Derivation of Morality

[A_Wanderer]

We are reminded incessently that religious tomes empart good morals to live by even though it is demonstrable that those same texts also contain commands to immorality.

The solution to this is that people select the real "message" of the texts and emphasise the positive morals while downplaying the negative ones.

This discriminating of what we believe is done by human beings, so how can it be said that morality is defined by belief when we define our belief around our social constructions of morality.

 

[maycocksean]

We are reminded incessently that religious tomes empart good morals to live by even though it is demonstrable that those same texts also contain commands to immorality.

The solution to this is that people select the real "message" of the texts and emphasise the positive morals while downplaying the negative ones.

This discriminating of what we believe is done by human beings, so how can it be said that morality is defined by belief when we define our belief around our social constructions of morality.

Is this a genuine question that you actually want to discuss or have you already made up your mind, i.e. is there even the remote possiblity that you might consider another point of view.

Because if not, what's the point in even starting the discussion?

 

[A_Wanderer]

What's the point of discussing anything if not to elucidate other opinions and improve your arguments? Debate makes us think and thinking is good; I came across this argument and I find it pretty sound and haven't found any sort of reasoned argument against it, and so far in this thread none has been offered.

 

[maycocksean]

What's the point of discussing anything if not to elucidate other opinions and improve your arguments? Debate makes us think and thinking is good; I came across this argument and I find it pretty sound and haven't found any sort of reasoned argument against it, and so far in this thread none has been offered.

Well, not everyone enjoys being a whetstone upon which you sharpen your sense of being in the right. Most people like to feel that they've got a shot at being heard also.

But nonetheless, I'll offer a response. Just not now. It's 3:25 A.M. here on this side of the world (as you know since I'm sure our time zones are not too far apart, if not actually the same) and I have to go to bed.

 

[A_Wanderer]

 

[BonosSaint]

I can't find much to argue with in the original post. As Wanderer pointed out, the argument is sound.

 

[maycocksean]

I can't find much to argue with in the original post. As Wanderer pointed out, the argument is sound.

Wait for it. . .wait for it. . .

I about wore myself out on the New Jersey thread and a GIANT PM to AEON.

I shall return.

 

[AEON]

1 Corinthians 2

You'll remember, friends, that when I first came to you to let you in on God's master stroke, I didn't try to impress you with polished speeches and the latest philosophy. I deliberately kept it plain and simple: first Jesus and who he is; then Jesus and what he did—Jesus crucified.

I was unsure of how to go about this, and felt totally inadequate—I was scared to death, if you want the truth of it—and so nothing I said could have impressed you or anyone else. But the Message came through anyway. God's Spirit and God's power did it, which made it clear that your life of faith is a response to God's power, not to some fancy mental or emotional footwork by me or anyone else.

We, of course, have plenty of wisdom to pass on to you once you get your feet on firm spiritual ground, but it's not popular wisdom, the fashionable wisdom of high-priced experts that will be out-of-date in a year or so. God's wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes. You don't find it lying around on the surface. It's not the latest message, but more like the oldest—what God determined as the way to bring out his best in us, long before we ever arrived on the scene. The experts of our day haven't a clue about what this eternal plan is. If they had, they wouldn't have killed the Master of the God-designed life on a cross. That's why we have this Scripture text:

No one's ever seen or heard anything like this,
Never so much as imagined anything quite like it—
What God has arranged for those who love him. But you've seen and heard it because God by his Spirit has brought it all out into the open before you.

The Spirit, not content to flit around on the surface, dives into the depths of God, and brings out what God planned all along. Who ever knows what you're thinking and planning except you yourself? The same with God—except that he not only knows what he's thinking, but he lets us in on it. God offers a full report on the gifts of life and salvation that he is giving us. We don't have to rely on the world's guesses and opinions. We didn't learn this by reading books or going to school; we learned it from God, who taught us person-to-person through Jesus, and we're passing it on to you in the same firsthand, personal way.

