Your Opinion Please

[gnomon]

It is historical fact that we can have moral and thriving societies...temporarlly. Most of them end due to leaders believing that they do not have to be accountable to the supreme deity. Only to the people that may never know how he or she has secretly taken advantage of them.

Most of them ended upon contact with another culture with a different definition of morality.

Morality is not an objective concept.

 

[+Xausted]

It seems to me that it is largely a Christian notion that individual benefit must be sacrificed for group benefit, and that the ancient Pagans thought the two could be reconciled.

This is think is the first time ever I could credit you with making a stupid statement, even as close back as the egyptian era there where cause for this, come on Phil I expect better than this from you.

(edit, however I get your point with your post)

 

[slave2six]

I notice that your OP assumes morality is for the sake of others -- It seems to me that it is largely a Christian notion that individual benefit must be sacrificed for group benefit, and that the ancient Pagans thought the two could be reconciled.

And that was really the essence of my question. Will we ever reach a time when morals are not intimately tied to religion much in the same way that the way we view the physical universe has become less and less associated with religion?

 

[slave2six]

If I may, let me suggest that you read something about Utilitarism. Peter Singer, particularly - "How Are We to Live?" is a very good book, for instance.

Thanks! I will.

 

[slave2six]

I do not believe that to be the case. There was little in the moral code that was not extant elsewhere in the Levant. Exodus 20:13 admonishes:thou shalt not murder [ratzakh, not haroq] - the distinction between 'murder' and 'kill' is assumed. Religion seeks to provide focus, weight, purpose - not definition.

Yes, I see what you mean. However, you have to agree that morals today are not the same as in the time of Exodus (regarding slavery or capital punishment or even divorce). Some of the shifts in morals are due to the age of enlightenment (I'm thinking of slavery here) and not as a result of doctrine (Christianity in its essence not only allows but embraces the idea of slavery even to the point of elevating those who would make themselves slaves to Christ).

In Sandberg's Lincoln the president is delivering his views on slavery and states, "I have always thought that there is a logical explanation why slavery is bad; because no man wants it for himself. I can't think of any good think that no man wants for himself." This, to me, is the essence of morals based in reason.

Do you think that there is a progression of accepting morals based on reason rather than religion?

 

[slave2six]

Actually they believed that Ra WAS the sun, not that he pushed it.

Depending on what texts you are reading but that doesn't matter to this conversation.

No, It's impossible because you can't logical justify society being worth anything under Atheism.

Why do you assume that morals are not compatible with Atheism? I know just as many moral atheist as I do immoral Christians.

 

[slave2six]

Because human life, and society, is an accident, and thus unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

That's not very reasonable to assume. Indeed, the argument works entirely the other direction. For the atheist or humanist or anyone who happens to believe in no afterlife the importance of being a decent person is imperative at all times. "The only time that being decent really matters is right now." I think that many Christians and other religious persons have this sort of unconscious "out" that excuses them from being moral on some occasions because they believe that they can be forgiven at some future time. As long as that is the case, people I think by nature are more open to the idea of screwing up because they can always fix it later.

But that's just my perspective. I'm not an atheist, merely substitious.

 

[slave2six]

...religion is not about morality at all, but about social control...

Would you say then that religions use "morality" as a means of exercising that control? Communism is all about control as well but does not have the moral component as part of its arsenal.

 

[slave2six]

You could also read, "How Shall We Then Live?" by Francis Schaeffer.

Yes. I have (albeit a long time ago). If I recall correctly, it presupposes that God set up the moral law. I am wondering if it is possible to have society function morally without that presupposition.

 

[slave2six]

Absolutely not. God is not some cleverly devised fable. He created the universe and knows how it is supposed to work.

It is possible for us to reach that point but then God will have to destroy it because of its wickedness.

So would you say then that all the laws about slavery, selling your daughter if you are in debt, stoning people for being disrespectful toward parents or a judge are also inclusive in God's moral law? If so, why do you not advocate the return of those moral imperatives?

 

[slave2six]

It is historical fact that we can have moral and thriving societies...temporarlly. Most of them end due to leaders believing that they do not have to be accountable to the supreme deity. Only to the people that may never know how he or she has secretly taken advantage of them.

Communist Russia and Nazi Germany would be examples of this, I suppose. With Germany, it was the attempt to ignore morals altogether that was their undoing. With the communists, it was the attempt to force people out of their religions.

I am wondering whether the more gradual, thoughtful approach might lead to a society that A) Accepts that there are certain behaviors that could be called "immoral" that are wrong simply because they harm society (and the individual as Sunstone points out) and B) Accepts these as real facts rather than as a result of religious pronouncements. "Thou shalt have no other gods" seems incongruous with "thou shalt not murder." It has been seen that there are societies with any number of deities who hold that murder is wrong but if you have a society that holds to a deity while not forbidding murder then the society would collapse.

