"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

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

I think you misunderstand what I mean by abstraction. In this case, I mean the ability to abstract yourself from your position and put yourself in another's. This is high level reasoning that is accompanied by compassion. I personally believe that God wired us this way, so to speak, but one could argue from a non- or atheist point-of-view that evolution set us up this way.

Once you put yourself in someone else's life then you tend to treat them better. Kim Jung Un may be smart, but I highly doubt he puts himself in another person's shoes very often. He doesn't use the ability to reason abstractly about his actions.

The argument that without a belief in God there would be no morality is daily refuted by all the atheists I know who are moral, decent people, unless you think such people are secretly theists. It is also refuted by a major religion like Buddhism, which is non-theistic -- it's morality doesn't reference a God at all, but focuses on cause/effect and compassion. The Buddha didn't create morality (or enlightenment or anything else), he discovered it and taught it like you would discover and teach the laws of nature, no God necessary.

I am a strong believing Catholic, but I've never bought the idea that without God we would be raving moral nihilists slaughtering and raping because there would be no morality. We reason, we have compassion, we do good.

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

If there is no God, no higher authority, who is to say that a person like Kim Jog-un is evil and wrong?

I am, because like every human being I have reason and compassion and he is breaking both of them. And you are, because you have reason and compassion, too. And so does he, which means he is going against his own nature. Aristotle has much to say about this. Dante relied heavily on Aristotle when setting him is system of hell, and placed sins against reason in the lowest levels because reason is what separates us from animals. Sins of the flesh, like gluttony and lust, are not as bad because those are urges/desires we share with the animals. When we go against our own nature we are acting the worst. Now, that nature was created by God, but an atheist can also follow this logic because of the idea of evolution.

I heartily recommend reading some moral philosophy to see that there are many ways to have an ethical system without having to appeal to God.

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.   

I double majored in English and philosophy (minor in history) so I love debating these points. mfbukowski quit philosophy because he believes that Wittgenstein et al solved and finished it... how boring is that conclusion! (just poking fun at you, Mark, if you're reading)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

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

Nephi murdered Laban and stole the brass plates. Joseph married other men’s wives. These things are apparently not as clear cut as you would like. And these are the easy ones. How about a hard one: Is it moral to ban a race of people from receiving priesthood and temple blessings? 

To your second paragraph: I am. I cite my own ability to reason, think, and empathize. I cite the moral principal of maximizing the emotional well being of conscious and self aware beings. 

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I double majored in English and philosophy (minor in history) so I love debating these points. mfbukowski quit philosophy because he believes that Wittgenstein et al solved and finished it... how boring is that conclusion! (just poking fun at you, Mark, if you're reading)

I almost majored in English but at the last minute I decided on a double History major, which is also full of debate, so I guess I just love arguing with people.   

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I am, because like every human being I have reason and compassion and he is breaking both of them.

But your beliefs don't matter, not anymore than his beliefs do anyway.  His moral authority is equal to your's.  So, if he says he's being moral, he is.  There is no moral authority higher than him.

[Glenn101]

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.

This gets into a sort of chicken and egg type of discussion. I am not really good at philosophy and only have a finite understanding of infinity and eternity. However, since God, in all Christian religions is eternal, He exists because of objective reality or objective reality exists because of God. The point I am arguing is taking the proposition that there is no God, never was, never will be and that the universe came about from a random alignment of atoms, and that life began from some type of confluence of favorable conditions and elements.

In that scenario, there would be no morals in that universe. The only rules would be the laws of physics. When intelligent life capable of thinking abstractly arose, it would be governed selfish interests. The rules that would arise would be designed to protect groups of individuals and to help them to survive. Other groups would do likewise. Conquests would come to pass with the stronger prevailing and then the moral rules of the strong prevailing also. And that would always be the case.

Of course we do have those types of situations today, and have throughout the history of this world. Most of the world strayed away from the moral laws that God decreed in the beginning and it did become a might makes right world for the most part. And really still is. There are societies that place a very low value on human life where the people in power kill and have killings effected upon whatever whims that drive them. Societies that deny the existence of God. What makes Kim Jog-un wrong? Or Putin?