The unspiritual self, just as it is by nature, can't receive the gifts of God's Spirit. There's no capacity for them. They seem like so much silliness. Spirit can be known only by spirit—God's Spirit and our spirits in open communion. Spiritually alive, we have access to everything God's Spirit is doing, and can't be judged by unspiritual critics. Isaiah's question, "Is there anyone around who knows God's Spirit, anyone who knows what he is doing?" has been answered: Christ knows, and we have Christ's Spirit.

Bold type is mine.

(The Message)

 

[AEON]

Wait for it. . .wait for it. . .

I about wore myself out on the New Jersey thread and a GIANT PM to AEON.

I shall return.

Yes - it a giant PM - but it was a great one to read! Thanks for spending some time on it.

 

[BonosSaint]

Wait for it. . .wait for it. . .

I about wore myself out on the New Jersey thread and a GIANT PM to AEON.

I shall return.

 

[INDY500]

I don't accept the premise.
The dichotomy isn't between "good morals" and "bad morals." That's a bit like saying there's good math and bad math. No, there's only math, which when followed will determine the correct answer...and wrong answers. And lucky guesses. "As long as algebra is taught in school, there will be prayer in school."--Cokie Roberts

No, I would argue we make our choice between morality and amorality. Morality, or the "law of human nature", the set of rules to best govern the actions of humans, much as the laws of physics define the motion of celestial bodies. With one huge difference--humans are given freewill to obey or disobey their laws.

I guess I would need specific examples to elaborate.

 

[BVS]

"As long as algebra is taught in school, there will be prayer in school."--Cokie Roberts

I've always loved this quote, and I wish more people would understand it, and leave it at that...

No, I would argue we make our choice between morality and amorality.

Who do you know who actually of sound mind chooses amorality?

 

[maycocksean]

We are reminded incessently that religious tomes empart good morals to live by even though it is demonstrable that those same texts also contain commands to immorality.

Ok, it's 11:31 P.M., I've got work tomorrow and I really should go to bed but. . .I'm going to go ahead and tackle this anyway.

First off I can't speak for all religious tomes because my knowledge and experience with them is far too limited. I can only speak for the religious tome to which I subscribe which is the Bible.

And so I will address the question as it relates to the Bible.

As far as I'm aware nowhere in the Bible is immorality "commanded." There is a lot of immorality in the Bible. There's a lot of immorality done by those who are supposed to be the "good guys", the followers of God. But I don't see immorality being commanded.

So the first thing you'd have to do is not merely SAY that the religious tome, (in this case, the Bible), demonstrably contains commands to immorality, but actually demonstrate it.

Now the weakest part of my argument definitely has to do with God's commands to kill people. They're in the Bible. . .we all know they are. . .the commands to slay this person and smite that nation-- man, woman, and child e.tc.. We know the commands are there, let's face them head on. They are most definitely commands to do something immoral, aren't they?

Perhaps. But then perhaps not.

First off, if you don't consider warfare to be inherently immoral but sometimes necessary, then that addresses many of the "God commands to kill" stories. If you are okay with the necessity for warfare (and I'm pretty sure A_W, that you are) then you can't really fault God for sending his people into battle either. I think it's important to keep in mind that when God said "go up against this nation and destroy them" these weren't peaceful tribes of non-believers going their own merry way. These were tribes every bit as warlike if not more so than Israel, and surely would have destroyed them if given the chance. The Old Testament was written in brutal times, no question about it, and it reflects that brutality.


If you're not so okay with war (like me), I'll concede these passages could be more problematic--though even I understand that sometimes war is necessary--however horrific it may be.

Beyond warfare related issues, there's not much other evidence in the Bible that I can think of where immorality is commanded.

The solution to this is that people select the real "message" of the texts and emphasise the positive morals while downplaying the negative ones.

I'm curious as to why it is necessarily a bad thing to select the message of the text? What could possibly be wrong about trying to understand the context, culture, history etc behind a particular story. In fact it's the people who insist on taking the Bible absolutely at "face value" that I distrust the most. They're usually the most fanatical and extremist of believers. It seems to me unfair and extreme to expect that the Bible must not be analyzed or interpreted at all, but should just be taken "as is." Granted there is the potential for people to twist or misrepresent what the Bible says to fit their own agenda, but isn't that true of just about everything else too?

