Morality Derived From Religion? I Think Not....

[nitecrawlur]

A recent debate has sparked this new idea for me to post. An individual claimed you can't rationalize any ethics without a transcendant source of truth. In which I argued that you can teach ethics and morals without mention of a God.

Morals can be traced to our Darwinian past. And morals most certainly did not come from the Bible as many claim. In the words of one Mr. Richard Dawkins "religion is the root of all evil" and the Bible proves it.

[Hentenza]

Ah, the moral argument. How original. Tell me, why is it that tribes that have never heard of a God (or Darwin for that matter) have a set of morals in place?

[nitecrawlur]

Ah, the moral argument. How original. Tell me, why is it that tribes that have never heard of a God (or Darwin for that matter) have a set of morals in place?
My goodness, you are very reliable aren't you Hentenza? I'm starting to think whatever debate I initiate you are right there to "prove" me wrong. That has yet to happen but if the scales of debate are tipped in your favor, which I don't think they are, it is most likely lacking the bite that you thought it would. Which reminds me, why haven't you posted a response on my Biblical Miracles post?

I'm uncertain of the point you are trying to make. But, the point I am trying to make, which your question appears to be alluding to, is that ethics can be passed and spread without knowledge of a God.

I am curious on where you are going with this "tribe" theory. No, I am not certain why the have set of morals in place.

[Hentenza]

Did past civilizations have moral codes, laws, and a system of justice? Do you know of one that didn't?

[nitecrawlur]

Did past civilizations have moral codes, laws, and a system of justice? Do you know of one that didn't?
To the extent of my knowledge, all civilizations did have certain morals and such. why?

[Criada]

Without some recourse to a 'higher power', there can be something that resembles morality, certainly. This is apparent in social animals, as well as most humans. Most tribes have some notion of a god, or worship ancestors, nature, or something... so it is very hard to argue this one. It is probably only in modern, post -Christian culture that this can be explored.... and that, of course, has a deep root in Christian morality.
So I am not sure what you are looking for here...


For an interesting look at apparent 'moral' behaviour, though, i would recommend that you read Richard Dawkins "The selfish Gene"

[nitecrawlur]

Without some recourse to a 'higher power', there can be something that resembles morality, certainly. This is apparent in social animals, as well as most humans. Most tribes have some notion of a god, or worship ancestors, nature, or something... so it is very hard to argue this one. It is probably only in modern, post -Christian culture that this can be explored.... and that, of course, has a deep root in Christian morality.
So I am not sure what you are looking for here...


For an interesting look at apparent 'moral' behaviour, though, i would recommend that you read Richard Dawkins "The selfish Gene"
Well, I am quite impressed. I wouldn't have thought a Christian to recomend a book written by such a highly recognized Atheist. I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins and my favorite work by him is his most recent book "The God Delusion". However, I can understand why Christians, or people of any religion for that matter, would be reluctant to read this book.

I'm uncertain where Hentenza is going with this "tribe" debate as well, although I am curious to see what he has to say before I issue a retort. So agree with you in some way as far as that goes but with exception to the "higher power" thought.

To say a higher power is the cause of morality is saying that morality is absolute and not subjective like I think. For example, with the tribes some are canibalistic which clearly goes against our morals, at least they do mine and I hope they differ yours as well, but to say they are wrong is not fair since you are no place to judge their culture (for the record I do believe canibalism is wrong unless absolutely necessary). But morals are and always have been an opinion.

[Criada]

Hey, I'm a biologist... can't not read Dawkins! I don't actually think that being an atheist makes you stupid. (misguided, perhaps....:P) I've read "The God Delusion" as well.... don't tell the thought police!
TBH, if my faith isn't strong enough to be able to read such things, then there is little point in holding on to it!

As to the higher power issue... I am not sure that real morality is possible without some concept of accountability... reward and punishment... whether from a god or a tribal leader.

