Right and Wrong

[Jenny in Atl]

Then Phred why do no harm?

 

Because we are social beings. If I went around being nasty and killing everyone I met... I would be alone. Yes, some still do this but I feel they are metal ill. I'm not talking self-defense, I'm speaking of hurting life indiscriminantly. From what I have read, those who don't believe could not be moral, as they are so separated from God, they don't know right from wrong. So then, how are some unbelievers (or those of other faiths) able to be moral?

[RebeccaC]

What is an absolute... I fall back on definitions.

 

Absolute: something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control.

 

Gravity is beyond our control... our morality is not. Your comparison to natural laws is not accurate. But, if you wish to continue this line of thought, please, provide evidence that this "imprint" exists. Where is it and what imprints it? If you think it's imprinted upon a "soul" please provide evidence that a soul exists. You can't just throw out random terms and ideas that have no substantiation outside philosophy and religion. These things you believe are nice but to me they simply don't exist.

 

 

If there is no human psyche....soul....heart.....ect, then there are a lot of psychologist getting paid for providing therapy for something that does not exist. Can one weigh the human psyche no but it is there. Can you weigh your emotions, no but you have them don't ya Phred? You love you kids right, can you prove it?

[Parabola]

'm not Phred, but I'll tell you why I try to do no wrong. I'm atheist, don't have a god, don't want one, so my reasons are actually..

 

Two reasons. First of all, I've figured out my own morality along the way, and it includes doing my best not to harm others. It has nothing to do with how I may benefit from not harming others, because lets be real, many times there are situations where harming another will benefit me without repurcussions. I don't do it because I want to live with myself, I want peace with myself, I want to like myself. I guess in that way its kind of selfish, but not entirely so because I want my fellow humans to have a good life too.

 

Second of all, I do my best not to harm others because I want the human race to be something I'm proud to be part of, something that is a force for good in the universe. It would be a shame if all this intelligence and compassion were squandered by tearing each other apart and ultimately destroying ourselves. That would be such a waste. I do my part, as little as it is, to contribute to an ideal society of humans.

[muffinmom]

I think sometimes all of us get moral choices right because of an innate sense of right and wrong (because of being made in God's image). But we are unclear on most choices because we are not close to God. The closer we are to God, the more these issues gain clarity. Having said that, I don't believe that being close to God has anything to do with "religious" activity. It has to do with a relationship with God--seeking Him and submitting to Him.

[RebeccaC]

'm not Phred, but I'll tell you why I try to do no wrong. I'm atheist, don't have a god, don't want one, so my reasons are actually..

 

Two reasons. First of all, I've figured out my own morality along the way, and it includes doing my best not to harm others. It has nothing to do with how I may benefit from not harming others, because lets be real, many times there are situations where harming another will benefit me without repurcussions. I don't do it because I want to live with myself, I want peace with myself, I want to like myself. I guess in that way its kind of selfish, but not entirely so because I want my fellow humans to have a good life too.

 

Second of all, I do my best not to harm others because I want the human race to be something I'm proud to be part of, something that is a force for good in the universe. It would be a shame if all this intelligence and compassion were squandered by tearing each other apart and ultimately destroying ourselves. That would be such a waste. I do my part, as little as it is, to contribute to an ideal society of humans.

 

 

Bit why could you not live with yourself if you harmed another? Why would you have no peace if you harmed another if harming another were not an absolute?

[Parabola]

Because that's the morality I have decided for myself. Other people have decided other moralities, ergo people who do truly horrendous things.

 

If not harming another WERE absolute, then people couldn't do it, and yet they do, day in and day out.

[Phred]

Then Phred why do no harm?

Because that is what I have reasoned is the best course of action. Harming others hurts them. I don't like to be hurt so I can only imagine they don't like to be hurt either. I can extend this reasoning out to how stealing harms other people... and how not respecting their privacy harms them...

 

That's why laws are respected. When the laws don't prevent harm... they are easily disregarded... like speed limits.

 

So why do no harm? It's the reasonable thing to do.

 

If you found out tomorrow there was no God you wouldn't suddenly start murdering and robbing and pillaging would you?

[Phred]

If there is no human psyche....soul....heart.....ect, then there are a lot of psychologist getting paid for providing therapy for something that does not exist. Can one weigh the human psyche no but it is there. Can you weigh your emotions, no but you have them don't ya Phred? You love you kids right, can you prove it?

