You Don't Get Your Moral Sense from Jesus or Allah.

Kathryn said:

...I am not doing it for any reward - I am doing it because I believe God commands me to. I think it would be wrong for me NOT to help her if I can.

Click to expand...

Right, I understand that. Most religious people think it's not really a moral act if it's only to save your own hide after you die. But my point is that you feel compelled to do it regardless as to what the bible says.

Kathryn said:

...An atheist might also feel compelled to help her - I hope so. However, I can't judge why an atheist would do so - I can only tell you why I am going to do so.

Click to expand...

An atheist would help too. According to a survey conducted by Hauser and Singer, 97% of believers who were asked this question responded "yes, it's my obligation" and 97% of atheists said the exact same thing. The fact that the percetange of people who answer "yes" are exactly the same among both religious and non-religious is strong evidence that religion has nothing to do anybody's moral judgements.

The reason I brought the second one in is to show how people tend to ignore thier executive cognitive functions when making moral judgements. If you took the time to consider what Jesus would want you to do, then you'd probably agree that you have an obligation to send the money. But, since most religious people say "no, not obligated" (even though it costs less than the first scenario and prevents much more suffering). Again, non-believers answered in exactly the same proportion as believers (I don't remember the stat off the top of my head).

So, most people make thier moral decisions by a combination of unconcious moral faculty (an instinct called considered judgement) and an emotional response. While we do have the ability to override those things using reason (WWJD? for example) the survey shows that most people don't bother considering things that thoroughly, but instead react and decide without really pondering the options.

So, I'm not saying that scripture can't expand your moral sense, but I'm saying most people don't bother to appeal to it in their daily lives, even if they are devout believers.

Friend MSizer,

What does your scripture tell you

Click to expand...

The process of scripting is in progress.
What it states is that do whatever comes to mind but do so CONSCIOUSLY.
Allow CONSCIOUSNESS to guide your actions.
We are part of existence / consciousness and are simply vehicles for IT.
Love & rgds

MSizer said:

An atheist would help too. According to a survey conducted by Hauser and Singer, 97% of believers who were asked this question responded "yes, it's my obligation" and 97% of atheists said the exact same thing. The fact that the percetange of people who answer "yes" are exactly the same among both religious and non-religious is strong evidence that religion has nothing to do anybody's moral judgements.

Click to expand...

I am curious, did everyone in the survey come from identical cultural backgrounds?

Apex said:

I am curious, did everyone in the survey come from identical cultural backgrounds?

Click to expand...

Subjects were purposely chosen from among various cultures (including even New Guinea if I recall properly).

I rely on no god demigod or priest to tell me right from wrong most times it is fairly obvious. Where it becomes ambiguious is when I get a speeding ticket for doing 2km over the limit then I know God Sucks.

Cheers

MSizer said:

Subjects were purposely chosen from among various cultures (including even New Guinea if I recall properly).

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks.

I don't agree. Well, I get my morals from Gwynnie; but you weren't speaking to me, you were speaking to us.

I trust in god, but it is not the first thing I do, it is the last.

I don't agree that fabricated moral scenarios mean anything. When I encounter someone in need, I respond to the need first; the incidentals only after the need has past. I throw junk mail away. Hungry people spend their money on food, not on bulk mailings.

Your right in one extent, we get most of our moral judgment from nuture and how we were raised. Augustine, referencing Aristotle's Virtues that we do for the "eudaimonia" which is the good feeling we get from self effort, called this an excellent vice. We do good things out of a sense not wanting to feel guilty or be accepted in society. But Augustine also talked about "makarios" which is the blessing that can only come from God. This prompts an action that comes out of the teachings, which and I and Augustine believe come from a relationship with God. That relationship comes through His Scriptures, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by Jesus' disciples who had a relationship to Him. The moral imperitive in His scriptures comes from a desire to be more like Him. To be worthy of the name Christian which was given to His believers who died for Him. A believer does good not because he wants to earn a reward, like heaven, but out of a natural desire to please our Heavenly Father just as it is natural for a child to wan to please his earthly father. We love God and through Him we share a love for His creations, our fellow man. Love for our neighbor.