Of course all people that deny the existence of God are not evil. many subscribe to many of the same types of values that devout Christians do. But that is not the point.

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But your beliefs don't matter, not anymore than his beliefs do anyway.  His moral authority is equal to your's.  So, if he says he's being moral, he is.  There is no moral authority higher than him.

No, it's not equal. He is going against reason. Reason is the moral authority.

It's interesting that morality is one field where many people think reason doesn't apply. We don't go to scientists and say: your reasoning is the same as any others. We don't go to philosophers and say: your reasoning is the same as any others. But for some reason in ethics we think there has to be an authority and reason cannot be used.

Why is that, do you think? Why can't reasoning be used for ethics when we accept it as an authority in other fields?

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

However, since God, in all Christian religions is eternal,

But as I understand it, He is not eternal in your religion, correct? He was once like us.

5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

What makes Kim Jog-un wrong? Or Putin?

I feel like you are not addressing my answer to this. Human nature contains reason and we reason through to conclusions as to what is right and wrong. There is a whole field in philosophy called ethics that does this without appealing to God. As I said to bluebell, reason can be used in ethics just like it can in other disciplines. There are many a professor who are paid decent salaries to do just that  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But your beliefs don't matter, not anymore than his beliefs do anyway.  His moral authority is equal to your's.  So, if he says he's being moral, he is.  There is no moral authority higher than him.

Says who? My beliefs matter to me. I think they are right. When you disagreed with your fellow religionists on the modesty thread, did you give up? Did you cite God? If you were debating with someone from Saudi Arabia about whether women should be able to drive, would you cite God? Why or why not? Religionists disagree on morality all the time. What gives you the right to say your beliefs are correct? Why do your beliefs matter more than theirs?

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Says who? My beliefs matter to me. I think they are right.

What I meant was that it doesn't matter to the person that disagrees with you.   I'm coming at this argument from a philosophical standpoint, which isn't to say that we can't make a difference when we disagree with someone.  It's about the big picture.  The grand scheme of things and where arguments logically lead (which people disagree about).

If you have two people who disagree about the morality of something, how (in the big picture) do you determine who is actually correct? If they are each the highest authority on the subject, then (again, in the big picture) they are both correct.  And they are both incorrect.  Because if whatever you decide is moral is moral, then that is also true for the person who disagrees with you.  Whatever they decide is moral, is moral as well.  While you believe that there is no higher authority than yourself, they also also believe the same thing about themselves.  So, in that context, your beliefs do no matter.  

People can work to convince the others to agree with them (and maybe they'll succeed) but that doesn't change the fact that everyone is still each a law unto themselves, claiming their own moral authority to determine what is right and what is wrong.

Quote

When you disagreed with your fellow religionists on the modesty thread, did you give up? Did you cite God? If you were debating with someone from Saudi Arabia about whether women should be able to drive, would you cite God? Why or why not? Religionists disagree on morality all the time. What gives you the right to say your beliefs are correct? Why do your beliefs matter more than theirs?

No, I didn't give up because I believed that my position more closely aligned with God than there's was (and I'm sure they believed the same).  We don't both have to agree to both believe that there is a higher moral authority than ourselves.  

If I were debating with someone from Saudi Arabia I might cite God, it would depend on who I was speaking with and the situation.  But whether I cited God or not, my arguments would still be based on an appeal to His authority and not mine.  I could be wrong, religious people are wrong all the time, but in the big picture--the grand scheme of things--the difference (between my position and your's) is that in my argument there actually is an authority in existence that determines what is moral and what isn't, and that authority is never wrong, even if I sometimes am.  

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

No, it's not equal. He is going against reason. Reason is the moral authority.

That's an assumption that's not a given though.  Just because you believe he is going against reason, doesn't mean he is actually going against reason.  Reason is just as subjective an authority as humans are.  What is or isn't reasonable is based on people's opinions.  

Quote

It's interesting that morality is one field where many people think reason doesn't apply.

I don't think it's that people think reason doesn't apply, I think it's that people believe that reason is subjective and therefore, ultimately unreliable.

