Does religion dictate morality...another perspective?

[InChrist]

This is the most tired, shop-worn argument in the history of religious debate. There are an infinite number of things that nobody can prove do not exist. But because we cannot prove the non-existence of something is scarcely a reason to therefore suppose that it must exist.

You can't prove that Elvis Presley didn't morph into a naked blue space elephant, and is currently singing around the galaxy, and neither can I. I can't speak for you, but I do not accept that as any sort of reason to suppose he's currently crooning aliens, with his own built-in-trumpet!

And your Elvis story is as ridiculous, yet not as worn out at least. as the tired old parody and mockery of equating belief in God with belief in a flying spaghetti monster.

But like I said, I think there is ample evidence that has been presented by apologists over the years or which can be found when one sincerely researches the subject, which makes belief in a Creator God a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Howard Is]

we can see how evolution plays its part, in watching very young children, and even infants, who display some aspects of moral cognition and behaviours far, far earlier than they are able to reason about complex philosophical or religious beliefs.

Precisely.
I made that same point earlier, and someone said “no, that’s because of what they have been taught”. But that was not my observation watching children, including my daughter, making sometimes profound statements and judgements of human behaviour at a very young age.

If products of evolution - genetics and social behaviour - are not objective, WTF is ?

 

[Howard Is]

And your Elvis story is as ridiculous, yet not as worn out at least. as the tired old parody and mockery of equating belief in God with belief in a flying spaghetti monster.

And yet, no matter how many times the point is made, you refuse to see the obvious.

You demand atheists provide proof of the non-existence of something for which there is no objective evidence.

One million plus infinity plus one.

 

[Baroodi]

We've all heard it…"You cannot be good without God." (A very good, sadly late, friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman actually wrote a book on the subject, titled "Can We Be Good Without God?" (For the record, he thought we could, but he was a secular Jew and President of the Canadian Humanist Association, so that's what he would say, eh?)

But then, it occurred to me just recently, when looking at the stats of how many people change their churches, and even their faiths, and the reasons for doing so, that there is a conundrum to be answered. Even people here, on RF, announce on a fairly regular basis that they've changed their church or the faith.

So what's the conundrum? Well, people change their church for faith for, essentially, one reason only...that their present church or faith is not providing them with what they need. I have to presume that means in the sense of satisfying their spiritual needs, but also in answering their moral questions.

And once they find the church or faith that satisfies their spiritual and moral needs, then they feel quite free to fall back on, "you cannot be good without God, and the God of my faith or church decides what is good."

But hang on a minute! Doesn't that mean that they, themselves, have actually made the choice? Whose morals, and whose spiritual needs, are in fact in play here? Certainly not the "god" of their last faith or church. I think you all know where I'm going? How would you respond?

Not every body buried under a tomb is a saint or a person of piety

 

[InChrist]

And yet, no matter how many times the point is made, you refuse to see the obvious.

You demand atheists provide proof of the non-existence of something for which there is no objective evidence.

One million plus infinity plus one.

Well, it seems that is often what forums like this are about...discussing the same things over and over again.
There is nothing new under the sun.


I'm not demanding anything from atheists. Just saying that their demand for proof is just as redundant, if not more so.

While there may not be what a naturalist would consider to be proof, there is enough reasonable evidence which points to the existence of a Creator God, so that such a belief is rational.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How would you respond?

That they scare me if a superstitious belief and ancient book are the only things holding them back from being the next Ted Bundy.

 

[Jos]

Objective in relation to what? Morality is always in relation to the society. There is no absolute morality. It varies from one group to another. Muslims can marry cousins, Hinduism prohibits that. Christians generally (other than Amish) prefer one marriage, Allah permits four.
Am I correct, Bahais? Quaran, word of God, is it not?

I'm not a moral objectivist but I guess an objectivist would say objective in relation to reality ie. morality exists as something real independently of human experience. So I would agree with you, I don't see how morality would be able to exist independent of humanity or what an objective morality would look like.