Don't need to. I don't make amazing claims every day about what my love for my kids is responsible for.

[muffinmom]

So why do no harm? It's the reasonable thing to do.

 

If you found out tomorrow there was no God you wouldn't suddenly start murdering and robbing and pillaging would you?

 

It's only reasonable to do if I'm in a reasonable state of mind. I'm often not (sad to say). I've often had the desire to harm someone. So if there were no law against it and no God, what's to stop me from acting on what I want to do at the moment? I can think of nothing except self-serving reasons, and even that might not be enough.

[Jenny in Atl]

Only if I'm in a reasonable state of mind. I'm often not (sad to say). I've often had the desire to harm someone. So if there were no law against it and no God, what's to stop me from acting on what I want to do at the moment? I can think of nothing except self-serving reasons, and even that might not be enough.

 

There is always the chance that they or their family will came back and hurt you. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, right? That might stop you.

[Storm Bay]

This has always bothered me... sin all you like as long as in the end you access Jesus as your personal savor. It matters not whether you are a good person, that you live a respectful life. I know I'm being over simplistic, but still.

 

But it's really not that simple, is it? There is quite a discussion on this very topic in Romans, btw, so the question has been answered from almost the start of Christianity. In short, salvation is by grace, but this is not to be a license to sin, even though we all fall short and will. But none of us is able to earn salvation because none of us is good enough. But this is a big topic not easily handled here. And, in fact, how you live DOES matter. It just doesn't bear on Christian salvation (but that doesn't mean that only Christians will be saved--in the resurrection of the unjust the sheep will be separated from the goats, so how people have lived, etc, will matter.)

[muffinmom]

There is always the chance that they or their family will came back and hurt you. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, right? That might stop you.

 

It might, if I were in a rational state of mind at the moment. Fear is a powerful motivator. But that would also be a self-serving reason.

[Jenny in Atl]

It just doesn't bear on Christian salvation (but that doesn't mean that only Christians will be saved--in the resurrection of the unjust the sheep will be separated from the goats, so how people have lived, etc, will matter.)

 

I think you will find many Christians who disagree. So which version is right?

[Jenny in Atl]

It might, if I were in a rational state of mind at the moment. Fear is a powerful motivator. But that would also be a self-serving reason.

 

And the fear of God is not? The fear of going to the underworld and not having a nice after life is not self-serving?

[Storm Bay]

Well, due to the exact wording of your poll, I had to vote no. After all, ethics and morality have been discussed at great length. Epicureans totally disregarded the morals of the founder of their movement. There is an entire book devoted to this, The Ethics of Authenticity (morals are tied in with ethics in this case.) edit---I mean to ethics and morality separate from relgion. I've been on the forum way too much today!

 

But not everyone chooses to believe God (not just believe in a god or in God) simply for moral reasons. Now my sister, an atheist, thinks religion is simply a crutch. But I didn't turn to God for moral guidance; I turned to God because everything else I studied fell apart the closer I examined it. Obviously, not everyone who examines the theory of evolution, feminist theory, philosophy, history, etc, is going to come to the same conclusion I did. But it's erroneous to conclude that there is merely one reason for believing in God or believing God. A lot more people believe IN God or a god than actually BELIEVE God.

 

However, I don't feel a need to try to prove the existence of God to you anymore than you feel a need to prove the evolution of intelligence in a lab to me. Did you know that there are secular philosophers who question the falsifiability of macroevolution (Darwin's General Theory?) But I do think this is a great thread.

[genie]

Yes, their focus is on survival, but I think most life forms are far more intelligent than humans believe they are.

 

 

"It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons." (Douglas Adams)

[muffinmom]

And the fear of God is not? The fear of going to the underworld and not having a nice after life is not self-serving?

 

That's not why I am a Christian--that's not what motivates me at all. When I started to get a glimpse of who God really is (not that I understand it all), HE became the motivation. His character motivates me. His love.

 

That fear stuff you're talking about--I don't even think about that. I know a lot of people do, but IMO, that's the kind of "faith" that doesn't get it.