 

[slave2six]

BTW - Thanks for the excellent replies.

 

[AlsoAnima]

That's irrelevant when life and society are important to us, atheists or not. If your implications were accurate, all atheists would be suicidal criminals. You are obviously way off.

Just because something is important to us, does not mean it is worth anything. Fortunately, most atheists don't go to the logical conclusion of their beliefs and instead embrace emotions as a way of giving meaning to their life, which would explain why my implications don't mean there a bunch of psycho atheists out there.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Just because something is important to us, does not mean it is worth anything. Fortunately, most atheists don't go to the logical conclusion of their beliefs and instead embrace emotions as a way of giving meaning to their life, which would explain why my implications don't mean there a bunch of psycho atheists out there.

If it's important to us, then it is obviously worth something to us. How does theism make life more, as you say, 'logically' valuable? You believe your life is being judged by a god, and you have the possibility of an afterlife. Well, what is the 'logical' value of an afterlife? The value is emotional: eternal bliss. You probably value the afterlife for the same reasons that I value this life. It seems that you're also embracing emotions, which is understandable, because humans are emotional beings.

 

[AlsoAnima]

If it's important to us, then it is obviously worth something to us. How does theism make life more, as you say, 'logically' valuable? You believe your life is being judged by a god, and you have the possibility of an afterlife. Well, what is the 'logical' value of an afterlife? The value is emotional: eternal bliss. You probably value the afterlife for the same reasons that I value this life. It seems that you're also embracing emotions, which is understandable, because humans are emotional beings.

Actually, I value the afterlife because it allows me to learn about the cosmos until infinity. I'm not saying that it isn't worth something to a particular person, I'm saying that without the belief in the supernatural it has no objective significance. I apologize if I wasn't making that clear.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Actually, I value the afterlife because it allows me to learn about the cosmos until infinity.

Because you enjoy learning and understanding, right? I do too. That's emotional value.

I'm not saying that it isn't worth something to a particular person, I'm saying that without the belief in the supernatural it has no objective significance. I apologize if I wasn't making that clear.

How does belief in the supernatural add 'objective significance'? That seems to be a contradictory phrase. The only way for something to be significant is if it's significant to someone, to an entity. Maybe you mean significant to a god. That is still subjective.

 

[AlsoAnima]

Because you enjoy learning and understanding, right? I do too. That's emotional value.

As much as I do, I see it more as a obligation of humans.

How does belief in the supernatural add 'objective significance'? That seems to be a contradictory phrase. The only way for something to be significant is if it's significant to someone, to an entity. Maybe you mean significant to a god. That is still subjective.

Anything that is significant to God is objectively significant. However, I mean it in the same way that carbon is more significant than 'artifical' (I think that's the right term) elements.That is, there is a greater need for it.

 

[CarlinKnew]

As much as I do, I see it more as a obligation of humans.

So, putting this together: you value life because it affords you the opportunity to have an afterlife in which you will fulfill your god-given obligation to forever learn about the cosmos.

Why does god want humans to "forever learn about the cosmos"?
Why do you want to fulfill this obligation?

Anything that is significant to God is objectively significant.

Is god not a subject: an observer; a being which has relationships with other entities? If god is a subject, rather than an object, then anything that is significant to god is subjectively significant.

However, I mean it in the same way that carbon is more significant than 'artifical' (I think that's the right term) elements.That is, there is a greater need for it.

Carbon is significant to life, which makes it subjectively significant. If all carbon in the universe disappeared, the universe wouldn't care. The universe can't 'care'. There is no such thing as objective significance.

 

[AlsoAnima]

So, putting this together: you value life because it affords you the opportunity to have an afterlife in which you will fulfill your god-given obligation to forever learn about the cosmos.

Why does god want humans to "forever learn about the cosmos"?
Why do you want to fulfill this obligation?

I believe God wants humans to fulfill their perfect potential, and that includes learning all that one can about reality. I want to fulfill the obligation because it's an obligation, it's my duty to fulfill it.

Is god not a subject: an observer; a being which has relationships with other entities? If god is a subject, rather than an object, then anything that is significant to god is subjectively significant.

Now you're playing with words. We cannot know everything about the Deity, however we know that the Deity is absolute.

There is no such thing as objective significance.

Now you're preaching relativity.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I want to fulfill the obligation because it's an obligation, it's my duty to fulfill it.

You don't have to, so why do you want to? I argue that the motivation is emotional, just as you've said that the atheist's motivation to live is emotional.