[BThis discriminating of what we believe is done by human beings, so how can it be said that morality is defined by belief when we define our belief around our social constructions of morality. [/B]

I'm not sure I agree that your statement that morality is defined by belief is applicable to all the believers. I'm not sure it applies to me. For this believer, morality is determined by reason, logic, and the sense of what is good, i.e. safe, helpful, enriching, for society and for individuals. I choose my faith, in a sense, based on what best represents morality as I understand it. For me, my faith is rooted in the concept that God is love. This fits with a reasonable, logical view of morality--love as the ultimate Good, the ultimate Power in the universe. Because that's what my faith teaches, that's why I choose to be a believer. At some point, if you feel that your faith system consistently lines up with a reasonable, logical morality, you feel you can trust it enough to say, "Well, if God says this is immoral, then I believe Him, though I personally can't see 'what's wrong with it.' After all His track record has been great so far, so I'll go with it, expecting the reasonable, logical pieces will fall into place eventually." And thus we arrive at the place where belief defines morality. Even then, for many--but not all--believers, the door to reason is never shut because these believers when encountering a morality that "doesn't make sense" are willing to consider at the very least that the problem may not be in what God says, but in their own fallible and human understanding of what God says.





I'm pretty exhausted so I hope all that made SOME kind of sense. Consider this my first volley. I'll refine and hone more as the discussion continues. I'm sure A_W and maybe others will have plenty to say in rebutal

 

[A_Wanderer]

But love is biochemistry; if we are to associate the nature of God with an emotional response

I don't think there is a quantifiable element in the universe of love, I think that the emotional response is a mammalian behaviour

While not all who profess belief will argue that morality is defined by belief there are quite a number of them and it is the most frequent argument that I come across; the idea that in the absence of faith amorality is left, my two objections are that good deeds done on the basis of humanism (by anyone) without the impetus of reward or punishment are in some ways morally better than those done for a higher power and secondly that by virtue of reason and logic laws for the benefit of individuals may be defined and codified, cheifly through the no-harm principle.

 

[80sU2isBest]

my two objections are that good deeds done on the basis of humanism (by anyone) without the impetus of reward or punishment are in some ways morally better than those done for a higher power and secondly that by virtue of reason and logic laws for the benefit of individuals may be defined and codified, cheifly through the no-harm principle.

And where does the following fit:

Good deeds done because the nature of God within a person longs to do them?

 

[A_Wanderer]

There is a difference between doing good for doing good and dooing good for God. If doing good is only a reflection of the nature of God within them then the idea of free will goes out the window. If we take free will as a given; a possibility in both theology and atheism then good deeds are choices driven by human motive.

 

[80sU2isBest]

There is a difference between doing good for doing good and dooing good for God. If doing good is only a reflection of the nature of God within them then the idea of free will goes out the window. If we take free will as a given; a possibility in both theology and atheism then good deeds are choices driven by human motive.

As someone who views it from the Biblical perspective, I think you are incorrect. The Bible says that when a person becomes a Christian, the sin nature (the drive/propulsion to sin) is crucified, and is replaced with a new nature, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirt/new nature is what is in a Christian that desires to do good. However, the Christian still has free will to do what the Holy Spirit urges him to or he can in his will give in to the temptations the enemy throws at him. He is not locked in to doing good just because the Spirit wants him to. Unfortuantely, we do choose to ignore the Spirit, sometimes even often.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But if a non-Christian does good deeds then it still isn't a function of anyGods will it is the function of their own will

 

[80sU2isBest]

But if a non-Christian does good deeds then it still isn't a function of anyGods will it is the function of their own will

What I believe: if a non-Christian does a good deed, it is because he is obeying his concience, which is God-implanted.

Now let me clarify my position a tiny bit. It is entirely possible for Christians and NonChristians to do good deeds for selfish motivations. For example, some Christians may give to charity only because they believe God will bless them for doing so.