[Jenny in Atl]

Well, due to the exact wording of your poll, I had to vote no. After all, ethics and morality have been discussed at great length. Epicureans totally disregarded the morals of the founder of their movement. There is an entire book devoted to this, The Ethics of Authenticity (morals are tied in with ethics in this case.)

 

But not everyone chooses to believe God (not just believe in a god or in God) simply for moral reasons. Now my sister, an atheist, thinks religion is simply a crutch. But I didn't turn to God for moral guidance; I turned to God because everything else I studied fell apart the closer I examined it. Obviously, not everyone who examines the theory of evolution, feminist theory, philosophy, history, etc, is going to come to the same conclusion I did. But it's erroneous to conclude that there is merely one reason for believing in God or believing God. A lot more people believe IN God or a god than actually BELIEVE God.

 

However, I don't feel a need to try to prove the existence of God to you anymore than you feel a need to prove the evolution of intelligence in a lab to me. Did you know that there are secular philosophers who question the falsifiability of macroevolution (Darwin's General Theory?) But I do think this is a great thread.

 

I would love to know how your faith answered questions of disease (cancer in a baby), natural disasters (the ever changing surface of the Earth), the oppression of so many due to their faiths, lack of, etc.

 

So many of the answers given in the major and minor faiths, fall short for me. I would love to believe there is some great meaning behind this world, but when I look at history, nature, etc; none of the answers or ideas shared resinate with me. I hear over and over, my faith is better than yours, I know the way, etc. I'm happy for those who have found a sense of comfort through faith but the suffering caused by many of these faiths cancels out so much of the good I see them promising to bring. But then the answer to that is it's man's fault, he is just broken.

[Jenny in Atl]

That's not why I am a Christian--that's not what motivates me at all. When I started to get a glimpse of who God really is (not that I understand it all), HE became the motivation. His character motivates me. His love.

 

That fear stuff you're talking about--I don't even think about that. I know a lot of people do, but IMO, that's the kind of "faith" that doesn't get it.

 

Humm, then why as parents do we find the need to sometimes punish our children? And I don't mean spank! Why doesn't love work on it's own?

[KidsHappen]

It's only reasonable to do if I'm in a reasonable state of mind. I'm often not (sad to say). I've often had the desire to harm someone. So if there were no law against it and no God, what's to stop me from acting on what I want to do at the moment? I can think of nothing except self-serving reasons, and even that might not be enough.

 

You've often had a desire to harm someone? Really?

 

I don't think that I have ever had a conscious desire to harm someone. I certainly have harmed people but never because I had a desire to do so.

 

Am I just misunderstanding your meaning?

[j.griff]

I don't think that I have ever had a conscious desire to harm someone. I certainly have harmed people but never because I had a desire to do so.

 

You've NEVER felt like slapping someone before, ever? Even as a child? :)

*I* find *that* amazing.

BUT, we all have different temperaments.

[muffinmom]

Humm, then why as parents do we find the need to sometimes punish our children? And I don't mean spank! Why doesn't love work on it's own?

 

Punishment or discipline is PART of (parental) love. If someone doesn't care how her kids turn out, then why bother with discipline? It's certainly no fun for the parent. But those who care about their kids know they have to do this out of love for them, out of their desiring the best for them and their future; if we didn't discipline them, we would be setting them up for a life of misery, failure, perhaps crime. But love drives us to do the hard stuff for their good.

 

We get this knowledge from God, because that is how He deals with His children.

[muffinmom]

You've often had a desire to harm someone? Really?

 

I don't think that I have ever had a conscious desire to harm someone. I certainly have harmed people but never because I had a desire to do so.

 

Am I just misunderstanding your meaning?

 

You're not misunderstanding my meaning. Yes, I've occasionally desired to harm someone--the desire just rose up out of momentary anger, not out of a general desire to hurt people, and certainly I have had no desire to inflict permanent harm on anyone. I have not acted upon these desires, but I don't mind admitting that I have sinful impulses. Thanks to God, I am not ruled by them.

 

You're probably a much more generous person than I am. I wish I could be more like that. Truly.:)

[Sharon in SC]

I can't do ethics any other way than by relating it to God, because there is nothing that is not related to God, who is the creator of all.

 

 

 

Beautifully expressed, the entire post. This one line sums it all up for me.

[Storm Bay]

I would love to know how your faith answered questions of disease (cancer in a baby), natural disasters (the ever changing surface of the Earth), the oppression of so many due to their faiths, lack of, etc.