 

[Jos]

I never suggested a universal moral code.

I'm sorry I insinuated that.

I suggested that having a moral code is programmed into us, because it serves to consolidate the group and enable effective cooperation.

Not everyone since socio and psychopaths exist

The details of that code for any given group can, and obviously do, vary a lot.

Right, so how it can be objective if everyone's moral compass is different?

 

[ArtieE]

I'm not a moral objectivist but I guess an objectivist would say objective in relation to reality ie. morality exists as something real independently of human experience. So I would agree with you, I don't see how morality would be able to exist independent of humanity or what an objective morality would look like.

You can have functionally objective morality. Evolution and Functionally Objective Morality - The Gemsbok

 

[ArtieE]

Well, it seems that is often what forums like this are about...discussing the same things over and over again.
There is nothing new under the sun.

I'm not demanding anything from atheists. Just saying that their demand for proof is just as redundant, if not more so.

If a person claims to know for a fact that some god(s) exist, it is quite reasonable to ask for his proof. If a person believes that god(s) exist you can't ask for proof only that he presents the evidence that makes him believe that god(s) exist so you can evaluate the evidence for yourself.

 

[Kenny]

Of course, Morality does not belong only to Religious teaching But since a lot of the teaching in religion is based on how to become a better morally as a human being i would say 95-99% of religion is based of the teaching is toward morality, Bt it is always the person who follows the religious teaching who must do the change in his or her moral standard, if they do not change toward the better, how can they gain anything from the teaching?
But of course, there do exist very highly moral atheists too without they follow a religion

And yet, one can only imagine the possibility that there is a God DNA in everyone, even atheists, that drives them to morality.

 

[Howard Is]

And yet, one can only imagine the possibility that there is a God DNA in everyone, even atheists, that drives them to morality.

Or common-senseDNA in everyone, even theists, which helps them tie their shoelaces.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And yet, one can only imagine the possibility that there is a God DNA in everyone, even atheists, that drives them to morality.

I would say that there are people with the better inborn quality of Moral, and yes often they do tend to be within a religion or spiritual path, but i do know of ver high morally Atheists too

 

[Kenny]

I would say that there are people with the better inborn quality of Moral, and yes often they do tend to be within a religion or spiritual path, but i do know of ver high morally Atheists too

Agreed that there are very high moral atheists... just wondering what/who drives it.

 

[Howard Is]

Agreed that there are very high moral atheists... just wondering what/who drives it.

Wouldn’t it be cool if there is some kind of transcendent intelligence which works to generating harmony in the chaos, and didn’t give a rat’s a** what anyone believed ?

 

[Kenny]

Wouldn’t it be cool if there is some kind of transcendent intelligence which works to generating harmony in the chaos, and didn’t give a rat’s a** what anyone believed ?

Let's start a new religion!

 

[viole]

The question, is an act immoral because a church said so, or does a church say so because the act is immoral?

Since churches say different things, even within the same creed and on some very basic stuff, we can exclude the latter, in general.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The question, is an act immoral because a church said so, or does a church say so because the act is immoral?

Since churches say different things, even within the same creed and on some very basic stuff, we can exclude the latter, in general.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Howard Is]

Let's start a new religion!

You didn’t strike me as being a masochist or a megalomaniac at first.
Unless your just making a business proposition ?

 

[viole]

Agreed that there are very high moral atheists... just wondering what/who drives it.

The same things that drive you. At least that is what I hope.

For, if losing your faith tomorrow would turn you into Hannibal the Cannibal, then, by all means, keep believing whatever you believe in.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The question, is an act immoral because a church said so, or does a church say so because the act is immoral?

Since churches, even within Christianity, say mutually excluding things, even about the most basic stuff, I believe we can exclude the latter.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

Agreed that there are very high moral atheists... just wondering what/who drives it.

Having a brain wired for moral behavior. Our Brains are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience