I know, I know. This is a topic we've seen before. But I'm hoping to bring a new twist to it.

There is an ongoing question of whether morality would exist if not for its religious basis. Most pro-religion people argue that morality could not have been developed if not for religion. Atheists and Agnostics tend to disagree and say that morality is based in CIVILIZATION rather than religion, and would have developed regardless of whether religion had existed or not.

I don't really know what to believe.

But I would like to make this comment. Perhaps it's a new twist, perhaps not.

What is morality?

When we think of morality today, we generally think of the "judeo-christian" (I hate that term) values that we see in the "modern world" (ei: Europe, the USA, Australia, etc.) Most Atheists that I speak to seem to assume that these "judeo-christian" morals would have developed even if Judaism and Christianity had never existed, because they are good, and just, and right, and therefore, mankind would have gotten to that point eventually, even without religion. (Or at least that is my interpretation of what I have heard them say. I could be misinterpreting their positions, and if I am, I apologize.)

But the fact is that this version of "morality" is not the only one to have existed in history.

In the judeo-christian moral system, the highest calling of man is to be good and kind to his fellow man. Call it the "golden rule", if you will.

But other moral compasses have existed in the past.

The followers of the Norse gods (Odin, Thor, Frey, Baldr, etc.), who in the USA are know as "Asatru", have a very different "highest calling". Their highest calling is to die in battle against evil... and for the very best fighters, to become the Berserker of legend... the unstoppable warrior. Their morality is based on becoming the best, most honorable, most effective, most deadly soldier/fighter/warrior they can become.

Definitely a very different form of morality. And that is just one form of morality of many that have existed in history.

The Mongols are another really great moral study... they were BRUTAL warriors that completely decimated their enemies, including destroying women and children. But they did so with the intent of bringing peace, law and justice to the lands they conquered. Their highest calling was to brutally conquer the world to make it a better place. They placed a moral value on being as brutal as possible to accomplish it.

Again, a very different moral system than we know today.

There was a particular Aztec cult that believed that the highest calling was to suffer pain willingly as a form of sacrifice to the gods. Their morality revolved around becoming able to willingly accept more and more pain. The more pain you could suffer, the closer you were to god. Becoming a human sacrifice in the most painful way possible was the highest calling in that cult.

Definitely not our morality.

If not for the existence of Judaism and Christianity to form the judeo-christian morality that we accept as commonplace today, what moral compasses would we have developed?

My point is that when those who support the idea that religion is NOT the source of morality and say that morality would have developed on its own absent religion, what do they mean? Would it have been the same (or similar) moral system we live in today? Or would it have been something completely different?

And if it would have been completely different, doesn't that mean that religion and morality ARE connected, and can't be separated as some would like to believe? Wouldn't it mean that morality cannot develop without a religious background to act as a petrie dish in which to grow?

I don't know if this is a good argument. I'm just exploring a thought. I'd like your comments on this.

Elliot

This is an interesting question. I looked at crimes rates by state and there seems to be more crime in religious bible belt states in the south than in New England and western mountain states. However, since there are so many other factors in crime I can't really say if religion is a major factor in morality and crime but it does show that areas where people are less religious can still be moral, and law-abiding people.

Yes, "morality" would still exist. Forget religion and look at laws: It is illegal to kill or maim someone... and illegal to steal from them...

Killing, maiming and stealing, etc. are "immoral" and therefore against the law in most places that I know of...

...

The above is only my 1.5 cents worth "short answer" to an issue about which volumes have probably been written :)

Yes, "morality" would still exist. Forget religion and look at laws: It is illegal to kill or maim someone... and illegal to steal from them...


Killing, maiming and stealing, etc. are "immoral" and therefore against the law in most places that I know of...

Again, in certain societies, those were NOT crimes. Like I mentioned, the Asatru believed that killing your enemy was a GOOD thing. The Huns saw raiding and stealing as just part of life. The mongols felt that killing the enemy in order to bring law and justice was a good thing.

Just because not killing and not steeling are the morals of TODAY does not mean that they WOULD HAVE BEEN the morals of today if they had not been created under a judeo-christian religious system.


...


The above is only my 1.5 cents worth "short answer" to an issue about which volumes have probably been written :)

Yep.

Interesting stuff, though.

This is an interesting question. I looked at crimes rates by state and there seems to be more crime in religious bible belt states in the south than in New England and western mountain states. However, since there are so many other factors in crime I can't really say if religion is a major factor in morality and crime but it does show that areas where people are less religious can still be moral, and law-abiding people.


Crime and morality are not the same. There are quite a few crimes that are not moral issues (parking violations being a case in point), and there are quite a few moral failures that are not crimes (adultery is a perfect case in point as well). I would even argue that there are times that judeo-christian morality is best served by BREAKING the law. (Certainly the people who saved Jews from Hitler's Nazis were highly moral people, but they were breaking German law by doing so.)

So I'm not sure that you can judge morality based on crime rates.

You are also assuming that "morality" can only be defined in the Judeo-Christian manner.

If the "Judeo-Christian ethos" had never existed... if instead the Western World had been dominated by Asatru instead of Christians... would things like murder, anger, etc. have been sins? They weren't sins in Nordic tradition. They were in fact, the best way to live life... killing your enemy and taking his stuff was how you lived life if you worshipped the Nordic gods.

If that tradition had dominated the Western World, would killing have been a crime? If being the best killer you can be is the goal you live for, would killing be a "sin"? Would it be a moral failing? I don't think it would.

And if it was NOT a moral failing, would it have become a "crime" in the legal sense?

Again, you are assuming that the moral scale we have today would have come into existence on its own without the existence of religion... specifically the judeo-christian ethos. I don't know that that is a true statement. If history had been SLIGHTLY different, I think we would have come up with a very different version of morality.

Or maybe not.

Elliot

There is an ongoing question of whether morality would exist if not for its religious basis.
Elliot

When you ask this question you also have to ask what defines religion.

Among the Australian Aboriginees, a stone age people who existed long before the judeo-christian morality began to arise (according to their legends)
There is a form of morality that defined who you could marry or even have relations with based on blood and totem. They also had a legal system which provided that an offender would be speared and placed outside the camp and an expectation that every thing was shared. You could say they were the first communists.

I think we have to examine whether religion gave rise to morality or morality gave rise to religion. The realisation that there must be something greater than yourself to whom you owed existence and therefore obedience to the law is obvious in the earliest peoples. Is this civilisation or religion.

Atheists and Agnostics tend to disagree and say that morality is based in CIVILIZATION rather than religion, and would have developed regardless of whether religion had existed or not.

Perhaps it would be wise to ask whether civilisation can exist without some type of religion. Certainly I would say that it would be impossible without SOME type of morality, and it seems to me that the nature of the Gods that are worshipped by different cultures reflect the moral attitudes of the people who worship them, not the other way around. In that sense it is very much a matter of circumstance. Morality first, and then religion, are shaped to suit the people who are to make use of it. Morality is, first and foremost, a tool for survival, and as such, people in different circumstances derived different moralities, different "tools" for survival.

When looking at society as it exists today, we see a bizarre mish mash, a conflation of moral ideas which is perhaps symptomatic of the nihilistic bent inherent in capitalist culture. Capitalist culture is all about promoting "wealth", in terms of "possessive goods". Notice how the fundaMENTAL movement within the church seems to place a great importance on wealth, telling it's followers that "God WANTS you to be rich!!", as if being rich were some fundamental pre-cursor for happiness or fullfilment, that neither of which are possible without an over abundence of "goods". Notice how the "economy" is seen as an end in itself, it never even occurs to economic dogmatists that the "economy" is simply a function of society, and not the measure of society itself. They never stop to ask of themselves, these self important embodiments of mediocrity, just what function the "economy" actually serves in relation to the society as a whole. They will the "great economy" at the expense of "the great society", on the feeble assumption that creativity, endeavour, and all the noble attributes of man are driven by nothing more than a will born of gluttony and covetous.

We also see the softening of attitudes towards countries like China. This of course is nothing more than a confirmation for those of us with more grounded beliefs regarding our view of "The West". The real problem with China, was not the oppression of the populace, which is still apparent, but rather that they were not wealthy enough for our more "enlightened" palate. Having addressed this situation some what, many of us now say to ourselves, "perhaps they are not so bad after all". There is nothing inherently "wrong" with taking this position, they have to a large extent been "converted" to OUR religion of wealth after all.

When you ask this question you also have to ask what defines religion.

Among the Australian Aboriginees, a stone age people who existed long before the judeo-christian morality began to arise (according to their legends)
there is a form of morality that defined who you could marry or even have relations with based on blood and totem. They also had a legal system which provided that an offender would be speared and placed outside the camp and an expectation that every thing was shared. You could say they were the first communists.

I think we have to examine whether religion gave rise to morality or morality gave rise to religion. The realisation that there must be something greater than yourself to whom you owed existence and therefore obedience to the law is obvious in the earliest peoples. Is this civilisation or religion.

Great points.

Thanks.

Perhaps it would be wise to ask whether or not civilisation can exist without some type of religion. Certainly I would say that it would be impossible without SOME type of morality, and it seems to me that the nature of the Gods that are worshipped by different cultures reflect the moral attitudes of the people who worship them, not the other way around. In that sense it is very much a matter of circumstance. Morality first, and then religion, are shaped to suit the people who are to make use of it. Morality is, first and foremost, a tool for survival, and as such, people in different circumstances derived different moralities, different "tools" for survival.

When looking at society as it exists today, we see a bizarre mish mash, a conflation of moral ideas which is perhaps symptomatic of the nihilistic bent inherent in capitalist culture. Capitalist culture is all about promoting "wealth", in terms of "possessive goods". Notice how the fundaMENTAL movement within the church seems to place a great importance on wealth, telling it's followers that "God WANTS you to be rich!!", as if being rich were some fundamental pre-cursor for happiness or fullfilment, that neither of which are possible without an over abundence of "goods". Notice how the "economy" is seen as an end in itself, it never even occurs to economic dogmatists that the "economy" is simply a function of society, and not the measure of society itself. They never stop to ask of themselves, these self important embodiments of mediocrity, just what function the "economy" actually serves in relation to the society as a whole. They will the "great economy" at the expense of "the great society", on the feeble assumption that creativity, endeavour, and all the noble attributes of man are driven by nothing more than a will born of gluttony and covetous.

We also see the softening of attitudes towards countries like China. This of course is nothing more than a confirmation for those of us with more grounded beliefs regarding our view of "The West". The real problem with China, was not the oppression of the populace, which is still apparent, but rather that they were not wealthy enough for our more "enlightened" palate. Having addressed this situation some what, many of us now say to ourselves, "perhaps they are not so bad after all". There is nothing inherently "wrong" with taking this position, they have to a large extent been "converted" to OUR religion of wealth after all.

I find one major flaw to your argument.

The people who are becoming more accepting of China, despite its oppression of its people, are those on the left... the very people who claim to be most against "wealth accumulation" and most in favor of "economic equality". The people most interested in seeing us in open negotiation with China are those on the Left of the political spectrum... the same people who are in favor of redistribution of wealth and who most decry "corporatism" and "capitalism" and "economic power". I certainly don't know any Conservative Right-Wingers who are accepting of China, and it is the Conservative Right-Wingers (like myself) who are the biggest proponents of capitalism, corporate freedom, and wealth accumulation.

If the same people who are "anti-capitalist" are the ones most accepting of China and its oppressive regime, wouldn't that argue AGAINST your point that reason we are more accepting of China is because of its wealth and economic power?

Elliot

The people who are becoming more accepting of China, despite its oppression of its people, are those on the left...

Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KA06Ad01.html)

From a Chinese perspective, Bush has been a good steward of the Sino-American relationship. Consider, for example, the Strategic Economic Dialogue the two countries began in 2006 under Bush's secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, the former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs and a long-time friend of Beijing. One key, if unspoken, agreement of these talks was that the US would mostly look the other way as China manipulated its currency, the yuan, to fuel its export-driven juggernaut of an economy, which has averaged double-digit growth during Bush's tenure.

The Bush administration also blinked as the central government continued to trample on human rights in China. The crackdown was particularly apparent during the buildup to last summer's Olympic Games, when Beijing did its best to eliminate any possibility that its international coming-out party would be marred by the embarrassment of political protests.
...
While other Western leaders such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed reservations about attending the opening ceremony of the Olympics, Bush always was and continued to be a great supporter of China as Olympic host.

The Bush White House has also seen China reach deeper into Africa for raw materials while at the same time cozying up to some disreputable regimes - for example, those of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan and President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe - with a no-strings-attached policy that prompted only muted concern from Washington.
...
All-in-all, China has had much to be thankful for during the Bush years. Even the president's biggest mistake, the war in Iraq, worked to Beijing's advantage, stretching America's military capacity and weakening its international reputation as China's continued to rise.

In return for its accommodation of Chinese interests, Washington won some concessions. Beijing pledged to share data on food safety after tainted Chinese exports caused death, injury and illness in the West. There was also an agreement to allow foreign mutual funds to invest in China's stock market. Moreover, although the yuan remains significantly undervalued, Beijing has allowed it to rise 21% against the US dollar since 2005, keeping the China-bashers in the US Congress at bay.

I find one major flaw to your argument.

The people who are becoming more accepting of China, despite its oppression of its people, are those on the left... the very people who claim to be most against "wealth accumulation" and most in favor of "economic equality". The people most interested in seeing us in open negotiation with China are those on the Left of the political spectrum... the same people who are in favor of redistribution of wealth and who most decry "corporatism" and "capitalism" and "economic power". I certainly don't know any Conservative Right-Wingers who are accepting of China, and it is the Conservative Right-Wingers (like myself) who are the biggest proponents of capitalism, corporate freedom, and wealth accumulation.

If the same people who are "anti-capitalist" are the ones most accepting of China and its oppressive regime, wouldn't that argue AGAINST your point that reason we are more accepting of China is because of its wealth and economic power?

Perhaps I did not explain myself well enough. I was not intending to turn this into a "Left vs Right" debate, my attack against "economic dogmatists" was aimed at those on both sides. I was attempting to show (perhaps rather poorly), how moral judgement has a tendency to shift in light of different circumstance, and point out that the prevailing moral spirit of "the West" is one that is based in "wealth accumulation". I see this as being the result of a capitalist CULTURE, rather than capitalism itself, and the idea that a society exists for the sake of the economy system, not the other way around.

Look at language as it is today. Words like "hustler", "shark", and "pimp", that were once considered as derogatory are now accolades. Is it any wonder? When one grows up in a society that holds "monetary wealth" as it's highest value, that equates the "pursuit of happiness" with "the pursuit of money", like that poisonous and completely inferior "philosopher" Ayn Rand, what are we to expect? The capitalist CULTURE promotes nothing so much as predatory instinct and mediocrity. Great works are accomplished through determination and a will to create, not some nihilistic and gluttonous "will for money".

On a final note, no, the anecdotal examples you cite, even we were to accept them, would do nothing to counter my argument. You have pretty much agreed that a fundamental shift in general attitudes towards China have occurred, however you have offered no other explanation for this shift. The only real difference with the China of today, and the China of twenty years ago, is that THIS China is far wealthier.

Perhaps I did not explain myself well enough. I was not intending to turn this into a "Left vs Right" debate, my attack against "economic dogmatists" was aimed at those on both sides. I was attempting to show (perhaps rather poorly), how moral judgement has a tendency to shift in light of different circumstance, and point out that the prevailing moral spirit of "the West" is one that is based in "wealth accumulation". I see this as being the result of a capitalist CULTURE, rather than capitalism itself, and the idea that a society exists for the sake of the economy system, not the other way around.

Look at language as it is today. Words like "hustler", "shark", and "pimp", that were once considered as derogatory are now accolades. Is it any wonder? When one grows up in a society that holds "monetary wealth" as it's highest value, that equates the "pursuit of happiness" with "the pursuit of money", like that poisonous and completely inferior "philosopher" Ayn Rand, what are we to expect? The capitalist CULTURE promotes nothing so much as predatory instinct and mediocrity. Great works are accomplished through determination and a will to create, not some nihilistic and gluttonous "will for money".

On a final note, no, the anecdotal examples you cite, even we were to accept them, would do nothing to counter my argument. You have pretty much agreed that a fundamental shift in general attitudes towards China have occured, however you have offered no other explanation for this shift. The only real difference with the China of today, and the China of twenty years ago, is that THIS China is far wealthier.

I don't know that I agree with your position. But I appreciate it nonetheless. You do make some points worth considering.

Elliot

and the China of twenty years ago, is that THIS China is far wealthier.

You mean today's China is wealthier? How do we determine a countries wealth? Isn't the people themselves supposed to be more above poverty level than below?
Epoch Times | China's Rural Poverty Line Far Below International Standard (http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-5/60453.html)

And yes, so many of the Chinese poor are working in factories with almost no income, and what do they make? Brand wear for the rich of the world.


About morality and religion, why do we assume that religion or faith or belief came after paganism? As per the judeo-christian faiths as you mentioned, wasn't the first man Adam a believer of the Almighty except that he got waylaid by Satan (lets not get into that topic right now)? Does not that mean that morality came with the first man who was a religion follower?

Regarding if morality will exist without religion,I don't think it would. I am not saying that religion followers are all moral, but the religion lays the foundation to be good, to do good, and to be moral.
Religion lays the foundation for what is considered right not in the eyes of humans but in the eyes of a Higher being,which I believe to be of a much higher standard than humans.

As Elliot mentioned, each culture brings with them different standards, what they hold as high morals change,which is what happens when humans decide the standard.

If we look at the basic of the Abrahamic religions, the ten commandments are the very basis of each belief.
I talk about the Abrahamic religions because I always believe religion came with the first man, morality came with religion and the Abrahamic faiths are as far as I believe revealed religions.

Just a few thoughts.:)

... but the religion lays the foundation to be good, to do good, and to be moral.If that were the case how do you explain people like myself and my children and my parents etc who have no bible, no church attendance and still exibit the same "foundation to be good, to do good, and to be moral"? I strongly believe that parenting has a lot to do with it. Those who have lost their way may need a guide in religion I can concede that, but it's not a requirement for all.

According to Wikipedia, morals are arbitrarily created and subjectively defined by society, philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience.

I found it interesting that RickJ said that Quote:


Yes, "morality" would still exist. Forget religion and look at laws: It is illegal to kill or maim someone...and illegal to steal from them...

Killing, maiming and stealing, etc. are "immoral" and therefore against the law in most places that I know of...





From where I stand, morality is absence in the law of abortion. The termination of a pregnancy, or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus/embryo is the killing or death of life. It is physical injury that degrades the appearance of the fetus life, and does steal the rights, and life of a baby. So morality by itself is flawed as is man.

What seems to be more apparent to life is, what comes to us instinctively from beginning. Why does an infant cries to be fed, in their instinctive behaviour? Where does instinct, or intuitive perception come from? The instinct of fear, and emotional intuitive behavior came first.

Without the added support of religion and God, that can come to us by our instinctive nature, we would lack religion that brought answers, and distinguishes our conscience (fear) of whether one's actions are right or wrong. We would be as the animals that walk the earth. And so we relate killing, maim someone, and stealing as animal like in nature.

Man's morals are arbitrarily created. And the instinctive nature, the intuitive thoughts of the heart, and mind can continue to balance man in a religious and moral path working together for the better of all mankind.

(Note: men and women have different instinctive natures, as do each of us different individually)

If that were the case how do you explain people like myself and my children and my parents etc who have no bible, no church attendance and still exibit the same "foundation to be good, to do good, and to be moral"? I strongly believe that parenting has a lot to do with it. Those who have lost their way may need a guide in religion I can concede that, but it's not a requirement for all.

Difference in perspective Need.

I believe that it is inherent in each human to be a believer in the Almighty,and that a baby is born pure in belief of a Higher being,with awareness of what is right and wrong.

And yes I do agree a lot has to do with parenting, we take a pure baby and feed it with messed up values and he/she will grow up to be messed up with a distorted view of what is right and wrong. And yes this can happen with religious following parents too.

But what I said is that the basics of religion is good,and I believe to be the basis of morality since the beginning of human life on earth.

Yea, it is a difference in perspective. To me my kids are not aware of what is right and wrong unless I teach them or lead by example.

Yea, it is a difference in perspective. To me my kids are not aware of what is right and wrong unless I teach them or lead by example.

I am aware of that too, I don't let mine do as she feels is right all the time;
That's a whole other topic I think.:)

Another difference in perspective;
I believe humans have a conflict of doing what the soul( I know you don't believe in souls) needs and what we want, which is where I believe the morality standards come in.

I know, I know. This is a topic we've seen before. But I'm hoping to bring a new twist to it.

There is an ongoing question of whether morality would exist if not for its religious basis. Most pro-religion people argue that morality could not have been developed if not for religion. Atheists and Agnostics tend to disagree and say that morality is based in CIVILIZATION rather than religion, and would have developed regardless of whether religion had existed or not.

I don't really know what to believe.

But I would like to make this comment. Perhaps it's a new twist, perhaps not.

What is morality?

When we think of morality today, we generally think of the "judeo-christian" (I hate that term) values that we see in the "modern world" (ei: Europe, the USA, Australia, etc.) Most Atheists that I speak to seem to assume that these "judeo-christian" morals would have developed even if Judaism and Christianity had never existed, because they are good, and just, and right, and therefore, mankind would have gotten to that point eventually, even without religion. (Or at least that is my interpretation of what I have heard them say. I could be misinterpreting their positions, and if I am, I apologize.)


Elliot

Interesting post ET :)


I see religion as a set of commomnly shared beliefs regarding god. : For example, there is a god vs there is no god. Both religions. I see morality as a set of beliefs as to what is "right" and "wrong." So people of different faiths or no faith at all may share a lot of the same "morality," or they may not.

A particular religion tells their believers what their god says is right and wrong, so morality is determined by the religion. Those who don't believe in god, can determine their own right and wrong. So this morality varies from person to person and perhaps depending on the circumstance. It may be determined by the time they live in and the society or the country they live in. THe difference I think is a sense of guilt - doing something wrong that bothers one's conscience. Religion may impose this guilt or others want to live guilt free and don't subscribe to any religious morality Still others may not have religion but guilt comes when they violate their own sense of right and wrong, and worse yet, others may have religion but doing wrong [ by their religious standard ] does not bring guilt.

In Stalin's USSR, he wanted to eliminate religion. It was his will that determined what is right and wrong, and perhaps power was his "right" and anything that threatened it was "wrong," thus millions were eliminated. Same thing in Mao's China. Were these countries under these despots civilized?




G&P

If that were the case how do you explain people like myself and my children and my parents etc who have no bible, no church attendance and still exibit the same "foundation to be good, to do good, and to be moral"? I strongly believe that parenting has a lot to do with it. Those who have lost their way may need a guide in religion I can concede that, but it's not a requirement for all.

You make a good point, NK.

But let me ask this:

If your family had lived in the Nordic countries during the 1st and 2nd Centuries, when everyone around believed in the Nordic gods, do you think that your family would have the same moral standards that they have living in Canada in the 21st Century?

I am not saying that people who are not religious are immoral people. That is NOT my argument. I do not believe that to be true. Some of the most moral people I know are not religiously affiliated in any way. And Bernie Madoff, one of the most IMMORAL people of the modern age, is a Jew and went to Synagogue on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.

My argument is that the morality that we believe in today was created by (or at least highly influenced by) the Judeo-Christian religions. And if the Judeo-Christian religions had not existed... if for some reason the worship of Odin and his sons had become the dominant religion of our society... our moral values would be very different ones from the ones that we have today.

If that statement is true (and I have no way of proving it, so this is all supposition), then it can be argued that morality, as defined today, could ONLY have existed due to the judeo-christian religions. Because if ANOTHER religion had been in its place or if there had been no religion at all, the result would have been a different set of morals.

Which means that religion is the basis of morality.

That does NOT mean that irreligious people can't be moral people. I would never make that argument, because I do not believe it to be true.

Elliot

In Stalin's USSR, he wanted to eliminate religion. It was his will that determined what is right and wrong, and perhaps power was his "right" and anything that threatened it was "wrong," thus millions were eliminated. Same thing in Mao's China. Were these countries under these despots civilized?




G&P

Moreover, were they MORAL?

Great points, ITB.

Elliot

http://health.howstuffworks.com/morality-located-in-brain.htm/printable

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/01/reinventing-morality-part-i-a-3-part-interview-with-evolutionary-biologist-marc-hauser-of-harvard/

Was reading these links, thought it would be interesting read for this thread.

Interesting Firm:

Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2555414#__secid731602)


There is a section in which they hypothesize that psychopathy / sociopathy has positive and negative evolutionary implications.



If "moralty" is primarily a function or lack of function of certain parts of the brain, can they be held to the same moral standards as the rest of society?




G&P

Interesting Firm:

Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2555414#__secid731602)


There is a section in which they hypothesize that psychopathy / sociopathy has positive and negative evolutionary implications.



If "moralty" is primarily a function or lack of function of certain parts of the brain, can they be held to the same moral standards as the rest of society?




G&P

Good question.

Is a sociopath responsible for his immorality? He is mentally incapable of making the same moral judgements that you and I make, because he has no moral compass and no emotional connection to the world around him.

Elliot

Ahh, now we are starting to enter the murky realm of "relativism". The term relativism, as it applies to morality, is quite broad. It should, in my opinion, really be viewed as an exposition of what morality actually is, rather than a "system" that prescribes what one "ought" to do. Elliot has already hinted at relativism when he wrote about the difference in cultures, location, time frame etc.

It might perhaps be wise at this stage to distinguish between the two fundamental ethical disciplines, "Formative" or "Meta" ethics, and "Applied"or "Normative" ethics. Formative/Meta ethics deals with how we distinguish between what is "good" and "bad", and applied/normative ethics deals with the best way of "applying" those conceptions, that is to say, doing good things whilst avoiding the bad.

I personally subscirbe to a form of relativism called "subjective emotivism". I hold that all ethical/moral propositions are essentially emotive statements. The proposition "murder is wrong" is in essence the same as saying "boo to murder!!". Likewise, the proposition "charity is good" is in essence the same as saying "hooray for charity!!". This of course is a "Meta-ethical" theory, and it is I feel the most useful meta-ethical theory there is, in that it answers many questions that other theories cannot.

As for a system of "applied" ethics, I follow no such system at all. Morality is for me extremely personal, and entirely subjective. I operate completely in my own self interest, however my "self-interest" extends well beyond my "self". I am, like Nietzsche, an "immoralist". I do not believe in "our" morality, I believe in "my" morality.

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."


Mankind is growing up. As the 20th century has shown, growing up isn't easy.

If that were the case how do you explain people like myself and my children and my parents etc who have no bible, no church attendance and still exibit the same "foundation to be good, to do good, and to be moral"?

Discipline taught by the experiences that the individual's instinctive nature, distinguished to the conscience mind in what was right or wrong.

Religion and moral law are both geared in setting rule of discipline. However we can learn instinctively by our fears what appears good and what appears bad to us.

The history of experiences that your parents and their parents have lived can effect generation after generation by the instinctive fears past down over the years. (Edit: YES by word of mouth, and what might be shown visually)

The history of experiences that your parents and their parents have lived can effect generation after generation by the instinctive fears past down over the years.


What possible grounds can you have for making such a claim? Unless you are suggesting that "fears past down over the years" are propagated through word of mouth, I would say that you are talking cr@p.

Edit: After reviewing your post, I now realise that you must be referring to "word of mouth", I offer sincere apology.

Ahh, now we are starting to enter the murky realm of "relativism". The term relativism, as it applies to morality, is quite broad. It should, in my opinion, really be viewed as an exposition of what morality actually is, rather than a "system" that prescribes what one "ought" to do. Elliot has already hinted at relativism when he wrote about the difference in cultures, location, time frame etc.

It might perhaps be wise at this stage to distinguish between the two fundamental ethical disciplines, "Formative" or "Meta" ethics, and "Applied"or "Normative" ethics. Formative/Meta ethics deals with how we distinguish between what is "good" and "bad", and applied/normative ethics deals with the best way of "applying" those conceptions, that is to say, doing good things whilst avoiding the bad.

I personally subscirbe to a form of relativism called "subjective emotivism". I hold that all ethical/moral propositions are essentially emotive statements. The proposition "murder is wrong" is in essence the same as saying "boo to murder!!". Likewise, the proposition "charity is good" is in essence the same as saying "hooray for charity!!". This of course is a "Meta-ethical" theory, and it is I feel the most useful meta-ethical theory there is, in that it answers many questions that other theories cannot.

As for a system of "applied" ethics, I follow no such system at all. Morality is for me extremely personal, and entirely subjective. I operate completely in my own self interest, however my "self-interest" extends well beyond my "self". I am, like Nietzsche, an "immoralist". I do not believe in "our" morality, I believe in "my" morality.


Where does this morality come from? How does each of us have it? Or lack it, for lack of or dysfunction in part of the brain. Is a personal morality , this relativity or subjectivity really just a nice term for selfishness or narcissisism? If so, then Nietzsche's nihilism is justified.






G&P

Religion and morality have nothing to do with one another. Some of the most amoral people are/have been highly religious and the most moral atheists.

I like what Bertand Russell said about morality being the result of conflicts of desire: "A man wishes to drink but also be fit for work the next day." It's always two competing impulses that governs our behavior. And morality evolves.

Elliot has already hinted at relativism when he wrote about the difference in cultures, location, time frame etc.


I'm not "hinting" at it at all. I'm saying it straight out... morality is relative to circumstance.

What is moral in peacetime is not necessarily moral in wartime.

What is moral to one culture is not necessarily moral to another.

At the same time, I think it is also fair to say that "our morality" is superior to that of the Huns and the Mongols. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with making a value judgement BASED ON OUR MORALS.

My only point is that, if Christianity and Judaism had never existed, MORALITY would look very different from the standards we hold dear today... and that based on that fact, morality IS based on religion. I am not JUDGING that fact either for good or for bad. I am merely stating it to be true, in my opinion.

Elliot

I'm not "hinting" at it at all. I'm saying it straight out... morality is relative to circumstance.

What is moral in peacetime is not necesarily moral in wartime.

What is moral to one culture is not necessarily moral to another.

At the same time, I think it is also fair to say that "our morality" is superior to that of the Huns and the Mongols. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with making a value judgement BASED ON OUR MORALS.

My only point is that, if Christianity and Judaism had never existed, MORALITY would look very different from the standards we hold dear today... and that based on that fact, morality IS based on religion. I am not JUDGING that fact either for good or for bad. I am merely stating it to be true, in my opinion.

Elliot

Gosh, I couldn't disagree more. I think our morality evolved in spite of Christianity and Judaism, not because of it.

Gosh, I couldn't disagree more. I think our morality evolved in spite of Christianity and Judaism, not because of it.

How so?

Inthebox made very pertinent observations about Stalin's Russia and Communit China.

Both were laboratories where the absence of religion BECAME the religion, and we know what horrors that created.

Religion can be and has been anything. Bothe Sacred and Secular history shows many cultures where religion embodied human sacrifice and sexual orgies.

The term god, without any qualifiers can mean anything. I am told India has a million of them.

What we are seeing in these posts is an exhibition of a committee attempting to determine which direction is North. On a very cloudy night and without a compass.

Now you have a choice. Do you arbitrarily point and say "North", or do you look to some book to use as a compass?

But which book? Which has credibility?

That is your homework assignment for this month. (Smiley here)

Inthebox made very pertinent observations about Stalin's Russia and Communit China.

Both were laboratories where the absence of religion BECAME the religion, and we know what horrors that created.

Religion can be and has been anything. Bothe Sacred and Secular history shows many cultures where religion embodied human sacrifice and sexual orgies.

The term god, without any qualifiers can mean anything. I am told India has a million of them.

What we are seeing in these posts is an exhibition of a committee attempting to determine which direction is North. On a very cloudy night and without a compass.

Now you have a choice. Do you arbitrarily point and say "North", or do you look to some book to use as a compass?

But which book? Which has credibility?

That is your homework assignment for this month. (Smiley here)

Here's the problem, Gal.

Which book you use will be determined by which book you have used in the past.

It would make no sense to use the Asatru version of morality, because it has no place the modern world. People today do not live for battle (unless they happen to be Klingon). Even soldiers spend most of their time trying to AVOID battle, not find it. So the "morality" of honorable death in battle has no place in the modern world.

It would make no sense to follow the Mongol morality of conquest for peace. Even aggressive nations like Iran and Iraq, who have long histories of trying to conquer each other, don't generally invade each other very often, and even when they do, the do not do so to bring peace and justice. The morality of conquest for peace and justice has no place in the modern world.

The only logical place to look... the only "choice"... is the modern version of morality that we enjoy today. And that morality has its genesis in Judeo-Christian values.

BUT...

As I have said before, if Judeo-Christian values had NOT become the norm, we MIGHT instead see "death in battle" as the morality of the day. And in that case, THAT would be the choice we would be making. That morality, which seems so alien to us, would be the morality that we would be choosing.

It is only because the Bible has become our standard for Morality that we look to it as our standard of morality. In another time and another place, we might be looking at Eddas and the Heimskringla as our standards of morality.

So... which compass we use is determined by which one "everyone else" uses, and by which one we have used in the past. In that sense, the choice has already been made for us.

Elliot

I agree with you Elliot.

I am comfortable saying that the Bible, from which springs Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam, has proven reliable over tha millennia, and that is why it is the most widely used "compass" for morality,

Additionally, the teachings of Jesus are far superior to anything else we know.

Then I must be a good christian without ever knowing it!

How so?

The bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality. It's no moral compass for anything.

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion.

The bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality. It's no moral compass for anything.

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion.

Cadillac - you are real bold in making such statements but you provide little reason or justification for your position... bold assertions with pithy comments like these give no insight into how or why you arrived at such a position. Why don't you take a few moments of your time to give reason and substance to it.

I'd personally like to hear what you've got to say but it's boring reading posts like this or the one you left earlier. And it makes you sound like a fool; but I have confidence that you are not.

The bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality. It's no moral compass for anything.

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

If you're going to quote someone, please reference properly, thanks. I think I agree with the point he tried to make when saying that, though.

However it's important to note that religion can also make bad people do good things, if only through the fear of god.

(Not that I really subscribe to the view of identifying 'good' or 'bad' people)

The bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality. It's no moral compass for anything.

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion.

Really?

What Bible have you been reading?

The Old Testament Bible gives a clear set of rules to live by. It also teaches morality lessons by telling stories of those who lived by those rules and prospered, and those who BROKE those rules and suffered harsh consequences.

The Israelites who had sexual relations with the Moabite women acted immorally. The consequence was a PLAGUE.

Elijah the prophet lived by the Law, and as a consequence, G-d protected him from attack by evil soldiers.

When David took Bethsheba by causing Uria to be killed in battle, the consequence was the death of his first child from Bethsheba.

Moses hit the rock instead of speaking to the rock to bring water. He disobeyed G-d in doing so. His punishment was to never enter the Land of Israel, to die in the desert.

All of these are morality lessons... those who do good prosper, those who do evil suffer the consequences of their actions. All of them teach the lesson that actions have consequences, both for good and for bad. The pattern of these lessons is clear throughout the entire Bible (at least in the Old Testament... being Jewish, I cannot comment on the New Testament).

Which part of the OT Bible do you believe DOESN'T follow that pattern?

Elliot

Really?

What Bible have you been reading?

The Old Testament Bible gives a clear set of rules to live by. It also teaches morality lessons by telling stories of those who lived by those rules and prospered, and those who BROKE those rules and suffered harsh consequences.

The Israelites who had sexual relations with the Moabite women acted immorally. The consequence was a PLAGUE.

Elijah the prophet lived by the Law, and as a consequence, G-d protected him from attack by evil soldiers.

When David took Bethsheba by causing Uria to be killed in battle, the consequence was the death of his first child from Bethsheba.

Moses hit the rock instead of speaking to the rock to bring water. He disobeyed G-d in doing so. His punishment was to never enter the Land of Israel, to die in the desert.

All of these are morality lessons... those who do good prosper, those who do evil suffer the consequences of their actions. All of them teach the lesson that actions have consequences, both for good and for bad. The pattern of these lessons is clear throughout the entire Bible (at least in the Old Testament... being Jewish, I cannot comment on the New Testament).

Which part of the OT Bible do you believe DOESN'T follow that pattern?

Elliot

Elliot - I totally agree with you. Judging by cadillac's quote (by Bertrand Russell, no less), the bible is morally repugnant because of its language regarding punishment and sin... probably the Law of Moses, where stoning was required for certain sins. These are the kinds of things people like Bertrand Russell point to when they charge the bible as being the worst societal evil facing mankind.

But I suspect that sentiment runs deep like that because Bertrand Russell liked his moral depravity and hated to hear anything that would call his life into shame... at our worst, people are very petty and hate when people tell them they are wrong.

You may or may not agree with me on that but I think it is why people can find it plausible to believe that the "...bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality."

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark "Federalist Papers": "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers".

The Supreme Court in 1892: "Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

American jurisprudence in 1947, for the first time used a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a "wall of separation between church and state" and was used to deny some specific religious expression - contrary to Jefferson' s intent with that statement.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

If you're going to quote someone, please reference properly, thanks. I think I agree with the point he tried to make when saying that, though.

However it's important to note that religion can also make bad people do good things, if only through the fear of god.

(Not that I really subscribe to the view of identifying 'good' or 'bad' people)

Thanks for the reference. I heard Christopher Hitchens say this while he was quoting Weinberg, but he left out the reference himself.

Elliot - I totally agree with you. Judging by cadillac's quote (by Bertrand Russell, no less), the bible is morally repugnant because of its language regarding punishment and sin...probably the Law of Moses, where stoning was required for certain sins. These are the kinds of things people like Bertrand Russell point to when they charge the bible as being the worst societal evil facing mankind.

But I suspect that sentiment runs deep like that because Bertrand Russell liked his moral depravity and hated to hear anything that would call his life into shame...at our worst, people are very petty and hate when people tell them they are wrong.

You may or may not agree with me on that but I think it is why people can find it plausible to believe that the "...bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality."

I could spend many hours I suppose digging out examples of immorality in the bible (it's acceptance of slavery and genocide come to mind) but I think you know where I am going with this. It all seems to come down to the supposed moral lesson of "do as god tells you or else", which isn't a moral lesson at all. It's a lesson of totalitarianism. It's a confusion over the distinction between morality and power.

You mentioned stoning people for supposed "sins"-- offenses toward the totalitarian god in the sky. That's immorality. There's no moral lesson there.

Other moral confusion (no surprise since it is coming out of bronze age Palestine): the 10 Commandments. Sure, only a fool needs to be told it's wrong to steal and lie. But where's the moral offense to covetousness? There's nothing wrong with wanting something someone else has.

Gosh, I couldn't disagree more. I think our morality evolved in spite of Christianity and Judaism, not because of it.

Please cite proof that morality evolved? I linked to an article showing what parts of the brain are involved in "morality," but tell me what specific genes are involved in morality and how over 10s and 100s of thousands they developed and what were the selective factors for them? Just a theory right?

Now if morality truly "evolved," how can we judge as bad, the actions of a sociopath, that does not have a developed part of the brain?





G&P

I could spend many hours I suppose digging out examples of immorality in the bible (it's acceptance of slavery and genocide come to mind) but I think you know where I am going with this. It all seems to come down to the supposed moral lesson of "do as god tells you or else", which isn't a moral lesson at all. It's a lesson of totalitarianism. It's a confusion over the distinction between morality and power.

You mentioned stoning people for supposed "sins"-- offenses toward the totalitarian god in the sky. That's immorality. There's no moral lesson there.

Other moral confusion (no surprise since it is coming out of bronze age Palestine): the 10 Commandments. Sure, only a fool needs to be told it's wrong to steal and lie. But where's the moral offense to covetousness? There's nothing wrong with wanting something someone else has.

Yes there is immorality in the bible, but bad behavior is possible by ALL people are at times good and at times bad, regardless of belief. David in the OT is an example, Romans 7 speaks of this also.

It is truly tyrannical to think that a "good" person will always do good, and a "bad" people will always do bad.

A truly tyrant of a God, would either not care enough of us to make his presence known, or just damn us all from the start. But the God of the OT and NT loves his people, to teach, to discipline and to use his power to save.






G&P

Yes there is immorality in the bible, but bad behavior is possible by ALL people are at times good and at times bad, regardless of belief. David in the OT is an example, Romans 7 speaks of this also.

It is truly tyrannical to think that a "good" person will always do good, and a "bad" people will always do bad.

A truly tyrant of a God, would either not care enough of us to make his presence known, or just damn us all from the start. But the God of the OT and NT loves his people, to teach, to discipline and to use his power to save.






G&P

No. A tyrant of a god would expect and demand obedience, convict you for your mere thoughts, conduct a 24 hour invigilation of everything you do and say, never leave you alone, never allow you to be free of him and condemn you to everlasting torment for not believing in him. This is the god of the bible.

On top of that the entire salvation myth is childish rubbish: god the father sacrifices god the son (never mind the convoluted nonsense of the trinity) so he can feel himself able to forgive mankind. Does that make any sense? Ah. No.

Without the contrast of good and bad, neither would exist. Morality wouldn't matter. If good and bad did not exist we would be unable to experience them.

If the ego were not so terrified of death, would we even care about morality? I believe that death is a reward, not a final punishment. If this is true then killing one another is the giving of a gift. This discussion is intellectual. Thinking is only one of our capabilities.

Morality does not spring from the mind.

Without the contrast of good and bad, neither would exist. Morality wouldn't matter. If good and bad did not exist we would be unable to experience them.

If the ego were not so terrified of death, would we even care about morality? I believe that death is a reward, not a final punishment. If this is true then killing one another is the giving of a gift. This discussion is intellectual. Thinking is only one of our capabilities.

Morality does not spring from the mind.

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good. One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

I could spend many hours I suppose digging out examples of immorality in the bible (it's acceptance of slavery and genocide come to mind) but I think you know where I am going with this. It all seems to come down to the supposed moral lesson of "do as god tells you or else", which isn't a moral lesson at all. It's a lesson of totalitarianism. It's a confusion over the distinction between morality and power.


First of all, slavery as described in the bible is not the same a slavery during the civil war era. A "slave" in the bible was a man-servant and emplyess, not a whipping boy. The Bible actually talks about the protections of "slaves", and the responsibility of the "master" toward his slave... including punishments for the master is the slave was hurt in any way. The morality lesson there, which you miss, is about the responsibility of an employer toward his employee, regardless of their relative status within the community.

As for "genocide", please keep in mind that the only group that was to be fully destroyed was the Amalekites... and that was their punishment for attempting genocide against the Israelites as they were leaving Egypt. Again, this is a morality lesson completely lost on you... the lesson that you reap what you sow.


You mentioned stoning people for supposed "sins"-- offenses toward the totalitarian god in the sky. That's immorality. There's no moral lesson there.

Actually, I didn't mention stoning. You did. However since you brought it up...

If you take a look at the offenses for which stoning was required as punishment, every single one of them was something that threatened the continuation of the Israelite people, either physically or spiritually. For instance, adultery, gay relationships, and other sexual sins were actually offenses against the Israelites' existence because they threatened the safety of women, threatened the ability of men and women to create future generations of Israelites, or broke apart marriages which are the basic foundation of Jewish life. To threaten any of these is to threaten the future of the nation. These were offenses against the NATION, not against G-d. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Similarly, idol-worship was a direct threat to the CULTURAL FUTURE of Israel. To worship false gods is to attack the Jewish Identity at its core. Again, this was an existential threat to the Israelite people, and was treated as such. Those who worshiped idols were stoned, not because they offended G-d, but because they were a threat to the Israelite PEOPLE. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Again, these are moral lessons that have been lost on you... the fact that certain actions ARE threats to our way of life, and that such actions have consequences.


Other moral confusion (no surprise since it is coming out of bronze age Palestine): the 10 Commandments. Sure, only a fool needs to be told it's wrong to steal and lie. But where's the moral offense to covetousness? There's nothing wrong with wanting something someone else has.

There is if it causes you to take ACTION to take it from him.

Oh... did you think that they were just talking about wanting the same car as your next door neighbor? There's no sin in that.

No... the problem is with wanting your next door neighbors car... not one like it, that specific one, and planning to manipulate the situation so that it falls into your hands. THAT is where the sin lies.

Wanting the same things that someone else has is actually a good thing... it motivates you to try harder, to accomplish more. The problem is when you want that specific thing (not just one like it) and are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure it comes into your possession, no matter how unethical.

A good example is a con man. Con men, the real pros, the "grifters", take pride in never "stealing" anything. Their victims GIVE them whatever they want. They manipulate the victims into doing their bidding and making the victim think that it is in their own best interest to do so, oftentimes without telling a single lie in the process. They manipulate situations. Con men are covetous people. They haven't "stolen" anything... everything they get has been given to them. But they are manipulators, and they are thieves nonetheless.

When a man becomes so desirous that he is willing to do ANYTHING to get what he wants... that is a sin.

But you missed that moral lesson as well. All because you are convinced that it was never there in the first place.

The Bible is full of moral lessons. The very things you point out as being immoral are the very moral lessons you are missing.

Elliot

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good. One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the Bolshivek revolution and the nation that sprang from it?

God, Bible, and all religion was abolished there, and the results are there in history for all to see. Human life had no value unless it was to the advantage of the state. Freedom did not exist. You charge that the Bible endorsed slavery, yet all citizens of the USSR, an Atheistic country, were slaves.

Is that moral?

Would you rather live in a Communist country, where no God is acknoledged, or in this one where 70% of the people say they are Christians?

Give us your HONEST answer.

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good.

Really?

After all I have mentioned about the moral system of the Asatru, the Huns, the Mongols, etc. you are going to tell us that the purpose of morality is for us to live in peace?

Pure BS. And demonstrably so, based on history. Morality and peace have RARELY co-existed. The only points in history in which they did are part of the judeo-christian moral system and history.


One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

Actually, you are the first person in this thread to mention G-d. Everyone else here has mentioned RELIGION and CULTURE as the source of morality. But you are the first one to mention G-d as the source of morality.

Note the OP: "Morality and RELIGION", not "Morality and G-d".

There's a HUGE difference between "religion" and "God". One is an entity. The other is a set of tools to try to connect with that entity.

What we are talking about is using those tools to develop a system of morality. YOU are talking about the ENTITY creating that moral system.

Seems to me that you are trying to prove we are wrong about something we didn't even say. None of us have said that morality came from G-d any more than any of us said that morality came from Odin or Budha or Ra. That's YOUR interpretation, and it is an incorrect one.

My argument, going back to the OP, is that without RELIGION, morality as we know it would not exist. My proof is that under other religions, different moral systems developed that were very dissimilar from our own system. Others have argued that in places and times where there was no religion, morality was either very different or non-existent.

Can you refute any of these points? Do you have anything to add to that discussion? Or are you still so angry at G-d that you need to harp on his supposed lack of morality (despite having had the morality of the Bible shoved in your face) to prove we are wrong about something we never even said?

Elliot

First of all, slavery as described in the bible is not the same a slavery during the civil war era. A "slave" in the bible was a man-servant and emplyess, not a whipping boy. The Bible actually talks about the protections of "slaves", and the responsibility of the "master" toward his slave... including punishments for the master is the slave was hurt in any way. The morality lesson there, which you miss, is about the responsibility of an employer toward his employee, regardless of their relative status within the community.

As for "genocide", please keep in mind that the only group that was to be fully destroyed was the Amalekites... and that was their punishment for attempting genocide against the Israelites as they were leaving Egypt. Again, this is a morality lesson completely lost on you... the lesson that you reap what you sow.



Actually, I didn't mention stoning. You did. However since you brought it up...

If you take a look at the offenses for which stoning was required as punishment, every single one of them was something that threatened the continuation of the Israelite people, either physically or spiritually. For instance, adultery, gay relationships, and other sexual sins were actually offenses against the Israelites' existence because they threatened the safety of women, threatened the ability of men and women to create future generations of Israelites, or broke apart marriages which are the basic foundation of Jewish life. To threaten any of these is to threaten the future of the nation. These were offenses against the NATION, not against G-d. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Similarly, idol-worship was a direct threat to the CULTURAL FUTURE of Israel. To worship false gods is to attack the Jewish Identity at its core. Again, this was an existential threat to the Israelite people, and was treated as such. Those who worshiped idols were stoned, not because they offended G-d, but because they were a threat to the Israelite PEOPLE. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Again, these are moral lessons that have been lost on you... the fact that certain actions ARE threats to our way of life, and that such actions have consequences.



There is if it causes you to take ACTION to take it from him.

Oh... did you think that they were just talking about wanting the same car as your next door neighbor? There's no sin in that.

No... the problem is with wanting your next door neighbors car... not one like it, that specific one, and planning to manipulate the situation so that it falls into your hands. THAT is where the sin lies.

Wanting the same things that someone else has is actually a good thing... it motivates you to try harder, to accomplish more. The problem is when you want that specific thing (not just one like it) and are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure it comes into your posession, no matter how unethical.

A good example is a con man. Con men, the real pros, the "grifters", take pride in never "stealing" anything. Their victims GIVE them whatever they want. They manipulate the victims into doing their bidding and making the victim think that it is in their own best interest to do so, oftentimes without telling a single lie in the process. They manipulate situations. Con men are covetous people. They haven't "stolen" anything... everything they get has been given to them. But they are manipulators, and they are theives nonetheless.

When a man becomes so desirous that he is willing to do ANYTHING to get what he wants... that is a sin.

But you missed that moral lesson as well. All because you are convinced that it was never there in the first place.

The Bible is full of moral lessons. The very things you point out as being immoral are the very moral lessons you are missing.

Elliot

I've not missed any moral lesson in the bible because the bible has no moral lessons. It's not a source of moral teachings at all.

You say it doesn't condone slavery, like that of the antebellum South. It's still slavery and it's still immoral, even if it is some kinder gentler form that you claim the bible supports. I don't care what sort of constraints on it there were. Are you seriously arguing that the slaves of the bible were not real slaves, were not subjected to involuntary servitude? Come on.

You mention that only a little genocide was perpetrated and then on the Amalekites, who supposedly deserved it because they had done it themselves. Again, are you serious? You reap what you sow, is THAT the justification for murder (surely every Amalekite hadn't committed genocide-- the little babies too?) Please.

Of course, I could spend a lot of time addressing the absurd justification you came up with for stoning- (any offense that threatens the continuation of the Israelite people), but should I really have to? Take the case of gay relationships (I'm gay incidentally). It was okay to stone gays because they didn't reproduce and threatened the continuation of the Israelite people? First of all, who said they didn't reproduce? Second, and most importantly, how do gay relationships threaten anyone? Are you saying heteros will be converted into gays by simply leaving gay people alone? That's insane. You say the human race will die out because of gay relationships? NONSENSE and you know it! I could go on about adulterers but I'm sure you see the point.

The reason for the bizarre moral code of the bible is the pathetic and irrational fear men of that time and place obviously had that, were a rigid moral code oppressive to women not in place (banning pre-martial and extra-marital sex), god forbid some guy might not know who is true biological daddy was! Oh horrors!

The bible is full of moral lessons? No it isn't. The bible is childish rubbish. It stinks. It belongs in the dark ages of a thankfully bygone era.

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the Bolshivek revolution and the nation that sprang from it?

God, Bible, and all religion was abolished there, and the results are there in history for all to see. Human life had no value unless it was to the advantage of the state. Freedom did not exist. You charge that the Bible endorsed slavery, yet all citizens of the USSR, an Atheistic country, were slaves.

Is that moral?

Would you rather live in a Communist country, where no God is acknoledged, or in this one where 70% of the people say they are Christians?

Give us your HONEST answer.

I'm not interested in debating living in the former USSR versus the US. That's not the point of anything I said.