[Hentenza]

As to the higher power issue... I am not sure that real morality is possible without some concept of accountability... reward and punishment... whether from a god or a tribal leader. Exactly. Accountability is the point.

NC,
My point was exactly what Criada said above. All tribes and civilizations have had moral laws and systems of justice but without accountability their effectiveness is questionable.

[NewGuy101]

A recent debate has sparked this new idea for me to post. An individual claimed you can't rationalize any ethics without a transcendant source of truth. In which I argued that you can teach ethics and morals without mention of a God.

Morals can be traced to our Darwinian past. And morals most certainly did not come from the Bible as many claim. In the words of one Mr. Richard Dawkins "religion is the root of all evil" and the Bible proves it.

Again, how do you know its true morality?

[NewGuy101]

To the extent of my knowledge, all civilizations did have certain morals and such. why?
Guess the nazis were right hen...

I can give you the biblical answer, God put it in their heart.

[nitecrawlur]

Again, how do you know its true morality?
Well, this what I was saying before. All three of you seem to think that there is a true morality meaning it is absolute. A law set by a higher power to determine what is right and what is wrong. My argument is that morality is subjective.

If a civilization wants to kill and eat their own kind, or sacrifice them for other reasons, who are we, or your God, to tell them they are wrong if they are all happy doing it. The only reason you think there is absolute morality and that your God is always right is because a 2000 year old book says there is and He is. Then when something tragic happens, such as a child that dies, you assume that it's in "God's plan" which would still make him right. I'm sorry but that's just not logical to me.

Criada,
I think you said "just because God knows something is going to happen doesn't mean that He makes it happen". That sort of contradicts the "Gods Plan" theory. (I know you didn't say "Gods Plan" but for something tragic as a childs death to occur the only reason for God not to save an innocent child is that it would be part of his "plan" in order for him to be correct in making it happen, hence fate.)

Hentenza, NewGuy,
There is accountability in the tribe theory. The ancestors in the tribe who came up whatever laws and morals would be accountable. To the tribe those laws and morals would be absolute and true if they beleive they are. If that tribe is too naive to know that irrational acts aren't necessary that is up to them. But again we and your God is in no place to tell them they are wrong.

[NewGuy101]

Well, this what I was saying before. All three of you seem to think that there is a true morality meaning it is absolute. A law set by a higher power to determine what is right and what is wrong. My argument is that morality is subjective. Then there is no such a thing as morality then, I can go kill anyone who I want.


If a civilization wants to kill and eat their own kind, or sacrifice them for other reasons, who are we, or your God, to tell them they are wrong if they are all happy doing it. The only reason you think there is absolute morality and that your God is always right is because a 2000 year old book says there is and He is. Then when something tragic happens, such as a child that dies, you assume that it's in "God's plan" which would still make him right. I'm sorry but that's just not logical to me.
This is just rhetoric, I guess if I go kill all my family its ok. You can't say anything against the bible now either since its subjective.


Criada,
I think you said "just because God knows something is going to happen doesn't mean that He makes it happen". That sort of contradicts the "Gods Plan" theory. (I know you didn't say it but for something tragic as a childs death to occur the only reason for God not to save an innocent child is that it would be part of his "plan" in order for him to be correct in allowing it)
God is in charge of every aspect of the universe if a baby dies its up to his will.


Hentenza, NewGuy,
There is accountability in the tribe theory. The ancestors in the tribe who came up whatever laws and morals would be accountable. To the tribe those laws and morals would be absolute and true if they beleive they are. If that tribe is too naive to know that irrational acts aren't necessary that is up to them. But again we and your God is in no place to tell them they are wrong.
Again we are left to subjectivity. Lets welcome the holocaust again.

[nitecrawlur]

Then there is no such a thing as morality then, I can go kill anyone who I want.