MSizer said:

Right, I understand that. Most religious people think it's not really a moral act if it's only to save your own hide after you die. But my point is that you feel compelled to do it regardless as to what the bible says.



An atheist would help too. According to a survey conducted by Hauser and Singer, 97% of believers who were asked this question responded "yes, it's my obligation" and 97% of atheists said the exact same thing. The fact that the percetange of people who answer "yes" are exactly the same among both religious and non-religious is strong evidence that religion has nothing to do anybody's moral judgements.

The reason I brought the second one in is to show how people tend to ignore thier executive cognitive functions when making moral judgements. If you took the time to consider what Jesus would want you to do, then you'd probably agree that you have an obligation to send the money. But, since most religious people say "no, not obligated" (even though it costs less than the first scenario and prevents much more suffering). Again, non-believers answered in exactly the same proportion as believers (I don't remember the stat off the top of my head).

So, most people make thier moral decisions by a combination of unconcious moral faculty (an instinct called considered judgement) and an emotional response. While we do have the ability to override those things using reason (WWJD? for example) the survey shows that most people don't bother considering things that thoroughly, but instead react and decide without really pondering the options.

So, I'm not saying that scripture can't expand your moral sense, but I'm saying most people don't bother to appeal to it in their daily lives, even if they are devout believers.

Click to expand...

I have the moral obligation to tithe RESPONSIBLY - not just to send money to every Tom, Dick and Harry who sends out a flier. So, no, I don't agree that Jesus would expect me to send money to that particular charity.

And if you don't think that devout believers actually rely on scripture for moral guidance, many on a daily basis (daily scripture study/devotions, weekly and sometimes sev times a week scripture study in a group setting, etc) then I submit to you that you may not be as familiar with devout believers as you seem to think you are.

In fact, a devout believer would tend to be MORE thoughtful about who they give money to, rather than less thoughtful, because they would be more concerned about managing the gifts God gave them (stewardship) and truly making a measurable difference in the lives of others.

Msizer, you might try this again, but not using a group like Oxfarm. It is too filtered of a place, no different in many eyes, than Benny Hinn the evangelist asking for our money.

However, I think the subtle point you are trying to make is, does the bible or Quran address levels of moral judgments found in each scenario and how to deal with them. And if the bible doesn't teach these levels, where do we derive our decision making ability from?

I think you could try a better approach though, and you might get a better response, or get people to understand better your point.

MSizer said:

To illustrate that our moral judgments don't come from scripture, I'd like for anyone to state how Jesus or Muhamed instructed us to act in the following 2 dilemma:

1. You are driving your new car and you pass a young girl with a bleeding wound in her leg. You don't think she is at risk of dying within a short time. Her bloody leg would stain the upholstry and would cost you $200 to clean. Do you have an obligation to pick her up and bring her to a hospital? Why?

2. When you get home, you have a letter from OXFAM stating that a $25 donation will save 50 children from fatal dehydration in Sudan. Now you can save 50 lives for $25. Are you obligated to donate? Why?

Why the altruistic pull in the first scenario with only one victim who will not die and cost you $200, while a lesser altruistic pull in the second scenario where 50 children can be saved for only $25?

What does your scripture tell you about this?

Click to expand...

You do get a moral sense in Dementheology. God is insane, and disabled people are his chosen people to dwell in Heaven.

I think if I got my morals from the bible, I think I would have been locked up long ago.

psychoslice said:

I think if I got my morals from the bible, I think I would have been locked up long ago.

Click to expand...

Probably. It clearly is a book that encourages mental instability. However, it says good things.

Paranoid Android said:

Probably. It clearly is a book that encourages mental instability. However, it says good things.

Click to expand...

Yes it does say good things, but for only the few who are spiritually discerned, if you know what I mean ?.

I'm confused!

This thread is in the Science and Religion section. Does that mean the statement in the thread's name implies that morals can be taken from science?

Well morals are subjectively taught ideas, that of which are influenced upon you in some way.
So regardless of whichever God or deity or whatever, morals are taught to you.

Some would say that morals can come from instinct, I disagree.
Morals are subjective, instinct is objective.
There is zero correlation, therefore this scenario...