How about living in a really non-religious society, like Denmark? Or The Netherlands? I could go for living in either of them.

Religion, religious beliefs harm people and harm society. They ought to have to post a warning sign in front of churches, "warning: entry into this facility and participation in the activities that take place herein may be hazardous to your physical and mental well-being." Too bad we can't have a federal law in the US mandating that sort of warning.

Really?

After all I have mentioned about the moral system of the Asatru, the Huns, the Mongols, etc., you are going to tell us that the purpose of morality is for us to live in peace?

Pure BS. And demonstrably so, based on history. Morality and peace have RARELY co-existed. The only points in history in which they did are part of the judeo-christian moral system and history.



Actually, you are the first person in this thread to mention G-d. Everyone else here has mentioned RELIGION and CULTURE as the source of morality. But you are the first one to mention G-d as the source of morality.

Note the OP: "Morality and RELIGION", not "Morality and G-d".

There's a HUGE difference between "religion" and "God". One is an entity. The other is a set of tools to try to connect with that entity.

What we are talking about is using those tools to develop a system of morality. YOU are talking about the ENTITY creating that moral system.

Seems to me that you are trying to prove we are wrong about something we didn't even say. None of us have said that morality came from G-d any more than any of us said that morality came from Odin or Budha or Ra. That's YOUR interpretation, and it is an incorrect one.

My argument, going back to the OP, is that without RELIGION, morality as we know it would not exist. My proof is that under other religions, different moral systems developed that were very dissimilar from our own system. Others have argued that in places and times where there was no religion, morality was either very different or non-existent.

Can you refute any of these points? Do you have anything to add to that discussion? Or are you still so angry at G-d that you need to harp on his supposed lack of morality (despite having had the morality of the Bible shoved in your face) to prove we are wrong about something we never even said?

Elliot

Okay, fair enough. You don't derive your morality from what you think god says, but from doing things you think pleases god (through religious practice). Is that what you are saying? That's what it sounds like. Because if you believe that it only serves to prove my point: that man creates his own morality. And what you seem to believe is consistent with what Bertrand Russell said about morality: a man may do good things to please god but he may do good things to please himself, or other people or for some other reason.

By the way, what's this "G-d" thing you do? Are you so afraid of your big bad immoral god in the sky that you are afraid to say his name ( I heard that somewhere)? Great religion. Great moral code. Believe that junk if you like, but keep it to yourself. Keep me out of it.

I've not missed any moral lesson in the bible because the bible has no moral lessons. It's not a source of moral teachings at all.

You've made up your mind, facts only serve to confuse you.


You say it doesn't condone slavery, like that of the antebellum South. It's still slavery and it's still immoral, even if it is some kinder gentler form that you claim the bible supports.

A "slave" that is paid for his services and who has to be taken care of by his "master" isn't a slave. He's a "man-servant". A butler, if you will. You can call it slavery if you want, but it ain't what we refer to as slavery today.


I don't care what sort of constraints on it there were. Are you seriously arguing that the slaves of the bible were not real slaves, were not subjected to involuntary servitude? Come on.

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. "Slaves" were people who took jobs as man-servants or maids in order to pay debts. They were employees. The exception to the rule was those captured in war, which were the minority of slaves... and THEY were under the same protections. But the majority of slaves were fellow Israelites who took jobs as servants to pay off debts. They were paid regular salaries, were protected, and where "freed" after a period of 7 years. If they chose to stay with their "masters" after the 7 year period, they were limited to only another 7 years of service (total of 14 years). They were actually forced OUT of slavery, not into it.

You really should read the Bible before you condemn it. You are stuck on your pre-conceived notions of slavery based on American history, not the facts of what actually happened in 1800 BC in Israel.


You mention that only a little genocide was perpetrated and then on the Amalekites, who supposedly deserved it because they had done it themselves. Again, are you serious? You reap what you sow, is THAT the justification for murder (surely every Amalekite hadn't committed genocide-- the little babies too?) Please.

Actually, every Amalekite HAD committed genocide, or attempted it. Did you think that it was only a few Amalekites who did this? It was every member of the Amalekite nation involved in the war. The men fought. The women were camp followers who supported their husbands and sons and fathers in their war effort. Their children were students of the fathers, learning how to commit acts of genocide as well. The entire nation was corrupt. And if Israel had actually followed through with the commandment to destroy Amalek, we probably would not be facing the problems we see today. It is the fact that Amalek survived the experience that led to the future of Israel's existence... it's destruction as a nation, its exile, the progroms, the Holocaust... all of it was caused by the survival of Amalek. If Amalek had been destroyed completely, as the Israelites were commanded, there would have been no nation that would have been brave enough to fight Israel for CENTURIES after that. The course of history would have changed completely. There never would have been a Persian/Babylonian exile or a Roman exile. Christianity would likely never have been born, because without the Roman exile, there would have been no need for that religion to pop up. Israel would have remained a strong nation with a strong land. The Holocaust would never have occurred. HISTORY CHANGED because Amalek survived.


Of course, I could spend a lot of time addressing the absurd justification you came up with for stoning- (any offense that threatens the continuation of the Israelite people), but should I really have to? Take the case of gay relationships (I'm gay incidentally).

Don't get all insulted with me. So's my brother. Your point?


It was okay to stone gays because they didn't reproduce and threatened the continuation of the Israelite people? First of all, who said they didn't reproduce?

Please tell me that you're not that ignorant of human biology.


Second, and most importantly, how do gay relationships threaten anyone? Are you saying heteros will be converted into gays by simply leaving gay people alone? That's insane.

No... what is insane is your inability (along with just about every other gay person I have ever met, including my brother) to understand that being gay threatens the CONCEPT of traditional marriage on which the entire Jewish cuture is based. If being gay were allowed, it would be a direct threat to the continued existence of the Jewish family, which in turn is a direct threat to the existence of Judaism as a religion and a culture. You may not like that fact, but it is still a fact.


You say the human race will die out because of gay relationships? NONSENSE and you know it! I could go on about adulterers but I'm sure you see the point.

Actually, I don't think that the human race will die out. From a purely sociological perspective, though, it will cause GAYS to die out. If being gay is a genetic thing (as so many gays would like us to believe)... something you are born with, then being in a gay monogamous relationship is DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUATION OF THAT GENETIC FACTOR. Because being gay, you cannot have a child in a monogamous gay relationship. The only way to reproduce is through outside factors. Which means that that genetic factor that makes you gay, whatever it is, ends with YOU.

That's not an argument against you being gay. You want to be gay, be gay. It's an argument that your being gay doesn't matter... because the next generation, if you produce one, won't have that same genetic factor, whatever it is.

That is, of course, assuming that being gay is something you were born rather than a life choice.

But getting back to the Bible, the Bible clearly understood what youy miss... that being gay IS disruptive to a culture at its most basic levels.


The reason for the bizarre moral code of the bible is the pathetic and irrational fear men of that time and place obviously had that, were a rigid moral code oppressive to women not in place (banning pre-martial and extra-marital sex), god forbid some guy might not know who is true biological daddy was! Oh horrors!

The bible is full of moral lessons? No it isn't. The bible is childish rubbish. It stinks. It belongs in the dark ages of a thankfully bygone era.


Like I said, you've made up your mind... we don't want to confuse you with the facts.

The lessons are there if you are willing to see them. I've already proven that they are there. If you choose not to learn those lessons, that's your choice. But don't try to argue that they aren't there.

Elliot

Okay, fair enough. You don't derive your morality from what you think god says, but from doing things you think pleases god (through religious practice). Is that what you are saying? That's what it sounds like. Because if you believe that it only serves to prove my point: that man creates his own morality.

Not in a vacuum, he doesn't. It has to come about in a religious/cultural context.


And what you seem to believe is consistent with what Bertrand Russell said about morality: a man may do good things to please god but he may do good things to please himself, or other people or for some other reason.

What Russel continues to be unable to explain is why different forms of morality have come into exitence in different places and in different points of history. If man comes to morality in order to live in peace with his fellow man, as Russel claims, why have we had so little peace in history, despite the number of different forms of morality that have been in existence? And why have those cultures that have been the most non-religious also been the most ammoral (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China)? Russel seems unable to explain these things.


By the way, what's this "G-d" thing you do? Are you so afraid of your big bad immoral god in the sky that you are afraid to say his name ( I heard that somewhere)? Great religion. Great moral code. Believe that junk if you like, but keep it to yourself. Keep me out of it.

It's a religious thing... you wouldn't understand. It's not about fear. It's about RESPECT.

And I don't have to keep you out of it. You're doing that fine all by yourself.

Elliot

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good. One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

If there is no religious, at least Judeo-Christian, influence on "morality," how do you explain the "peaceful co-existence," of warrior cultures, like ET mentioned?
Did the vikings, or barbarians, or Khan's mongols, or Alexander's Greeks "peacefully co-exist?" Their morality is based on victory, not defeat: on conquest, not submission.
Is it moral for one race to consider itself superior? Certainly they think they are "moral." Does that lead to "peaceful coexistence?" or such things as genocide? Let the history of humans speak for itself - Hitler, Rwanda, Darfur, all speak to "peaceful co-existence?"

How can an atheist like Bertrand Russel speak of morality? If we are chemical accidents, the results of millions of years of genetic mutations and selection, show me the link, the proof of a genetic basis for morality? ET is correct in stating it is a function of the prevailing society and culture, which in the USA, has a Judeo-Christian background.

If there is no god, then why bother with morality? Why bother with right and wrong, good and evil? One culture may determine that stealing is bad and should be punished, one society may encourage rape and pillaging, because to the victor belongs the spoils.

It just so happens that in the USA, we believe that stealing is morally wrong and are laws reflect that, and it just so happens that the first settlers and founding fathers were of Judeo-Christian background, and it just so happens that stealing is a violation of the 8th Commandment.






G&P

You've made up your mind, facts only serve to confuse you.



A "slave" that is paid for his services and who has to be taken care of by his "master" isn't a slave. He's a "man-servant". A butler, if you will. You can call it slavery if you want, but it ain't what we refer to as slavery today.



That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. "Slaves" were people who took jobs as man-servants or maids in order to pay debts. They were employees. The exception to the rule was those captured in war, which were the minority of slaves... and THEY were under the same protections. But the majority of slaves were fellow Israelites who took jobs as servants to pay off debts. They were paid regular salaries, were protected, and where "freed" after a period of 7 years. If they chose to stay with their "masters" after the 7 year period, they were limited to only another 7 years of service (total of 14 years). They were actually forced OUT of slavery, not into it.

You really should read the Bible before you condemn it. You are stuck on your pre-conceived notions of slavery based on American history, not the facts of what actually happened in 1800 BC in Israel.



Actually, every Amalekite HAD committed genocide, or attempted it. Did you think that it was only a few Amalekites who did this? It was every member of the Amalekite nation involved in the war. The men fought. The women were camp followers who supported their husbands and sons and fathers in their war effort. Their children were students of the fathers, learning how to commit acts of genocide as well. The entire nation was corrupt. And if Israel had actually followed through with the commandment to destroy Amalek, we probably would not be facing the problems we see today. It is the fact that Amalek survived the experience that led to the future of Israel's existence... it's destruction as a nation, its exile, the progroms, the Holocaust... all of it was caused by the survival of Amalek. If Amalek had been destroyed completely, as the Israelites were commanded, there would have been no nation that would have been brave enough to fight Israel for CENTURIES after that. The course of history would have changed completely. There never would have been a Persian/Babylonian exile or a Roman exile. Christianity would likely never have been born, because without the Roman exile, there would have been no need for that religion to pop up. Israel would have remained a strong nation with a strong land. The Holocaust would never have occured. HISTORY CHANGED because Amalek survived.



Don't get all insulted with me. So's my brother. Your point?



Please tell me that you're not that ignorant of human biology.



No... what is insane is your inability (along with just about every other gay person I have ever met, including my brother) to understand that being gay threatens the CONCEPT of traditional marriage on which the entire Jewish cuture is based. If being gay were allowed, it would be a direct threat to the continued existence of the Jewish family, which in turn is a direct threat to the existence of Judaism as a religion and a culture. You may not like that fact, but it is still a fact.



Actually, I don't think that the human race will die out. From a purely sociological perspective, though, it will cause GAYS to die out. If being gay is a genetic thing (as so many gays would like us to believe)... something you are born with, then being in a gay monogamous relationship is DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUATION OF THAT GENETIC FACTOR. Because being gay, you cannot have a child in a monogamous gay relationship. The only way to reproduce is through outside factors. Which means that that genetic factor that makes you gay, whatever it is, ends with YOU.

That's not an argument against you being gay. You want to be gay, be gay. It's an argument that your being gay doesn't matter... because the next generation, if you produce one, won't have that same genetic factor, whatever it is.

That is, of course, assuming that being gay is something you were born rather than a life choice.

But getting back to the Bible, the Bible clearly understood what youy miss... that being gay IS disruptive to a culture at its most basic levels.




Like I said, you've made up your mind... we don't want to confuse you with the facts.

The lessons are there if you are willing to see them. I've already proven that they are there. If you choose not to learn those lessons, that's your choice. But don't try to argue that they aren't there.