Quote

We don't go to scientists and say: your reasoning is the same as any others. We don't go to philosophers and say: your reasoning is the same as any others. But for some reason in ethics we think there has to be an authority and reason cannot be used.

If two reasonable people disagree about the morality of something, can an appeal to reason solve that disagreement?

 

[Glenn101]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Says who? My beliefs matter to me. I think they are right. When you disagreed with your fellow religionists on the modesty thread, did you give up? Did you cite God? If you were debating with someone from Saudi Arabia about whether women should be able to drive, would you cite God? Why or why not? Religionists disagree on morality all the time. What gives you the right to say your beliefs are correct? Why do your beliefs matter more than theirs?

You have just hit the nail on the head. That is a point I tried to make to you. If all morality is subjective who gets to tell who what is right or wrong? Those in power do it because they have the power, might makes right.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

But as I understand it, He is not eternal in your religion, correct? He was once like us.

I feel like you are not addressing my answer to this. Human nature contains reason and we reason through to conclusions as to what is right and wrong. There is a whole field in philosophy called ethics that does this without appealing to God. As I said to bluebell, reason can be used in ethics just like it can in other disciplines. There are many a professor who are paid decent salaries to do just that  

But not everyone comes to the same conclusions. Take the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome where philosophers abounded, especially Greece. They had laws against infidelity and rape, etc. but pederasty was morally and socially acceptable.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

But as I understand it, He is not eternal in your religion, correct? He was once like us.

I missed that one. This is one of the philosophical and theological points where I am adrift. My fuzzy understanding indicates that there never was a time when there was not God. According to His words he is from Everlasting to Everlasting." That is the point from which I am basing my arguments.

Glenn

[changed]

Why is salvation based on belief, rather than on character and good works?  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, changed said:

Why is salvation based on belief, rather than on character and good works?  

Think of it this way-

Sin is a deep pit and everyone who sins is stuck at the bottom of the pit with absolutely and unequivocally no way to get out of it on their own.  Salvation is the act of getting out of the pit (that's a simplified way of looking at it but this is just an analogy so there is no reason to go to deep). We can't get out of the pit ourselves so someone else must get us out.  We need a Savior.  In fact, salvation is impossible without one.   The Savior gets us out of the pit by constructing a ladder (the Atonement), lowering it down to us, and then climbing down into the pit with us and actually helping us climb up the ladder (His Grace).  Climbing is the good work that we must do to get up the ladder but we don't don't do it on our own, even our own good works only have any ability to help us because of Christ. 

That is why salvation is based on belief rather than good works.  You can't get out of the pit without the ladder and the help, it doesn't matter how good your works are.  Without the ladder, the works are useless.  Without faith in Christ, accepting His Atonement, and following Him up the ladder, our good works are useless to save us. 

 

[Glenn101]

10 minutes ago, changed said:

Why is salvation based on belief, rather than on character and good works?  

Well, Jesus did say "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16.16). But I am not sure what this has to do with this topic, I.E. "The Benefits of Believing:Video."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

You have just hit the nail on the head. That is a point I tried to make to you. If all morality is subjective who gets to tell who what is right or wrong? Those in power do it because they have the power, might makes right.

Glenn

Everyone gets to tell everyone else they are wrong. We live in a pluralistic society. I’m guessing you don’t roll over just because some random guy says so. When God gives his clear objective morality to men then maybe you can come back and talk to me then. Until that time, we just have human beings making moral judgments based on their own subjective experience. This goes for atheists and believers. 

This board is interesting. No testimony bearing is allowed. Why is that? How many people are convinced when someone says “you are wrong because God told me so”?

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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

3

So here is the problem I have with what you are saying.  Even with God, might makes right.  Whoever makes up the laws in any country or society decides what is moral and what isn't whether God is there or not.  And whoever decides what God believes gets to speak for God. There is more evidence that what is contained in the scriptures came from man,  then there is proof that what is in the scriptures actually came from God.  If God actually sat on a throne somewhere on earth and declared what was moral, then you might have a point.  But that NEVER has happened.  What has happened is that a lot of men have claimed to talk to God and have come away with conflicting answers.  If what God says is subjective, according to those who claim to speak for Him, then it is no different to what an athiest might say.  In order for your theory to work, you have to prove that there actually is a higher authority and what he says is moral.  Something that is not provable.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Everyone gets to tell everyone else they are wrong. We live in a pluralistic society. I’m guessing you don’t roll over just because some random guy says so.