 

So many of the answers given in the major and minor faiths, fall short for me. I would love to believe there is some great meaning behind this world, but when I look at history, nature, etc; none of the answers or ideas shared resinate with me. I hear over and over, my faith is better than yours, I know the way, etc. I'm happy for those who have found a sense of comfort through faith but the suffering caused by many of these faiths cancels out so much of the good I see them promising to bring. But then the answer to that is it's man's fault, he is just broken.

 

Ah, but I didn't go to God first and foremost to answer the question of suffering. My quest has always been for the meaning of life, the origins of life, etc, ever since I was about 3 or 4. Also, while the Bible has apparent contradictions and can easily be misquoted or abused, the more I study it, the more it fits. But I don't practise apologetics, so I'm not sure if I'll do justice to your question. I think PariSarah, who has some different beliefs than me, does a much better job with that part of it. My focus has always been study, homelitics, etc, not apologetics. But I practice what I preach, it's more of a lifestyle for us.

 

I don't find comfort in suffering, nor do I think they come from God. I am a firm believer in free will, from the adversary/devil/satan (former archangel) to people. What I've seen in my studies so far is that this fallen archangel is the author of death, that his whole mission is to steal, and to kill, and to destroy that last part is in John 10:10. This is why we have a need for a saviour. But this answer is really very simplified and certainly doesn't do justice to it at all.

 

You have to understand that I do not agree with the suffering caused by so-called Christians or any other religious groups, and I don't think I'm alone in this, but since I don't put my faith in people I don't allow that to shake my faith in God. There I've seen what happens when a church goes awry because leadership becomes corrupt. I don't follow the major denominational teachings, although I do think there are some followers in those who do have a vital relationship with God. Many Christians would think I'm a heretic, anyway, because I don't believe the trinity or that the dead go to heaven or hell as soon as they die. I think that the latter belief comes from other philosophies/religions. I also don't think that God tests us with suffering. But I don't worry about that.. However, I really don't find that people who are inherently skeptical tend to change their minds and convert, which is why I don't often answer your questions. Whether or not you and I believe the same things is personal. My sister cannot fathom what it's like to have faith--she has just never, ever had it, and perhaps you are similar to her in that way.

[Parabola]

from the adversary/devil/satan (former archangel) to people. What I've seen in my studies so far is that this fallen archangel is the author of death, that his whole mission is to steal, and to kill, and to destroy

 

 

I just don't understand how people can believe stuff like this. I really can't, I'm not pointing fingers, I'm saying *I* can't understand. I think its absurd. How does this fit into reality? To me, it sounds like a horror movie, granted one with potential....but pure fantasy nonetheless. So how do rational, intelligent, everyday people actually believe in entities like fallen archangels and authors of death whose whole missions are to steal, kill, and destroy?

[OnTheBrink]

 

I am really amazed at the negative impact that the Christian church has had upon many people. I think I am a Christian today, because my relationship is with God and isn't based upon the actions of men. I don't expect any man or woman to be "good". I go to church because the bible says to. But I do not like everyone at church. I am not friends with everyone at church.

 

As I see it, Christians are part of one church body. But just like human bodies have arm pits that reek, so does the church body. I just don't have a problem with the hypocrisy of the church or the condemnation of the church that people perceive and which may really be there. People are people, the only good one is God. God is the reason I am a Christian, not the church which is made up of people.

 

Wonderfully put. :thumbup:

[Julie Herbster]

My pastor said something today that I've been chewing on a bit. He commented that the Bible doesn't give us all the answers for everything we're wondering about; rather, it tells us what questions are important...what questions we should be asking. We won't get anywhere when we are demanding answers for the wrong questions.

 

It's like a child who is working out this math story problem: In Room 12 are 24 students. In Room 13 are 27 students. Two thirds of all of the students had PBJ for lunch. How many students did not have PBJ for lunch? Whew! Complicated problem for this kid (kind of like our complicated problem of suffering)! In order to get to the right answer, the child must first ask the right questions--namely, "How many children DID have PBJ for lunch?" and then, to figure that out, "How many children were there in the first place?" (That's the proper starting place...the key that sets him on the right path.) Then, he's almost at the solution. However, he'll be totally lost if he only asks, "Well, how many did not have PBJ for lunch?"