Elliot

It's amazing how homophobia, like other forms of biogry and prejudice. Compels people to believe the most ridiculous things. The first is that gay people don't have offspring. Accoding to some fairly good statistics, something like 24% of gay men were formally married (to women) and amongst them, a good percentage had children. Why? Partly because societal pressures in many places force men into unnatural opposite sex relationships (religion has done a pretty good job of coercing gays and lesbians into trying to be someone or something they are not). Lesbians probably have an even higher rate of childbearing, whether it's through artificial insemination or natural means. So the idea that gay people don't have kids? Untrue. Second, even if gay people didn't have kids, how are they any different in that respect than heteros who, for whatever reason, remain childless?

How do gay relationships (or gay marriage) threaten anybody or anything? You actually never explained this, but merely made the assertion. What, you think it's unseemly for a same sex couple to show affection in public? Is that it? I've already mentioned baby-making, so that can't be the problem. Not seriously. What else is there? You cannot convert a straight person into being gay any more than you can convert a gay person into being straight. So there's no threat that being gay will "catch on" and gain converts, like some religion. So again, what threat are you talking about?

Then of course there's your great bible. It mentions murdering gay people (among others of course). And you wonder why so many gay people want nothing to do with it? If it taught white supremacy would it be a surprise if people of African descent wanted nothing to do with it?

The problem with the bible is that it views the world as being something it simply is not. It presents a distorted and incorrest view of reality. In essence, it teaches that gay people do not exist, instead equating us with adulterers, prostitutes, thieves-- people who have picked up bad habits and only need to change. Wrong. Being gay is a part of our being. It's what makes us who were are. It's normal for us. It's healthy for us to accept being gay, to celebrate it and when we do we thrive. When religious homophobic bigots reading their bibles tell us we are sinners, or doing wrong, it attacks the very essence of who we are. Nothing could be more of an assault, nothing could be more personal.

That the bible is childish rubbish, not a source of morality but an expression of barbarism and immorality, that it's a fairytale invented by ignorant sheepherders in the Middle East who thought the earth was flat should be obvious.

There was one other thing I wanted to leave you with. You said,

"If being gay is a genetic thing (as so many gays would like us to believe)... something you are born with, then being in a gay monogamous relationship is DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUATION OF THAT GENETIC FACTOR. Because being gay, you cannot have a child in a monogamous gay relationship. The only way to reproduce is through outside factors. Which means that that genetic factor that makes you gay, whatever it is, ends with YOU."

That's an odd comment. It reminds of a T-shirt I saw recently in a store in the Castro (the well-known gay neighborhood in San Francisco): "Homosexuals don't create homosexuals, heterosexuals do." Very true. My mom and dad were straight.

But let me elaborate a little. First your argument makes a false assumption. Gay people--maybe most-- do not say that homosexuality is solely the result of genetics. No one knows what causes homosexuality and no one knows what causes heterosexuality. That's the problem. That there is a genetic component is fairly well extablished from identical twin studies (where one identical twin is gay the other has a 50% chance of also being gay), but there are apparently co-factors as well. Those studies of idential twins show that genetics is a strong determining factor, but not the exclusive cause.What this means is that heterosexual people are very likely to and in fact probably in the vast majority of cases produce homosexual children. It doesn't take a gay person to produce another gay person. The genetic factor ( as you call it) that you say makes me gay (or you hypothetically say makes me gay) does not end with me. No. Heteros make gay people and always have. That's why there have always been and always will be gay men and women from every culture and place in the world.

You said, "But getting back to the Bible, the Bible clearly understood what youy miss... that being gay IS disruptive to a culture at its most basic levels."

No. I'd say that the bible is disruptive to being gay in any culture at the most basic levels, and the bible is false on top of that, which gives reason for its repudiation.

First of all, homosexuals BIOLOGICALLY cannot conceive children through an act of HOMOSEXUALITY.

A gay man can gay man can have children by having HETEROSEXUAL intercourse with a woman. A lesbian may conceive by in-vitro fertilization or having heterosexual intercourse, but 2 women cannot conceive biologically. Homosexuals can have children by adoption, where that is legal.

The bible does say say homosexuality is a sin, but so are a number of other things. The NT states Jesus came for sinners. So if gays are sinners, according to the standards of the 10 commandments, they have plenty of company. :) In the OT, the chosen people are often sinning, then punished, then forgiven, always chosen, always loved by God. King David is a prime example.

It is wrong for bible believers to single out one sin, a sin they may not have trouble with, an ignore their own sins. What do you think of such things as, turn the other cheek, or love your enemies: these things are in the bible.




G&P

First of all, homosexuals BIOLOGICALLY cannot conceive children through an act of HOMOSEXUALITY.

A gay man can gay man can have children by having HETEROSEXUAL intercourse with a woman. A lesbian may conceive by in-vitro fertilization or having heterosexual intercourse, but 2 women cannot conceive biologically. Homosexuals can have children by adoption, where that is legal.

The bible does say say homosexuality is a sin, but so are a number of other things. The NT states Jesus came for sinners. So if gays are sinners, according to the standards of the 10 commandments, they have plenty of company. :) In the OT, the chosen people are often sinning, then punished, then forgiven, always chosen, always loved by God. King David is a prime example.

It is wrong for bible believers to single out one sin, a sin they may not have trouble with, an ignore their own sins. What do you think of such things as, turn the other cheek, or love your enemies: these things are in the bible.




G&P

You said: First of all, homosexuals BIOLOGICALLY cannot conceive children through an act of HOMOSEXUALITY.

Okay. So what? Is that all sex is for, baby-making? That's not the way any heteros I ever ran into approached it. In fact, most heteros I know go to great extremes to be able to have sex without the baby-making part or risk thereof. So, what is all of that suppose to mean? Are they sinners because of that, are they committing an abomination as a result? (I think the Catholic Church use to say that--maybe still does). Dumb argument, hypocritical point of view. A banal comment.


Homosexuality is not a sin, it's a state of being. Calling it a sin is like saying it's a sin to have dark skin, or be of African ancestry. It's about as stupid as that.

Homosexual sex is a choice, being black is not.
Adultery or fornication is a choice, also sins.
Get it?


G&P

I find one major flaw to your argument.

The people who are becoming more accepting of China, despite its oppression of its people, are those on the left... the very people who claim to be most against "wealth accumulation" and most in favor of "economic equality". The people most interested in seeing us in open negotiation with China are those on the Left of the political spectrum... the same people who are in favor of redistribution of wealth and who most decry "corporatism" and "capitalism" and "economic power". I certainly don't know any Conservative Right-Wingers who are accepting of China, and it is the Conservative Right-Wingers (like myself) who are the biggest proponents of capitalism, corporate freedom, and wealth accumulation.

If the same people who are "anti-capitalist" are the ones most accepting of China and its oppressive regime, wouldn't that argue AGAINST your point that reason we are more accepting of China is because of its wealth and economic power?

Elliot

You will not change attitudes in China by aggressively opposing them, it is only when you have dialogue that you can negotiate change. I have been to China, it is like any other place, keep on the right side of the law and no one will bother you. You and your right wingers would foster a picture of people being beaten up in the streets and coerced by the police. I saw no indications of that despite extensive travel, nor are they anti-capitalist, but just as eager as you to make money through commerce. What I did see is a number of people who might live at a lower standard, but then who is to say we must all live in tidy suburbs with two cars in the garage. It may take them another century for all citizens to enjoy a high standard but it is on their agenda and they don't have the need for political posturing to slow them down so prevalent in the west.

It is hard lesson to learn that not all people have the same aspirations as you do to wealth and that wealth alone cannot see your point of view prevail, so do more to deal with poverty and disadvantage in your own land and then you might have the right to speak to the Chinese but by then they may be giving you lessons in human rights..

Homosexual sex is a choice, being black is not.
Adultery or fornication is a choice, also sins.
Get it?


G&P

Heterosexual sex is a choice too. So what's the point? Being gay is a sexual orientation, like being straight. It's a state of being. The point is you have no point. You're expressing bigotry and prejudice.

Homosexual sex is a choice, being black is not.
Adultery or fornication is a choice, also sins.
Get it?


G&P

Homosexuals rarely feel that their sexual orientation is a choice. If it is not a choice for them and a sin to you, then it is exactly the same as being born black. Homosexual sex is a choice. Bigotry is a choice. Being judgemental is a choice.

Homosexuals rarely feel that their sexual orientation is a choice. If it is not a choice for them and a sin to you, then it is exactly the same as being born black. Homosexual sex is a choice. Bigotry is a choice. Being judgemental is a choice.

I think that was well-said. My sexual orientation (homosexual) was no choice for me. Not only that, it is probably the most defining character feature I possess as it is for every gay person, just the same way as being heterosexual is a defining feature of those who are straight. In other words, if I were not gay I'd be a completely different individual (and I don't wish to be different by the way). To call that nature "sin" is to make a direct and very personal attack on me and what makes me me. So in that sense it very much is like an attack on a person because of their color.

Homosexuality is not a sin, it's a state of being. Calling it a sin is like saying it's a sin to have dark skin, or be of African ancestry. It's about as stupid as that."...


Heterosexual sex is a choice too. So what's the point? Being gay is a sexual orientation, like being straight. It's a state of being. The point is you have no point. You're expressing bigotry and prejudice....


I think that was well-said. My sexual orientation (homosexual) was no choice for me. Not only that, it is probably the most defining character feature I possess as it is for every gay person, just the same way as being heterosexual is a defining feature of those who are straight. In other words, if I were not gay I'd be a completely different individual (and I don't wish to be different by the way). To call that nature "sin" is to make a direct and very personal attack on me and what makes me me. So in that sense it very much is like an attack on a person because of their color



Cadillac,

So is sex, heterosexual or homosexual, an orientation? A choice?
a "state of being?" Is someone's skin color, race really, an orientation, a choice, or a "state of being?" BTW, I never equated skin color to sin or not, you made that analogy. I never stated being a particular skin color was a sin or not. Am I being bigoted or prejudiced? I did state that some heterosexual "choices" like fornication and adultery are sins also. I bet you would call me a sinner if I were to have a sexual orientation, or choose to have sex with someone other than my significant other.

So you speak for all people in stating that their sexual orientation is their "most defining character feature." Hmmm, when I pass someone on the street, I don't even know their sexual orientation 99% of the time. I do notice characteristics such as height, weight, gender, race, hair color, what they are wearing, facial expression, but... sexual orientation? I don't care.




G&P

You're expressing bigotry and prejudice.

Ahh... yes, the great argument of anybody who has no other argument. If we disagree with you, we must be bigots. And it's all G-d's fault.

Either homosexuality is a "life choice" or it is "genetic".

If it's genetic, then the idea of homosexual manogamous marriage will breed that genetic factor out of the family... because the monogamous homosexual couple will either adopt (wherein there will be no genetic connection between parents and child) or they will produce a child OUTSIDE the marriage, which means that the marriage isn't monogamous. So either the monogamy of heterosexual marriage dies or the genetic factor that produces homosexuality dies within that family.

If monogamy dies, THAT is a threat to traditional family values, whether you choose to accept that fact or not. Monogamy is the basis of the traditional family. Without monogamy, the family breaks down. Just take a look at the incidence of divorce among cheating spouses... and even the divorce rates among "open marriages". Which comes back to my original argument to you... the threat of the end of monogamy was a direct threat to Israelite culture and Israelite family life. You ask how homosexuality could possibly be a threat to the Israelites. THAT is how... through the end of monogamy and tranditional family life, which was the basis of the entire tribal culture of Israel of that time. EVERYTHING was family based... a tribe is just a large family, after all... and homosexuality was a threat to the family system on which the entire culture was based.

If a different choice is made, and monogamy is maintained, there can be no next generation from a gay couple, genetically speaking. The genes die with that generation. If the genetic factor dies... well, that doesn't bode well for the continuance of that genetic factor for future generations, does it?

If instead homosexuality is a life choice, if there is no genetic component, then it isn't a "state of being", it's a choice like any other. A decision. And you can decide differently if you so desire. That's up to you. But if you are making a choice, then there are going to be people who disagree with that choice. They are not going to change their opinions for you. They are not going to be willing to change laws for you. It isn't bigotry, it's human nature. Just deal with it like an adult. And stop blaming G-d for YOUR decisions.

From a purely sociological perspective, there are only two purposes for sex... to produce children and to create a bond between parents so that they can raise and nurture the children together. The entire purpose of ANY sexual relationship, from the point of view of any sociologist, is the production and raising of children to perpetuate the speceis. There is no other purpose. If a homosexual relationship cannot produce a child, then from a sociological perspective, it serves no purpose. You can have all sorts of reasons to want to have homosexual sex... everything from "love" to "sport" to "entertainment"... but it serves no purpose to the perpetuation of the human race. That is a fact that cannot be argued. It is scientific fact.

Now... if you want to argue that there are other reasons for homosexual relationships... fine. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. I'll even agree with some of them. My brother is very in love with his partner, and they have a great relationship. His partner is a great guy too and I like him a lot. But if the goal of a sexual relationship is perpetuation of the species, they aren't contributing toward that goal.

