actions can appear to be falsely moral or immoral based on faulty knowledge, information or understanding.  So, it's not that morality is relative, but that God has the knowledge and understanding capable of always knowing exactly what is moral and what isn't in any circumstance, while we don't.   

 

I was just about to bring this up

From the LDS perspective, wouldn't the answer have to be the second, that God approves of them because they are good? Since God was once a man, then doesn't it follow that morality exists before God was God, so God doesn't create morality?

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was just about to bring this up

From the LDS perspective, wouldn't the answer have to be the second, that God approves of them because they are good? Since God was once a man, then doesn't it follow that morality exists before God was God, so God doesn't create morality?

I guess I'll add to this. If God doesn't create morality, then God isn't necessary for morality.

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes. We are not lions and gazelles. We have the ability to reason abstractly, to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. The golden rule does not mention God -- it is based on the ability to see things from another's perspective.

Also, lions eat gazelles to survive. Humans don't kill other humans to eat them.

Finally, being moral out of fear of punishment from God or out of hope of reward from Him is pretty low level moral reasoning. I'm pretty sure He wants more out of moral reasoning than fear or desire, which are both at their heart selfish.

How does having the ability to think abstractly have anything to do with objective morality? What gives you the authority to say that something is wrong? What gives anyone the authority to say something is wrong? Kim Jon-un is a pretty smart cookie from most accounts. Look what his ability to think abstractly has done for him and for North Korea. If there is no God, who is to say he is wrong?

Glenn

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was just about to bring this up

From the LDS perspective, wouldn't the answer have to be the second, that God approves of them because they are good? Since God was once a man, then doesn't it follow that morality exists before God was God, so God doesn't create morality?

Yes, I think that's probably what the answer would be from a Latter-day Saint perspective.  As for the since God was once a man aspect, we don't really know what that means exactly.  After all Christ was also 'once a man' but not a man like you are.  

But I do think that the idea is that morality existed before God-whatever that means.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you can’t point to the objective morality handed down from God? In other words it’s just people making up their own morality based on their lives experienced and interactions with others. Sounds just like atheists. Sure maybe they try to base it on what they think God wants, but in a room filled with any two believers, you are not going to find alignment on every issue. 

Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Two there, pretty clear.

But you are still missing the point. If there is no God, no higher authority, who is to say that a person like Kim Jog-un is evil and wrong?

Glenn

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess I'll add to this. If God doesn't create morality, then God isn't necessary for morality.

But, just because God didn't create morality (to go with your argument) the conclusion is still that morality didn't come from man.  So, even if we take God out of the equation, we are still left with morality coming from a higher source of authority than human beings, it's just also higher than God too (or maybe it would be more accurate to say, exists outside of Him?).  But it's a source that God perfectly follows.

I was one course away from getting my minor in philosophy and these kinds of discussions are always really interesting.  So much to consider and no definitive answers in sight.   

Edited September 8, 2018 by bluebell