 

You must ask the right questions if you are to arrive at the truth.

 

So many people rush to judge the Bible/God because "How could a loving, gracious God allow [whatever]? So much suffering in the world, so much misery, so much hate...How can God exist? But that's the wrong question, which is manifestly obvious as we read the Bible with open minds. (Those who read skeptically will not necessarily find what they are looking for.)

 

Suffering is a given--a presupposition--in the Bible. It is a fact: people suffer. (The explanation of how suffering came into our world is related in Genesis. Short version: mankind, not God, invited suffering into the world when he sinned against his Creator). The beautiful story of the Bible is how God has intervened to bring men back into a relationship with Himself and how He actually enables His children to bear suffering in a way that those who are not His children cannot bear it. His children need not ask, "Why, Father?" They merely cast themselves into His arms, accepting the comfort that only He can give. He carries them through the rough places. They are never alone, even in death.

 

None of this is meant to persuade anyone of anything; skeptics can easily brush all of this aside.

[Cindyg]

How do we know that it's not evil deny our desires and not good to procreate with as many people as possible? Our standard of right and wrong comes from God as recorded in the Bible. Without that, we would have no idea which of our inclinations were moral and which were immoral.

[nmoira]

 

How do we know that it's not evil deny our desires and not good to procreate with as many people as possible? Our standard of right and wrong comes from God as recorded in the Bible. Without that, we would have no idea which of our inclinations were moral and which were immoral.

Then only Christians capable of being moral because they're the only ones who adhere to the Bible?

[Jenny in Atl]

So because man fell from God, we created or God ok'd - earthquakes, volcanos, storms, wildfires, plagues, and any other number of natural events that can wipe out countless people. Is this what you all are trying to say? I really am trying to understand.

[Julie Herbster]

Then only Christians capable of being moral because they're the only ones who adhere to the Bible?

I should let Cindy answer this one, but if I may address this question...

 

No, I don't think this is what she was saying. Certainly non-Christians can "be moral." They just cannot always be *sure* they are acting morally, especially when duties or interests conflict. Christians may struggle with this as well, but that's when they consult the Bible and get that added guidance on particulars. I'm coming up blank trying to think of an example of what I'm talking about...sorry.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

.

 

If you found out tomorrow there was no God you wouldn't suddenly start murdering and robbing and pillaging would you?

 

It's funny you should mention that. There have been long standing societies which have been totally disrupted and brought to chaos because outsiders came and taught them that their gods were no gods and their taboos were superstition.

 

I may not start murdering and robbing and pillaging, but I have no doubt that if the majority of the people in our society came to believe that there is no God and no reason to follow the moral code of the Christianity, we would have a drastic increase in murder, robbery, and pillaging.

 

Granted, that does not prove that God exists or that he gives us our moral code, but it does show the need for humans to have a moral code in order to function as a group. The question still has not been answered: Why do we even need a moral code, why can't we just live by instinct as the animals do? They do perfectly fine without one, in fact better than we do much of the time. If a moral code is an such an evolutionary advantage, why are we the only species that appears to have developed one? Why are we the only species that feels a need to believe in something outside the realm of our experience?

[Julie Herbster]

So because man fell from God, we created or God ok'd - earthquakes, volcanos, storms, wildfires, plagues, and any other number of natural events that can wipe out countless people. Is this what you all are trying to say? I really am trying to understand.

Jenny, thank you for your frankness. I'll try to answer this question as best as I can. I don't know how familiar you are with the Bible, so please understand I'm not trying to insult your intelligence on one end, or assume you know on the other end.

 

One need look no further than the first few chapters of Genesis to see the first recorded worldwide cataclysmic disaster: the Flood, which, according to Scripture, came as a direct result of the sin of mankind. This flood makes all of the subsequent typhoons, hurricanes, cyclones, earthquakes, etc., look like child's play in comparison. Scripture is filled with countless other examples; I just picked out the one I figured you had heard about before.

 

Scripture is also clear that all creation--all of nature itself, not just humankind--was corrupted by man's fall (sin). Instead of living in paradise, mankind found himself thrust into a world where he would have to fight against nature--to tame it, to adapt it to his own purposes to help him survive. All of this is explained in the first few chapters of the Bible.