Elliot

You will not change attitudes in China by aggressively opposing them, it is only when you have dialogue that you can negotiate change.

Clete, I'm not going to argue that point right now. How to handle China is a discussion for another thread, and one that I think is worthy of great debate. But not in this thread.

The point I was making was simply that in a place where the judeo-christian RELIGIOUS systems do not exist, neither does the judeo-christian MORAL system. China was one modern example. The Soviet Union was another.

Do you disagree with that point?

Elliot

Not only that, it is probably the most defining character feature I possess as it is for every gay person, just the same way as being heterosexual is a defining feature of those who are straight.

I have never met a heterosexual person for whom sexual orientation was "the most defining character feature" that he or she possessed. For that matter, I don't even think it is the most defining character feature of every gay person I have met. It certainly is NOT my brother's most defining charater trait... and he happens to be rather active in gay issues, having started an organization dealing with gay issues. But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.

If being gay is your most defining character trait, that is probably because YOU have made it so.

I am a banker, a father, a husband, a martial arts student, a cantor/singer, a heterosexual, an Orthodox Jew, the son/grandson of Holocaust survivors, short, fat, a political Conservative, a New Yorker, a student of history, a comic book and science fiction fan, with really small feet.

Which of those is my "most defining" character trait?

All of them? None of them? Something else entirely?

Answer: Whichever one I stress at the moment is the "most defining trait" at that moment. And a whole bunch of stuff I didn't list. I define myself. And I constantly change that definition to fit my needs of the moment. ALL of those traits are me.

My brother is a doctor, smart as a whip, athletic, angry, sad, caring, a dog-lover, a good friend, charitable, a gay man, a singer, well-liked and well-loved, respected, respectful, funny, witty, bald as a cue-ball, a great student and an even better teacher, loves to shop, a great cook, and he sometimes drives me crazy.

Which of those is his most defining character trait?

Answer: Whichever one he chooses to stress at the moment is the most defining trait.

You define yourself PRIMARILY as gay, or so you have said. That's your choice. Nobody defined you that way. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the people you speak to in your life won't even KNOW you are gay unless you go out of your way to tell them. They didn't DEFINE YOU. You defined yourself that way. If that's what's most important to you, fine. If that's how you see yourself, fine.

But it seems kind of boring to only have one "defining" character trait. I think you need to diversify how you define yourself and what you think your "most defining character traits" are. If only to get some variety in your life.

Complex people don't have one "most defining trait". That's what makes them complex, wonderful, and interesting.

You said that if you weren't gay, you'd be a completely different person than you are. And that is likely true.

But that is true of ANY character trait. If I weren't a singer and a cantor, I would be a completely different person, because music and prayer are where I find my spiritual connection. If I weren't a martial arts student or a student of military history, I would be a completely different person, because my perspectives would be different.

And yet, although these character traits are important to me and help shape me, they are NOT how I define myself, except in certain circumstances. I define myself... and that definition changes with circumstance. I choose who I am.

You can too. As often as you want.

Elliot

I have never met a heterosexual person for whom sexual orientation was "the most defining character feature" that he or she possessed. For that matter, I don't even think it is the most defining character feature of every gay person I have met. It certainly is NOT my brother's most defining charater trait... and he happens to be rather active in gay issues, having started an organization dealing with gay issues. But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.

If being gay is your most defining character trait, that is probably because YOU have made it so.

I am a banker, a father, a husband, a martial arts student, a cantor/singer, a heterosexual, an Orthodox Jew, the son/grandson of Holocaust survivors, short, fat, a political Conservative, a New Yorker, a student of history, a comic book and science fiction fan, with really small feet.

Which of those is my "most defining" character trait?

All of them? None of them? Something else entirely?

Answer: Whichever one I stress at the moment is the "most defining trait" at that moment. And a whole bunch of stuff I didn't list. I define myself. And I constantly change that definition to fit my needs of the moment. ALL of those traits are me.

My brother is a doctor, smart as a whip, athletic, angry, sad, caring, a dog-lover, a good friend, charitable, a gay man, a singer, well-liked and well-loved, respected, respectful, funny, witty, bald as a cue-ball, a great student and an even better teacher, loves to shop, a great cook, and he sometimes drives me crazy.

Which of those is his most defining character trait?

Answer: Whichever one he chooses to stress at the moment is the most defining trait.

You define yourself PRIMARILY as gay, or so you have said. That's your choice. Nobody defined you that way. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the people you speak to in your life won't even KNOW you are gay unless you go out of your way to tell them. They didn't DEFINE YOU. You defined yourself that way. If that's what's most important to you, fine. If that's how you see yourself, fine.

But it seems kinda boring to only have one "defining" character trait. I think you need to diversify how you define yourself and what you think your "most defining character traits" are. If only to get some variety in your life.

Complex people don't have one "most defining trait". That's what makes them complex, wonderful, and interesting.

You said that if you weren't gay, you'd be a completely different person than you are. And that is likely true.

But that is true of ANY character trait. If I weren't a singer and a cantor, I would be a completely different person, because music and prayer are where I find my spiritual connection. If I weren't a martial arts student or a student of military history, I would be a completely different person, because my perspectives would be different.

And yet, although these character traits are important to me and help shape me, they are NOT how I define myself, except in certain circumstances. I define myself... and that definition changes with circumstance. I choose who I am.

You can too. As often as you want.

Elliot

First, I'd like to thank you for that interesting and fairly detailed description of who you are and for the description of your brother. You both sound like talented and interesting people. Second, and something I am also grateful for, is the tenor of your post: you don't impress me as a rabidly homophobic individual--you're what I might (and respectfully) describe as heterosexist. By that I mean you seem to be one who sees heterosexuals as holding and entitled to hold a dominant role and place in society, one who thinks that society should center on heterosexual relationships, and one who sees heterosexuality as being an intregal part of this culture. You appear willing to tolerate gay people, as long as they stay out of the limelight, and are discreet about their lifestyles. Perhaps the fact that your brother is gay has helped shape your views. The problem with this way of thinking is it places gay people in a 2nd class status, and that is what I am fighting.

When I said that I thought being gay was my most defining character trait, what I meant was it is very foundational in making me who I am. Everything else flows from it in a sense. Everything else is built on it such that, were I straight instead, I would be a completely different person. This is not how most heteros view gay people. The bigoted ones look at homosexuality as a kind of bad habit--something like being an adulterer, cheating on a spouse. A person can change a habit of infidelity, can reform that aspect of his character, but being gay is very different. You don't change that. That part of you is too wrapped up in and integrated in your entire being.

Of course I can describe myself in other terms: lawyer, athletic, gym-rat and fitness buff (as shallow as it may sound that's beause I am a bit overly wrapped up in how I look), Lutheran (formally I suppose since I stopped going to church and have given up on any god-concept), not bald (thank god!). But these are all things that are changeable. Maybe that's the distinction: things that are changeable vs. those that are not that make up you you are. Gay= not changeable. Lutheran=changeable (can become an atheist; I left the church because I got mad at them for not taking a formal stand in favor of same-sex marriage in California at the end of last year even though they recently voted to allow gay and lesbian pastors to serve who are in committed same sex relationships, which is certainly a step in the right direction). If I went down your list most of the things you listed about yourself or your brother were in the changeble category.

You mentioned that you are Jewish (orthodox I think you said). But that's changeable too, more in one sense than in the ethnic, cultural sense. Fortunately I've noticed far less homophobia amongst Jewish people, which I applaud and I think that says a lot about the cultural and ethnic heritage with which you identify (at least I know this is true of the reform branch, you'll have to help inform me if this is correct amongst those on the more conservative side of your faith). Israel, as an example, itself is a very gay-friendly country as reflected in its laws and social policies.

Anyway, I hope I've explained the point I was making. By the way you were right in saying probably 90+% of people think I'm straight when they meet me. But again, that was not exactly what I was thinking of.

Thanks again, Elliot, for your comments.

not bald (thank god!).

Thank who? Hmmmmmm.


Thanks again, Elliot, for your comments.

My pleasure. And a pleasure to open a CIVIL dialogue rather than one based in anger.

Hope we can do it again some time.

Elliot

Thank who? Hmmmmmm.



My pleasure. And a pleasure to open a CIVIL dialogue rather than one based in anger.

Hope we can do it again some time.

Elliot


I think I'm more disposed to respectful civil dialogue than angry exchanges. Perhaps I've got some issues with religion I need to work through.

When I first left the church I told myself I wasn't ready to throw god out the window completely; however, then I began listening to Christopher Hitchens, whom I adore as well as reading Bertrand Russell once again, another favorite of mine, and then I became more inclined to leave god behind. I'll have to see how things progress. If I return to having religious feelings I'm sure they will again find expression in a church like my former Lutheran church (the most liberal of the liberal I suppose). We had gays and lesbians attending and taking communion, and the pastor, although straight and married, seemed okay with people of all sexual orientations. So maybe there's a place for me somewhere. I'll have to give it some thought.

All the best.

Here are some quotations pertinet to the OP as applied specifically to the national morality of the US, in supposition that the US must have morality in order to survive.

Abraham Lincoln said, "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

Founding Father Dr. Jedidiah Morse wrote:

"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. are these words of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president:
" God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

George Washington wrote: "We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself have ordained."

George mason, The father of the Bill of Rights, speaking at the Constitutional Convention declared: "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

Here are some quotations pertinet to the OP as applied specifically to the national morality of the US, in supposition that the US must have morality in order to survive.

Abraham Lincoln said, "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

Founding Father Dr. Jedidiah Morse wrote:

"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. are these words of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president:
" God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

George Washington wrote: "We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself have ordained."

George mason, The father of the Bill of Rights, speaking at the Constitutional Convention declared: "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

None of those quotes has any mention whatsoever of Christianity. None.

Take what Jefferson said. Completely consistent with a deist point of view.

Take what Jefferson said. Completely consistant with a deist point of view.

I disagree with this statement.

If Jefferson believes that G-d is "just" and maintains that justice, then he believes in an entity that MUST be involved on a daily basis within this universe. Such an entity cannot be "removed" as Deists believe, but must be constantly hands-on, balancing the scales of justice.

Thus the statement of Jefferson, that G-d is a "just" entity that maintains justice in the world is in direct opposition to Deist belief.

Elliot

I think I'm more disposed to respectful civil dialogue than angry exchanges. Perhaps I've got some issues with religion I need to work through.

When I first left the church I told myself I wasn't ready to throw god out the window completely; however, then I began listening to Christopher Hitchens, whom I adore as well as reading Bertrand Russell once again, another favorite of mine, and then I became more inclined to leave god behind. I'll have to see how things progress. If I return to having religious feelings I'm sure they will again find expression in a church like my former Lutheran church (the most liberal of the liberal I suppose). We had gays and lesbians attending and taking communion, and the pastor, although straight and married, seemed okay with people of all sexual orientations. So maybe there's a place for me somewhere. I'll have to give it some thought.

All the best.

Cadillac - I hope you don't mind me eavesdropping on the civil discourse between you and Elliott. I think what he was getting at was the reference you made to God in your previous post, when you said "thank god I'm not bald." You may leave your religious traditions behind because you feel they no longer suit you but you still have some thought of God left in your mind, why else would you think to thank him? I suppose one could argue that it's when we are caught off guard that we have many things to say about God. What is all the more interesting is how we think to thank him for things as simple as hair.

Just my two cents.

cadillac - I hope you don't mind me eavesdropping on the civil discourse between you and Elliott. I think what he was getting at was the reference you made to God in your previous post, when you said "thank god I'm not bald." You may leave your religious traditions behind because you feel they no longer suit you but you still have some thought of God left in your mind, why else would you think to thank him? I suppose one could argue that it's when we are caught off guard that we have many things to say about God. What is all the more interesting is how we think to thank him for things as simple as hair.

Just my two cents.

To say "thank god" for something is not to make a religious statement or make a freudian slip about some possible subliminal belief in god. It's only an use of language, an expression that has found use in communicating an idea. It's a form of emphasis in speech.

Don't read more into it than is there.

Where does this morality come from? How does each of us have it? Or lack it, for lack of or dysfunction in part of the brain. Is a personal morality , this relativity or subjectivity really just a nice term for selfishness or narcissisism? If so, then Nietzsche's nihilism is justified.


Where does emotion come from? How do we have it? Or lack it? What is WILL? It seems to me obvious that rational thought is secondary to emotion. I witness an act, I am emotionally moved, I rationilize, and then digest. What is GOOD!? Where does emotion move you! At what point does an act become wrong?!

The point at which an act becomes "wrong", is the point at which it distresses me. It is wrong for no other reason. This is narcissism? That I should decide what is "GOOD"? Has anyone ever done any different? Perhaps acted AGAINST their own will? If anyone has ever done anything, it is because THEY WILLED IT DONE! Where then is "Morality"?

Religion has served man well. However, THIS God is dead. I would not be so disposed as to leave this world to "humanist" understanding, which is of course nothing. They claim nothing, aim at nothing, yet expect us to consider them as something. I have a soft spot for Russell, he was a genius, let us not be ungrateful to him. Wittgenstein utterly destroyed Russell's metaphysical arguments, and if anyone would like to invoke "Russell's Teapot", I would be quite happy to destroy that argument. PLEASE INVOKE IT! It would make for more discourse.