 

[INDY500]

But love is biochemistry; if we are to associate the nature of God with an emotional response

I don't think there is a quantifiable element in the universe of love, I think that the emotional response is a mammalian behaviour

More specifically, neurochemistry. But can't the same be said of all our senses? Our memories? So is man merely a bundle of biological processes or are we, as I believe, spiritual beings operating a physical body?

He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality. ... The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.

--Thomas Jefferson 1787

 

[maycocksean]

But love is biochemistry; if we are to associate the nature of God with an emotional response

Maybe the "feeling" of love, but I think love involves much more than that nice fuzzy feeling we all enjoy. Even so the fact that all of our spiritual impulses may be reflected in neurochemical reactions doesn't faze me. After all we are physical creatures (unlike many believers, I don't believe in the "ghost in the machine"--a seperate "soul" living in the body. My belief is that the soul and body are one, indivisible, so naturally any spiritual experiences should be reflected in what physically goes on inour bodies. Which is not to say we are not spiritual creatures also, or to say that we do not interact with the scientifically unquantifiable--at least right now--spiritual world. I just think that all such interactions mustnecessarily manifest themselves in a physical way. (I.e.brain activity increases in certain parts of the brain, hormones, etc. )

I don't think there is a quantifiable element in the universe of love,

Well, I'd have to agree with you there. For most of us belief in love--something that as you say is completely unquantifiable--is easy. From there it's not such a far leap, at least for me, to God.

On a personal note,you remind me so much of my brother (He is also an atheist). You're particular take on atheism, the way you express your views, is so familiar to me! Sometimes I'm tempted to ask, "Hey are you REALLY in Australia? You're in Florida aren't you! Vince is that you?"

 

[maycocksean]

As someone who views it from the Biblical perspective, I think you are incorrect. The Bible says that when a person becomes a Christian, the sin nature (the drive/propulsion to sin) is crucified, and is replaced with a new nature, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirt/new nature is what is in a Christian that desires to do good. However, the Christian still has free will to do what the Holy Spirit urges him to or he can in his will give in to the temptations the enemy throws at him. He is not locked in to doing good just because the Spirit wants him to. Unfortuantely, we do choose to ignore the Spirit, sometimes even often.

The tricky thing is that this as a foundation of an argument won't hold any water with him. You'd have lost him at "the Bible says". He's got to accept the Bible as a valid authority before it can be used as a convincing argument. I think that point's being currently beat to death in another thread.

The question for us a Christians is how do we share our faith with those who don't consider the Bible a valid source of Truth? I think it has to come from our personal stories (told with as little Christianese as possible) of what God has done for us, from our behavior and treatment of others (an area where we CONSTANTLY drop the ball to extreme detriment of the message we're supposed to be getting across), and that mysterious thing called the Holy Spirit working on a person's heart in ways we cant' begin to fathom. That last part we can't control, of course. We just have to trust it.

Course with A_W, I'm pretty sure even personal experience wouldn't hold much water, because with his rigorous (and remarkably consistent) demand for logic it would have to be testable, and of course personal experience is notoriously untestable.

 

[80sU2isBest]

The tricky thing is that this as a foundation of an argument won't hold any water with him. You'd have lost him at "the Bible says". He's got to accept the Bible as a valid authority before it can be used as a convincing argument. I think that point's being currently beat to death in another thread.

I wasn't trying to argue with him about anything. I was just letting him know the Biblical view of doing good deeds because he said this:

"There is a difference between doing good for doing good and dooing good for God. If doing good is only a reflection of the nature of God within them then the idea of free will goes out the window. If we take free will as a given; a possibility in both theology and atheism then good deeds are choices driven by human motive."

The question for us a Christians is how do we share our faith with those who don't consider the Bible a valid source of Truth? I think it has to come from our personal stories (told with as little Christianese as possible) of what God has done for us, from our behavior and treatment of others (an area where we CONSTANTLY drop the ball to extreme detriment of the message we're supposed to be getting across), and that mysterious thing called the Holy Spirit working on a person's heart in ways we cant' begin to fathom. That last part we can't control, of course. We just have to trust it.