[Jenny in Atl]

Jenny, thank you for your frankness. I'll try to answer this question as best as I can. I don't know how familiar you are with the Bible, so please understand I'm not trying to insult your intelligence on one end, or assume you know on the other end.

 

One need look no further than the first few chapters of Genesis to see the first recorded worldwide cataclysmic disaster: the Flood, which, according to Scripture, came as a direct result of the sin of mankind. This flood makes all of the subsequent typhoons, hurricanes, cyclones, earthquakes, etc., look like child's play in comparison. Scripture is filled with countless other examples; I just picked out the one I figured you had heard about before.

 

Scripture is also clear that all creation--all of nature itself, not just humankind--was corrupted by man's fall (sin). Instead of living in paradise, mankind found himself thrust into a world where he would have to fight against nature--to tame it, to adapt it to his own purposes to help him survive. All of this is explained in the first few chapters of the Bible.

 

I have read most of the Bible, actually have gone to church on and off most of my life. But, I just can't believe God allows people to die everyday from natural events because Adam and Even shared a "pomegranate".

[genie]

 

I may not start murdering and robbing and pillaging, but I have no doubt that if the majority of the people in our society came to believe that there is no God and no reason to follow the moral code of the Christianity, we would have a drastic increase in murder, robbery, and pillaging.

 

Huh. Well that sure makes it sound like those of us who are atheists, yet not murdering/robbing/pillaging, actually are better people in our cores than those you describe following the moral code of Christianity. So you are saying that the only reason most people are not doing those things is because their religion tells them it's wrong?

 

 

The question still has not been answered: Why do we even need a moral code, why can't we just live by instinct as the animals do? They do perfectly fine without one, in fact better than we do much of the time.

 

But as Jenny asked (maybe in another thread), where do we see animals murdering for the fun of it? Do you know for a fact that animals don't have some sort of moral code? Is it not possible that they do, yet on a less intricate scale? (Less intricate to the extent that their species is less intricate than humans.)

[Julie Herbster]

 

I have read most of the Bible, actually have gone to church on and off most of my life. But, I just can't believe God allows people to die everyday from natural events because Adam and Even shared a "pomegranate".

Does "death from natural events" include all death? If it doesn't, then why separate death into categories? We all die sooner or later. What is your explanation of why people die? If it is "natural"--that is, if it is simply "the way of things," why do most humans fear it and try to avoid it? If it is "unnatural," what makes it so? I've shared my perspective; care to share yours?

[Elaine]

 

If you found out tomorrow there was no God you wouldn't suddenly start murdering and robbing and pillaging would you?

 

This isn't exactly along the same lines, but your question made me think of when prayer was taken out of schools and the following statistics. I am not trying to open another can of worms, just some food for thought and I think that kind of answers your question.

 

We might not see an immediate shift in moral behavior, but I think eventually we would.

 

**This link is to a Christian blog but she has statistics that you could find in any google search.:001_smile:

[Julie Herbster]

Huh. Well that sure makes it sound like those of us who are atheists, yet not murdering/robbing/pillaging, actually are better people in our cores than those you describe following the moral code of Christianity.

I find it interesting that you use the word "better"...a comparative word. Better on what scale? and by what standard? (I know the point you were trying to make; I'm not addressing that--just curious about your word usage here.)

 

So you are saying that the only reason most people are not doing those things is because their religion tells them it's wrong?

I don't think this is what she was saying at all...or is it, Virginia? I'm not sure who said this before, but I know someone--maybe even a few--mentioned that, since humans are made in the image of God, they all have a moral code "programmed" into them--a moral code that each of them knows they are incapable of following perfectly...a moral code that each of them knows they have broken.

 

But as Jenny asked (maybe in another thread), where do we see animals murdering for the fun of it? Do you know for a fact that animals don't have some sort of moral code? Is it not possible that they do, yet on a less intricate scale? (Less intricate to the extent that their species is less intricate than humans.)