I have already agreed with you on that. If there is no objective morality, then I can tell you that you are wrong and you can tell me I am wrong with equal authority. You could take a gun and shoot me because I do not agree with you and it would not be immoral, just against the law.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When God gives his clear objective morality to men then maybe you can come back and talk to me then

I have already pointed out two objective moral commandments that God has handed down, i.e. do not steal, and do not commit adultery. In addition, there are a few more that I could list.

Love the Lord
Love thy neighbor as thyself
Do not bear false witness
Do not covet
Love your enemies
Do good to them that hate you
Pray for those that spitefully use and persecute you
You must forgive everyone
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Starting from the premise that there is no God, never has been, never will be, those would all be subjective, modified to fit individual or societal tastes, some maybe never even thought of. The first one would never even be proposed.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

 In order for your theory to work, you have to prove that there actually is a higher authority and what he says is moral.  Something that is not provable.

Not actually, because I am not trying to argue for the existence of God, or a higher authority. I am only arguing for what must be if there is no God, no higher authority. Every law would be completely subjective. There would be no one with a higher moral authority than anyone else. As I pointed out to SeekingUnderstanding you could pick up a gun and shoot me because I am disagreeing with you and it would not be immoral. It would only be breaking a law. The only consequences would be temporal, in this mortal life for you and the only consequences for me is that I would no longer exist.

Glenn

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I am only arguing for what must be if there is no God, no higher authority. Every law would be completely subjective.

Let me ask you this: why does the existence of God make morality objective? Doesn't the existence of a God just make morality based on God's subjectivity? In other words, whatever God thinks is moral is moral? And why is that? Because God is moral? That's just circular reasoning -- whatever God says is moral because God is moral.

Imagine a God that decides that everything we consider immoral (rape, murder, adultery, etc) is actually moral. If God is the higher moral authority, then that makes raping the moral thing to do.

And if you just say God isn't like that, he is moral, then you are again using circular reasoning.

So morality is subjective, just based on God's subjectivity instead of ours. And God's moral authority then rests in the ability of God to punish/reward us.

What do you think?

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I am only arguing for what must be if there is no God, no higher authority. Every law would be completely subjective.

Let me ask you this: why does the existence of God make morality objective?

I have not made that argument, yet, that the existence of God makes morality objective, as noted in the post that you are responding to. I am trying to get one point established but people keep taking off on tangents a=about points that I have not tried to make.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Imagine a God that decides that everything we consider immoral (rape, murder, adultery, etc) is actually moral. If God is the higher moral authority, then that makes raping the moral thing to do.

Establishing what kind of God we would be talking about would be essential to such a discussion. After all there is Allah, Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Vishnu, Viracocha, Quetzalcoatl, Baal, Moloch, and the Christian God (among a host of others).

I would go with God, the Father of the Christ who has already declared his gospel and His given us our moral code. One that is not going to decide that any of the things we consider immoral (because He was the one that declared those things immoral) to now be moral. I gave a partial list to SeeksUnderstanding.

But I do want to establish the point you were responding to first.

Glenn

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Not actually, because I am not trying to argue for the existence of God, or a higher authority. I am only arguing for what must be if there is no God, no higher authority. Every law would be completely subjective. There would be no one with a higher moral authority than anyone else. As I pointed out to SeekingUnderstanding you could pick up a gun and shoot me because I am disagreeing with you and it would not be immoral. It would only be breaking a law. The only consequences would be temporal, in this mortal life for you and the only consequences for me is that I would no longer exist.

Glenn

You missed my point entirely.  The fact that you cut that part of my comment completely out of your response makes me wonder if you really want to engage.  My point was, (if you go back and read my post), is that what is claimed as the edict from God is completely subjective as well.  A man saying that he received his point of view from God does not make it a fact since God has not chosen to appear to all of mankind and imparted his view of morality.  Hence, it is no different than an atheist giving his opinion of morality.  They are both completely subjective.