Personal stories and talk about experience are great, but if you never let people know that they are separated from God by their sin, they will never see their need for a Savior. When I talk about letting them know they are separated from God by sin, I am not saying we should point out specific individual sins, but rather the whole general thing. Christ used this method and so did Paul.

By the way, I think it's rather presumptous of you to claim that Christians whom you do not know "constantly drop the ball to extreme detriment of the message" when it comes to how we treat others. If you feel that you treat others badly, go ahead and say that about yourself. But you can't say that about people you don't know.

 

[AEON]

Course with A_W, I'm pretty sure even personal experience wouldn't hold much water, because with his rigorous (and remarkably consistent) demand for logic it would have to be testable, and of course personal experience is notoriously untestable.

I actually like the way A_w's mind works. I agree with many of his posts. And when I don't agree I see how he comes to his conclusions.

The "testable" part of Christianity comes from the changed hearts of believers. I know he doesn’t have time to sit and observe the transformation of new Christians into mature Christians. I wish he did, because I think it just might change his mind on this.

 

[maycocksean]

By the way, I think it's rather presumptous of you to claim that Christians whom you do not know "constantly drop the ball to extreme detriment of the message" when it comes to how we treat others. If you feel that you treat others badly, go ahead and say that about yourself. But you can't say that about people you don't know.

I'm pretty tired,and to be perfectly frank, these couple threads have been really wearing (the now closed NJ thread, the "don't like His followers etc), as I'm sure they have to a lot of people.

I'd like to respond to other aspects of your post, but I need some time, and a bit of space.

However, I did want to respond to this one particular point you made. I think you misunderstood me here. I was not trying to obliquely refer to any specific Christian (whether yourself or anyone else on or outside of FYM). I was referring to Christians in general, and the simply stating that we often do not live up to the message of the Gospel in the way we treat others. I know I fail in this regard sometimes--thus the term "we"--but I think it would be ludicrous for me to say that "well, I'm the only one who fails to live up to Christ's Gospel in my treatment of others but I can't really say for sure if that's true for any of the other more than one billion Christians on this planet." Surely as a general statement you can agree that we all do drop the ball on this quite a bit.

A statement like this is really no more presumptous then claiming that we are all sinners.

 

[BVS]

By the way, I think it's rather presumptous of you to claim that Christians whom you do not know "constantly drop the ball to extreme detriment of the message" when it comes to how we treat others. If you feel that you treat others badly, go ahead and say that about yourself. But you can't say that about people you don't know.

Just like your need to call out someone's sin, others need to point out how poorly some treat people while doing that.

And I can say from experience, many "christians" in here treat others very poorly.

 

[BVS]

AGAIN:

No, I would argue we make our choice between morality and amorality.

Who do you know who actually of sound mind chooses amorality?

 

[80sU2isBest]

However, I did want to respond to this one particular point you made. I think you misunderstood me here. I was not trying to obliquely refer to any specific Christian (whether yourself or anyone else on or outside of FYM). I was referring to Christians in general, and the simply stating that we often do not live up to the message of the Gospel in the way we treat others. I know I fail in this regard sometimes--thus the term "we"--but I think it would be ludicrous for me to say that "well, I'm the only one who fails to live up to Christ's Gospel in my treatment of others but I can't really say for sure if that's true for any of the other more than one billion Christians on this planet." Surely as a general statement you can agree that we all do drop the ball on this quite a bit.

You said that we Christians "constantly drop the ball to extreme detriment of the message" in the way we treat people. That's not only presumptious, it's not true. I think most of us do sometimes, but I don't think most of us do "constantly to extreme detriment".

I can see why you are reluctant to be associated with other Christians if you think that we all are constantly screwing up in the way we treat peoople.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Just like your need to call out someone's sin, others need to point out how poorly some treat people while doing that.

And I can say from experience, many "Christians" in here treat others very poorly.

I say that we all sin; he said that Christians "constantly drop the ball to extreme detriment of the message". There is a world of difference. I never said that anyone "constantly sins".

 

[dietcokeofevil]

I am unconvinced that Mammalian responses are a refutation of the divine insti