Schopenhauer looked at life in the Christian sense, even though he was an atheist. He reminds me of Russell in some ways, brilliant, yet lacking in HUMAN sense, that is to say, ANIMAL sense. He turns his back on life, all life ends in sacrifice, as on the cross. One is reminded of the book of Eccelisiaties, perhaps the greatest book of all time, as it deals with TRUE humanity, what it is to be HUMAN!

Those that decry the Judaic religions, those "humanists", that decry the notion of sancity, of holding something dear, forget what it is to LIVE! YES! WE HAVE EVOLVED! Of this there can be no dispute! What meaning do you humanists give? NONE!! You are nothing, you aim at nothing, you will become nothing.

The materialist who believes there is no god, believes in evolution. If so, and I link a scientific article earlier to bolster the argument that there may be an organic/ material part of the brain necessary for "moral" judgement, then why do we judge as good or bad, moral or immoral the actions of such a being that "lacks" a part of the brain that may be responsible for "morality?"

Why the question of good and bad, justice and injustice, suffering - these are all just the facts of this world - accept it. There is no place for morality in evolution, just survival, propagation of the species [though I seriously doubt that animals think of these things] and living as long as possible till an unavoidable death. This is nihilistic. Meaningless as pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes, until 12:13-14



G&P

Hello Tokugawa,

I think the source or your distress is you are combining emotivist and naturalistic theories. Naturalistic theories can be regarded as humanistic because moral judgments are said to be science based (usually psychology). The Important point is that Naturalistic theories hold that that moral judgments are true or false.
Emotivist theories are also humanistic but claim that moral judgments are neither true or false. They are just a expression of feelings. It is important not to combine the two.

The other type are non-naturalistic and they of, course, hold that moral judgments are true or false. We recognize these types of judgments in terms of Christian ethics.

Those that decry the Judaic religions, those "humanists", that decry the notion of sancity, of holding something dear, forget what it is to LIVE! YES! WE HAVE EVOLVED! Of this there can be no dispute! What meaning do you humanists give? NONE!! You are nothing, you aim at nothing, you will become nothing.

Are you claiming that people with no belief in God hold nothing dear?

There is a lot that I hold dear, my family, my friends, my memories, my life, my health, the list goes on. I have not forgotten how to live, I strive to live a better life every single day and I do it without religion.

There goes that theory. ;)

As for being nothing, aiming at nothing, and eventually becoming nothing. How dare you? You don't know me or my beliefs, nor do you know anyone else on this site. I doubt very much that you know anyone other then the people that fall into your very narrow little view of people worthy of you. People with the same beliefs as you.

I am far from being nothing, in fact, if you ever met me, listened with an open mind, you would know that I'm so full of something that you can't miss it (Boys, I know you're dying to say it, but don't. I do hope it gave you a giggle though).

I aim to be a better person every day of my life. I aim to make a better world for my children. I have a lot of aims, none of them are nothing.

As for what I will become, well, hopefully better then I am now. You see, even though I am a Deist, I don't believe in doing wrong, sinning against others, destroying this beautiful world we live in. I believe in preserving the gift we were given, and because of that I will never be nothing, I will always be someone, perhaps even more of someone then you.

Judge not lest you be judged. I guess you didn't read that part.

Quote Wolverine

And if it would have been completely different, doesn't that mean that religion and morality ARE connected, and can't be separated as some would like us to believe? Would it mean that morality cannot develop without a religious background to act as a petrie dish in which to grow.

The purpose of this entry is to answer Wolverine's original question.

When dealing with ethics it is important to distinguish between naturalism and non-naturalism.

The non-naturalistic position is that concepts such as good,bad,right and wrong come from God ( from my point of view this is a fair call).

On the other side of the debate we have naturalistic theories which also claim to have concepts such as good, bad, right and wrong. The difference being that these theories are based on science. It is important not to lump in nihilism and emotivism and claim they are the same as all naturalistic theories, there are some important differences. Differences that I won't outline at this time. In fact nihilism does not have to be naturalistic. Anyway, back to the job at hand.

If I told someone that I was going to steal their car then they might say to me that stealing it morally wrong because it is against God 's law. (being a Christian I would agree). This is a non-naturalist position.

Naturalism, on the other hand,claims that if something IS the case(scientific/psychological fact) then we OUGHT to do such and such (ought meaning that it is possible to do).

If I asked someone did they vote in the last election and they answered me no I would probably say that they should have voted because they have a moral obligation. By appealing to moral obligation here I am appealing to naturalism. Why? Because nowhere in the bible does it say say anything about democracy and voting in elections. How does naturalism work in this case?.

It is a FACT that I live in a democratic country. It is a FACT that voting is a cornerstone of our democratic system. Therefore I OUGHT to vote because I have a moral obligation to the country that has given me so much.

Some might say that the above statement is naturalistic fallacy. This may or may not be the case, the point is that we live in a complex society with complex legal and political institutions. The concepts of right,wrong, just and unjust are important to the overall philosophical development of these institutions. Naturalism does the job, however this does not diminish the role of non-naturalism in these institutions. Non-naturalism also does the job as well.

In conclusion it is incorrect to assume that naturalism in ethics is somehow a product of Darwin's theories. Naturalism in ethics can be traced as far back as Aristotle.

Quote Wolverine

And if it would have been completely different, doesn't that mean that religion and morality ARE connected, and can't be separated as some would like us to believe? Would it mean that morality cannot develop without a religious background to act as a petrie dish in which to grow.

The purpose of this entry is to answer Wolverine's original question.

When dealing with ethics it is important to distinguish between naturalism and non-naturalism.

The non-naturalistic position is that concepts such as good,bad,right and wrong come from God ( from my point of view this is a fair call).

On the other side of the debate we have naturalistic theories which also claim to have concepts such as good, bad, right and wrong. The difference being that these theories are based on science. It is important not to lump in nihilism and emotivism and claim they are the same as all naturalistic theories, there are some important differences. Differences that I won't outline at this time. In fact nihilism does not have to be naturalistic. Anyway, back to the job at hand.

If I told someone that I was going to steal their car then they might say to me that stealing it morally wrong because it is against God 's law. (being a Christian I would agree). This is a non-naturalist position.

Naturalism, on the other hand,claims that if something IS the case(scientific/psychological fact) then we OUGHT to do such and such (ought meaning that it is possible to do).

If I asked someone did they vote in the last election and they answered me no I would probably say that they should have voted because they have a moral obligation. By appealing to moral obligation here I am appealing to naturalism. Why? Because nowhere in the bible does it say say anything about democracy and voting in elections. How does naturalism work in this case?.....

It is a FACT that I live in a democratic country. It is a FACT that voting is a cornerstone of our democratic system. Therefore I OUGHT to vote because I have a moral obligation to the country that has given me so much.

Some might say that the above statement is naturalistic fallacy. This may or may not be the case, the point is that we live in a complex society with complex legal and political institutions. The concepts of right,wrong, just and unjust are important to the overall philosophical development of these institutions. Naturalism does the job, however this does not diminish the role of non-naturalism in these institutions. Non-naturalism also does the job as well.

In conclusion it is incorrect to assume that naturalism in ethics is somehow a product of Darwin's theories. Naturalism in ethics can be traced as far back as Aristotle.

I don't know about all this naturalism vs. non-naturalism babble, but we do NOT need religion to be moral, act morally or develop moral beliefs. I tend to agree with Bertrand Russell that morality evolves and that our moral actions are guided by a conflict of desires: a man wants to drink but he also wants to be fit for work the next day. Hence, he may choose not to drink. Or he may compromise and only drink a little. What always holds one desire in check in some other competing desire.

Some of the most moral and decent people in the world are atheists and the most immoral the religious. I've never noticed any consistent nexus between the quality of the individual and his or her moral convictions and religion.

Naturalism and non-naturalism is just a way of dividing ethical theories. Most ethical theories fall into these two categories. There are those who believe that morality can only be derived from the scriptures or a supreme being and these are non-naturalists.
Those who believe that morality can be derived from the sciences/psychology are naturalists. Both theories have codes of conduct such as right, wrong, good, bad, just and unjust. Sometimes, they might even agree.
My point was that in a society with its complex legal and political institutions we need a naturalistic approach to determine what is right and wrong. Sometimes this comes into conflict with religion sometimes it doesn't. Religion has a part to play in these institutions as well.

Can a person who practises some type of naturalistic ethics be a moral person? OF COURSE THEY CAN. They can be just as moral as anyone who subscribes to any other ethical theory, be it religious or otherwise.

Naturalism and non-naturalism is just a way of dividing ethical theories. Most ethical theories fall into these two categories. There are those who believe that morality can only be derived from the scriptures or a supreme being and these are non-naturalists.
Those who believe that morality can be derived from the sciences/psychology are naturalists. Both theories have codes of conduct such as right, wrong, good, bad, just and unjust. Sometimes, they might even agree.
My point was that in a society with its complex legal and political institutions we need a naturalistic approach to determine what is right and wrong. Sometimes this comes into conflict with religion sometimes it doesn't. Religion has a part to play in these institutions as well.

Can a person who practises some type of naturalistic ethics be a moral person? OF COURSE THEY CAN. They can be just as moral as anyone who subscribes to any other ethical theory, be it religious or otherwise.

Ok, so religion's not much good in answering the question of whether it's immoral to run a stop sign or talk on your cell phone driving down the freeway. Fine. What other point were you trying to make, if any?

My main aim was to 'put to bed' any idea that Naturalism in ethics does not have concepts such as right wrong, good, and bad. There a few psychology based theories such as emotivism which don't make use of concepts such as good and bad. The number of people who actually subscribe to these types of theories are in a minority. That's pretty much all I was trying to say.

My main aim was to 'put to bed' any idea that Naturalism in ethics does not have concepts such as right wrong, good, and bad. There a a few psychology based theories such as emotivism which don't make use of concepts such as good and bad. The number of people who actually subscribe to these types of theories are in a minority. That's pretty much all I was trying to say.

Was someone disputing that ethics arise apart from religion? While societies can exist quite well without religion, none can survive without ethics. Pretty simple.

Yes,the original argument was that you cannot have ethics without religion. The answer is that you can and we do.

As to the question of which is superior; Christian based or scientific based ethics? Well, the answer is,"it depends on the situation?".

The only other Western example of ethics developing independently from religion is in ancient Greece. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is largely a Naturalistic account.

This thread is progressing quite nicely, TUT317 in particular has offered some great contributions, which are actually on topic. This is more than can be said for my own, however I shall forgo the opportunity to address the points he has raised at this time in order to proceed with the point I was rather ineptly trying to make last week.

Altenweg writes...


Are you claiming that people with no belief in God hold nothing dear?

No. Neither the belief in God, nor the "legalistic" aspect, are for me the defining essence of the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, which is perhaps the greatest literary achievement in the history of man. It is a grappling with existence, an effort to "define" what it is to be human. To suffer, to inflict suffering, to love, hate, above all, to FEEL! There is great wisdom in the Judaic tradition of not "naming" God, as you cannot define the indefinable, and it is with this indefinable that humanity grapples now, as then. Humanism would sweep this profound struggle, which is the very HEART of humanity, under a carpet of insipid "reason", which is in itself synthetic, and therefore also a fiction, albeit a very useful one.


There is a lot that I hold dear, my family, my friends, my memories, my life, my health, the list goes on. I have not forgotten how to live, I strive to live a better life every single day and I do it without religion.

How do you know that what you are doing is "holding something dear", or "loving"? This presupposes that you have compared the state of "loving" to something different, "hating" perhaps? Certainly it cannot be compared to "indifference", which is what "humanist reason" offers, as then you would not know whether it was one or the other, love or hate. No, to see that hate is a necessary part of love, that you cannot have one without the other, that it is in fact INHUMAN to view life through the "objective lense" of humanism, that is to impugn on the "Brave New World" of secularism in a most seditious manner, and one need not subscribe to ANY religion in order to take up this PURELY human position.

And of the people you love, what is it about them that makes them loveable? The logical form in which they are presented? The chemical processes that make them function? Or if I were to list all the "objective facts" as they pertain to these people, every single one, would that describe what you love? Pfft... "man as chemical process", "love as indifference", THIS is the form in which modern humanism presents itself to us, and I reject it entirely. That you know "how" to live, does not mean you know "what it is" to live, and THAT is what religion has hitherto attempted. The fact that it has failed in large part should not be derided by those who are too weak to even ATTEMPT such a noble and vast undertaking.

Science is in no way an "explanation" of reality, only an "exposition" of how it functions. Even then, we can only make sense of it by imposing synthetic structures such as logic and math over the top of it. Science is considered as more because it deals with objects of sense, it can be heard, seen, touched. It resembles religion in that it seeks out immutable and unchanging "laws", much in the same way that some religions have sought out an immutable and unchanging "God". Both were "invented", not "discovered", to help us make sense of life. Science to help us find out "how" it is, religion to help us find out "what" it is. Science has progressed magnificently, religion looks pale by comparison. However the question to which religion has presented itself is FAR more profound, and it is one that "humanism" would have us ignore completely.