You are born in the woods and raised to the age of, let's say, four.
Your mother, the only other human you know of in existence, dies and you somehow survive on your own to adulthood.
You wont have any morals, none, because they were not taught to you. There will only be your instinct to survive.

Morals are not designed into our brains like AI in a NPC.

By that logic you do not need a book nor a God to teach you morals, simply other human beings or something similar.
Those books of metaphors, fairy tales, and passed down morals are just unnecessary addons, IMO.

Peace.

MSizer said:

1. You are driving your new car and you pass a young girl with a bleeding wound in her leg. You don't think she is at risk of dying within a short time. Her bloody leg would stain the upholstry and would cost you $200 to clean. Do you have an obligation to pick her up and bring her to a hospital? Why?

Click to expand...

I pull my shirt off and put it over the seat.

I use the pants or other material at hand, to tie tight enough to stop the bleeding so she actually makes it to a hospital.

Clean the car myself at no cost.

MSizer said:

2. When you get home, you have a letter from OXFAM stating that a $25 donation will save 50 children from fatal dehydration in Sudan. Now you can save 50 lives for $25. Are you obligated to donate? Why?

Click to expand...

No. And I would not donate 5$ to teach them how to use contraceptives either, even though that is the correct thing to do. They actually have outbred their resources and willfully choose to breed to the point of starvation and disease.

Its sad and terrible people are this ignorant. Its a tragedy to humanity.




These hypothetical questions mean little as words are cheap and action separates the men from the boys in these cases.

Smart_Guy said:

morals can be taken from science?

Click to expand...

Morals are not dependent on religion or science.

outhouse said:

Morals are not dependent on religion or science.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they are

The same thing can have more than one source at once, you know. I believe morals can be taken from religion as a source, but my question is: can morals be taken from science? The answer does not really matter, as science is so very important and has its own uses just like religion, and the answer no matter what it is, would not hurt the reputation of science. Just to be clear that I'm not trying to belittle science, God forbid.

MSizer said:

To illustrate that our moral judgments don't come from scripture, I'd like for anyone to state how Jesus or Muhamed instructed us to act in the following 2 dilemma:

1. You are driving your new car and you pass a young girl with a bleeding wound in her leg. You don't think she is at risk of dying within a short time. Her bloody leg would stain the upholstry and would cost you $200 to clean. Do you have an obligation to pick her up and bring her to a hospital? Why?

2. When you get home, you have a letter from OXFAM stating that a $25 donation will save 50 children from fatal dehydration in Sudan. Now you can save 50 lives for $25. Are you obligated to donate? Why?

Why the altruistic pull in the first scenario with only one victim who will not die and cost you $200, while a lesser altruistic pull in the second scenario where 50 children can be saved for only $25?

What does your scripture tell you about this?

Click to expand...

Are you actually condemning two entire religions based on it including clear instructions concerning your hypothetical scenario? Are you suggesting that unless there is a pile of books 20 miles thick covering the surface of every planet in the universe which includes specific instructions concerning every scenario anyone could ever find themselves in that two entire faiths should be dismissed?

1. As far as your first contrived hypothetical situation. The bible does speak to it. It is one of the most recognized stories in the bible.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan
…30Jesus replied and said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 31"And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32"Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.…And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32"Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33"But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion,…34and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him.…35"On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.'…36"Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?"… 37And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."

This is paralleled in Luke and other places in the bible. Yes I should stop and help the lady. I do not see how any teaching could be any clearer. If God exists then we all have great value and worth. If God does not exist then the woman is merely another valueless biological anomaly and posses no inherent worth. If God does not exist I can find no compelling reason to help her. I have actually seen a woman on the Sadie of the road passed out I had a tug of war in my head as to what I should do (it is a long story), but I stopped and helped because the (as Lincoln put it) the better angels of my nature won out.

2. As for your second test (that you simply conjured out of thin air). I need more context. How much money do I have? What responsibilities do I have closer to home? Are there other factors involved (for example: some of these charities only create more people to feed). I have heard of some who began feeding a few hundred thousand starving people and a few decades later they had multiplied to millions of starving people. In the end I would have to pray about it.