This is a very interesting question to me; thanks for bringing it up. I think that to assume that, simply b/c we don't perceive animals "murdering for the fun of it," the animals must have some kind of "moral code" would be extremely hasty and suggestive of major generalization not only of terms, but also of observations. Let me ask you this: do you think that in order for a moral code to be in operation within a creature, some sort of consciousness of that moral code is necessary? That, in order to make a "moral decision," the creature must be capable not only of weighing various courses of action, but also of eliminating certain options and deciding on one course of action on the basis that it is the morally right one (not solely on the basis that it will get rewarded for that choice, as in a dog performing tricks)? It is commonly accepted that children are not morally mature; this understanding is reflected in the way juvenile criminal behavior is dealt with. When we say that children are not morally mature, we mean that they are not capable of doing what I described above. If human children (whose raw intelligence far exceeds that of adult animals) are incapable of doing this, then how can we suppose that animals can do it?

[muffinmom]

I have read most of the Bible, actually have gone to church on and off most of my life. But, I just can't believe God allows people to die everyday from natural events because Adam and Even shared a "pomegranate".

 

So...what if there really is a God? What if He does allow such things? If He really is God, with all the wisdom and power that He claims, would it be possible that we as mere humans might have only a teeny part of the whole picture? What if He knew some things we didn't? What if death is not the worst thing that could happen? What if, in fact, it was the most merciful option in some circumstances?

 

If there were a higher authority, would you be willing to consider that you are simply a human with finite knowledge and wisdom?

 

Would it be so bad to not have it all figured out?

[Erica in PA]

I've read this thread with interest, and I'm glad it's gone on civilly for this long! My question to Phred, Jenny, and others who define morality as "not harming others," due to the survival of humankind.... some of you have said that you have *chosen* this framework, because it makes sense to you. So do you feel that you are able to apply this framework that you've chosen to other people? Or are they equally free to choose a different one (i.e. one that does harm)?

 

If you follow that thinking to its logical end, doesn't that mean that you can't really say whether anything anyone does is actually *wrong*? I.e., can you look at a child molester or a murderer and say that person's actions are truly morally wrong? What if he hasn't chosen the same framework that you have? What if his framework is, "I don't care about the wellbeing of mankind. I'm going to live my life as I want to, and take as much pleasure as I can, without thought for harming others." Without an outside authority such as God, who is anyone to say that your chosen framework is the correct one, by which he can judge others' actions? If you've chosen yours simply because it made sense to you, isn't it acceptable for someone else to choose something different (even something that *does* harm), simply because it makes sense to them?

 

This sort of issue is why I've always been perplexed by the thinking of people who reject the idea of moral absolutes.. because I personally wouldn't feel comfortable deciding *myself* what is right or wrong, based on my own personal opinions, and applying it to anyone other than myself.

 

This is something I have been wondering about for quite awhile, so I hope someone will answer! :bigear:

 

Erica

[genie]

I find it interesting that you use the word "better"...a comparative word. Better on what scale? and by what standard?

 

Better than people who would murder, etc. if it weren't for their religion telling them not to.

 

I don't think this is what she was saying at all...or is it, Virginia? I'm not sure who said this before, but I know someone--maybe even a few--mentioned that, since humans are made in the image of God, they all have a moral code "programmed" into them--a moral code that each of them knows they are incapable of following perfectly...a moral code that each of them knows they have broken.

 

She said that if the "majority of the people in our society came to believe that there is no God and no reason to follow the moral code of the Christianity, we would have a drastic increase in murder, robbery, and pillaging." That does not sound like your interpretation. That sounds exactly like she is saying that those people are only refraining from those acts because of their belief in God.

 

This is a very interesting question to me; thanks for bringing it up. I think that to assume that, simply b/c we don't perceive animals "murdering for the fun of it," the animals must have some kind of "moral code" would be extremely hasty and suggestive of major generalization not only of terms, but also of observations.

 

I was making an analogy to her generalization. She assumed animals have no moral code. I simply asked if we know that for a fact.

 

Let me ask you this: do you think that in order for a moral code to be in operation within a creature, some sort of consciousness of that moral code is necessary? That, in order to make a "moral decision," the creature must be capable not only of weighing various courses of action, but also of eliminating certain options and deciding on one course of action on the basis that it is the morally right one (not solely on the basis that it will get rewarded for that choice, as in a dog performing tricks)?

 

I suppose we're speaking hypothetically here? Any creature's consciousness of some moral code would be in proportion to their consciousness in general. A more advanced creature would obviously have a more advanced consciousness.

