Your Opinion Please

[slave2six]

There are many examples of physical facts that were understood by the ancients in religious terms. For example, the ancient Egyptians believed that the god Ra shoved the sun across the sky and that during the twelve hours of night (they were the first to mark twelve hours btw) Ra was working his way beneath the earth and facing twelve obstacles that they (the Egyptians) assisted Ra in overcoming by performing certain rituals. So, sixty points for figuring out the whole 24 hours thing but minus several thousand for making up a story to explain the stuff they didn't understand.

Now, in the same vein, I have heard all my life about all the great benefits of the Judeo-Christian morality system (to the point that other morality systems are given little or no credit) and I think that most people, when they think of morality, think of it in religious terms.

Is it not entirely possible that our whole moral code is very like how the ancients viewed physics. What I mean is that there are certain facts that are true. Societies can only thrive if things like murder, theft, and adultery are kept in check. In the past all of these came down as commandments.

Is it possible that we as a species will ever reach a point where we simply say that those things that are defined as "moral" are in fact simply the logical restrictions on behavior that are necessary for a society to thrive and that they should exist not because some deiy commanded it but because that is the only way that humans function properly?

 

[Sunstone]

In answer to your question, I think humans will continue to discover the consequences of various moral or ethical positions, but there might never come a time when one can say that X is categorically moral.

In other words, I think we will get more knowledgeable about what doing X is likely to result in. But we will not reach a place where we can say doing X is absolutely the right thing to do. We will always be in position where our morals are about "do X if you want Y to happen."

Here's an example. I don't think we will ever reach a point where we can say that treating people with respect is absolutely moral. But I think we will reach a point where we will be able to say with great confidence what are the likely consequences of treating people with respect.


On another related issue. I notice that your OP assumes morality is for the sake of others -- that is, for the sake of society. But ancient Westerners, such as Aristotle, saw morality as something that benefited both society and the individual -- both oneself and 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.

 

[d' skeptic]

For me, i do think that eventually humanity will recognize that morality is but a necessity. just give it a few hundred or thousand more years.

 

[3.14]

every piece of knowlage first starts out as an idee, religious idee's just take longer to change into knowlage

 

[Kathryn]

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.

Unless, of course, it was time for that annual sacrifice to Mithras.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it possible that we as a species will ever reach a point where we simply say that those things that are defined as "moral" are in fact simply the logical restrictions on behavior that are necessary for a society to thrive and that they should exist not because some deiy commanded it but because that is the only way that humans function properly?

I think we have reached that point already, perhaps for a long time. Belief in deities has probably hindered that realization, even.

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.

 

[Kathryn]

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

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it not entirely possible that our whole moral code is very like how the ancients viewed physics.

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.

 

[AlsoAnima]

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

Is it possible that we as a species will ever reach a point where we simply say that those things that are defined as "moral" are in fact simply the logical restrictions on behavior that are necessary for a society to thrive and that they should exist not because some deiy commanded it but because that is the only way that humans function properly?

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

 

[CarlinKnew]

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

:areyoucra Why not?

 

[AlsoAnima]

:areyoucra Why not?

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

 

[logician]

"Now, in the same vein, I have heard all my life about all the great benefits of the Judeo-Christian morality system (to the point that other morality systems are given little or no credit) and I think that most people, when they think of morality, think of it in religious terms."

I don't, in fact, religion is not about morality at all, but about social control and gaining believers to your religion or cult. Atheists can be as "moral" as theists, nobody has a corner on morality.

 

[CarlinKnew]

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

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.

 

[JMorris]

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.

i wouldnt waste my time. she is dead set on stereotyping atheists as nihilistic sociopaths. because, as you know, if there is no god, then there is no reason/meaning/value for anything

 

[wabisabi]

I think we have reached that point already, perhaps for a long time. Belief in deities has probably hindered that realization, even.

I agree. And I may even look into that book by Peter Singer though he does make me twitch a little.

 

[gnomon]

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

Actually, when there is no grand scheme of things to worry over (aka - create a religion about) then human life and society are one's primary concern and free to shape based on rational premises than supposed age old and often inflexible wisdom.

Then, there is the historical record which tells us quite clearly the record of religious morality or better yet it's lack thereof.

 

[Muffled]

There are many examples of physical facts that were understood by the ancients in religious terms. For example, the ancient Egyptians believed that the god Ra shoved the sun across the sky and that during the twelve hours of night (they were the first to mark twelve hours btw) Ra was working his way beneath the earth and facing twelve obstacles that they (the Egyptians) assisted Ra in overcoming by performing certain rituals. So, sixty points for figuring out the whole 24 hours thing but minus several thousand for making up a story to explain the stuff they didn't understand.

Now, in the same vein, I have heard all my life about all the great benefits of the Judeo-Christian morality system (to the point that other morality systems are given little or no credit) and I think that most people, when they think of morality, think of it in religious terms.

Is it not entirely possible that our whole moral code is very like how the ancients viewed physics. What I mean is that there are certain facts that are true. Societies can only thrive if things like murder, theft, and adultery are kept in check. In the past all of these came down as commandments.

Is it possible that we as a species will ever reach a point where we simply say that those things that are defined as "moral" are in fact simply the logical restrictions on behavior that are necessary for a society to thrive and that they should exist not because some deiy commanded it but because that is the only way that humans function properly?

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.

 

[Phasmid]

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

*rubs eyes*

Where are all you guys comming from? There are so many on here now.

 

[3.14]

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 lets recap:
1 you made a unsupported claim
2 you gave him credit for something
3 you made a unsupported claim about the future
4 you made a unsupported claim

 

[tigrers99]

There are many examples of physical facts that were understood by the ancients in religious terms. For example, the ancient Egyptians believed that the god Ra shoved the sun across the sky and that during the twelve hours of night (they were the first to mark twelve hours btw) Ra was working his way beneath the earth and facing twelve obstacles that they (the Egyptians) assisted Ra in overcoming by performing certain rituals. So, sixty points for figuring out the whole 24 hours thing but minus several thousand for making up a story to explain the stuff they didn't understand.

Now, in the same vein, I have heard all my life about all the great benefits of the Judeo-Christian morality system (to the point that other morality systems are given little or no credit) and I think that most people, when they think of morality, think of it in religious terms.

Is it not entirely possible that our whole moral code is very like how the ancients viewed physics. What I mean is that there are certain facts that are true. Societies can only thrive if things like murder, theft, and adultery are kept in check. In the past all of these came down as commandments.

Is it possible that we as a species will ever reach a point where we simply say that those things that are defined as "moral" are in fact simply the logical restrictions on behavior that are necessary for a society to thrive and that they should exist not because some deiy commanded it but because that is the only way that humans function properly?

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.