[Julie Herbster]

 

She said that if the "majority of the people in our society came to believe that there is no God and no reason to follow the moral code of the Christianity, we would have a drastic increase in murder, robbery, and pillaging." That does not sound like your interpretation. That sounds exactly like she is saying that those people are only refraining from those acts because of their belief in God.

Gotcha. I think it comes down to whether or not you believe that humans are intrinsically "good" or "bad." Since defining "good" and "bad" is the point of this whole thread, I'm not sure we can discuss that concept here, yet. According to the Christian worldview, all humans are born sinners; that is, they are incapable of obeying their own moral code (the Creator's laws) perfectly...and, despite their best efforts, they fail to treat others how they themselves want to be treated. They love themselves more than they do others. Given two options, they will choose the one that serves themselves best (including pride in being a "moral person"). Self-deception hinders many from seeing just how immoral they are.

[genie]

Gotcha. I think it comes down to whether or not you believe that humans are intrinsically "good" or "bad." Since defining "good" and "bad" is the point of this whole thread, I'm not sure we can discuss that concept here, yet. According to the Christian worldview, all humans are born sinners; that is, they are incapable of obeying their own moral code (the Creator's laws) perfectly...and, despite their best efforts, they fail to treat others how they themselves want to be treated. They love themselves more than they do others. Given two options, they will choose the one that serves themselves best (including pride in being a "moral person"). Self-deception hinders many from seeing just how immoral they are.

 

Your thinly veiled insult has no real place in this discussion. I only addressed the "sins" of murder/robbery/pillaging that Virgina Dawn referred to. (Although, considering the many times God directly instructed people to do just those things, this conversation has taken an ironic turn.) I can assure you that I am not deceiving myself in believing that I am above those actions without needing a religion to tell me to be that way. I am fully aware of the Christian worldview on this subject, and I am certain I am far from being moral by those definitions. But as others have pointed out, those definitions seem to change as it becomes convenient, so perhaps I'm just ahead of my time. :001_huh:

[Greta]

I could go on with a multitude of other examples . . .

 

But your examples seem to be arguing against a claim which I never made. I said that evolution allowed for the development of a moral conscience. I never claimed that evolution made us all behave with kindness 100% of the time.

[nancypants]

While I have plenty of my own thoughts on this subject, I would just love to take this chance to direct both skeptics and believers alike to Tim Keller's new book, The Reason for God. His tone and demeanor are exceedingly respectful, thoughtful and sensitive about all of these topics that have been brought up here. I see that many people have already said all of the things that I'd want to say... and Tim Keller has said it all in much greater detail and so graciously that I won't even try to add to it. Whoever you are, wherever you stand on the subject of God/morality/etc. read the book. While he is gentle and honest, he lets no one off the hook. Believers are right on the hook along with skeptics which I found very refreshing.

 

Okay, that's all. As you were. Carry on. :tongue_smilie:

[nmoira]

 

No, I don't think this is what she was saying. Certainly non-Christians can "be moral." They just cannot always be *sure* they are acting morally, especially when duties or interests conflict. Christians may struggle with this as well, but that's when they consult the Bible and get that added guidance on particulars. I'm coming up blank trying to think of an example of what I'm talking about...sorry.

Ok, so Christians can be immoral OR sure they're moral, but non-Christians can only be immoral OR accidentally moral? If one is accidentally moral, how's that different from being amoral (in the sense of lacking a moral sense)? That would leave 2/3 of the world amoral including the 15% of non-religious folk but it's still here...

[nmoira]

 

This isn't exactly along the same lines, but your question made me think of when prayer was taken out of schools and the following statistics.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Isn't that also about the time that processed foods became all the rage? It was also the year the Mona Lisa toured the US for the first time.

[genie]

Ok, so Christians can be immoral OR sure they're moral, but non-Christians can only be immoral OR accidentally moral?

 

No, apparently non-Christians can also be self-deceptively moral, or, additionally, immoral but only due to their pride in being moral. Clear as mud? :cheers2:

[nmoira]

Ok, so Christians can be immoral OR sure they're moral, but non-Christians can only be immoral OR accidentally moral?

No, apparently non-Christians can also be self-deceptively moral, or, additionally, immoral but only due to their pride in being moral. Clear as mud? :cheers2:I think part of my brain just disengaged in a defensive measure because I'm hearing this as a song à la Pirates of Penzance.