Well, the way I see it is, if you do kill anyone you want and ask for God's foregivness than the answer would be yes since you believe you're going to God's acceptence anyway. Again, I will mention Rev. Paul Hill who murdered a doctor that performed abortions. He thought he would get God's approval and forgiveness so any earthly punishment was acceptable. I don't expect you to answer for him, that's just an example on how even religious people's morals become subjective when they want it to. (I'm not comparing any of you to this murderer)


This is just rhetoric, I guess if I go kill all my family its ok. You can't say anything against the bible now either since its subjective.


My first response on this post applies to this as well.


God is in charge of every aspect of the universe if a baby dies its up to his will.


I'm going to start a new thread on this since it involves a God being both omnipotent, omniscient and free will being comprimised.


Again we are left to subjectivity. Lets welcome the holocaust again.


I believe the holocaust was wrong as well as most of the world. But that doesn't make our moral pov on this subject part of an absolute morality. If Hitler thought it was right, which I don't think he did I think he was just power hungry and vengful, then that was his opinion.

[NewGuy101]

Well, the way I see it is, if you do kill anyone you want and ask for God's foregivness than the answer would be yes since you believe you're going to God's acceptence anyway. Again, I will mention Rev. Paul Hill who murdered a doctor that performed abortions. He thought he would get God's approval and forgiveness so any earthly punishment was acceptable. I don't expect you to answer for him, that's just an example on how even religious people's morals become subjective when they want it to. (I'm not comparing any of you to this murderer)I was saying, assuming your world view and I go back to being an atheist I can kill whoever I want and have fun with it. As long as I can get away with it there is no reason for anyone to tell me I am wrong.






I'm going to start a new thread on this since it involves a God being both omnipotent, omniscient and free will being comprimised.
Christians are devided over this, I don't know what you hope to accomplish.




I believe the holocaust was wrong as well as most of the world. But that doesn't make our moral pov on this subject part of an absolute morality. If Hitler thought it was right, which I don't think he did I think he was just power hungry and vengful, then that was his opinion.
So if he got away with it, its ok though right? Maybe we should have left all of those Jews get butchered?

[nitecrawlur]

I was saying, assuming your world view and I go back to being an atheist I can kill whoever I want and have fun with it. As long as I can get away with it there is no reason for anyone to tell me I am wrong.


No, there is reason for someone to tell you you're wrong. If their morals differ from yours that would be their reason.


Christians are devided over this, I don't know what you hope to accomplish.


I expect to accomplish observation of different opinions which may then affect my own.


So if he got away with it, its ok though right? Maybe we should have left all of those Jews get butchered?


If Hitler was successful, it would be right only in the sense that if your belief system differed from his you would be killed. Kinda sounds like early Christianity doesn't it? And even some modern religions.

[NewGuy101]

If Hitler was successful, it would be right only in the sense that if your belief system differed from his you would be killed. Kinda sounds like early Christianity doesn't it? And even some modern religions.
I dont get it, sounds like Christianity?

[nitecrawlur]

I dont get it, sounds like Christianity?
Early Christianity killed those who had a different belief system. Even not so early Christianity such as the Salem Witch Trials.

[NewGuy101]

Early Christianity killed those who had a different belief system. Even not so early Christianity such as the Salem Witch Trials.
Source...

Actually they were butchered by Nero and the Jews. I think you need to get your history checked.

[nitecrawlur]

Source...

Actually they were butchered by Nero and the Jews. I think you need to get your history checked.
Ok, I'll look at it tomorrow but I was referring to the Old Testiment, which I guess wouldn't really be Christianity technically speaking but still the same God commanded the genocide just like Hitler led the genocide attempt on the Jews.

What is your response to post #16? (So we don't get off topic.)

[NewGuy101]

Ok, I'll look at it tomorrow but I was referring to the Old Testiment, which I guess wouldn't really be Christianity technically speaking but still the same God commanded the genocide just like Hitler led the genocide attempt on the Jews.

What is your response to post #16? (So we don't get off topic.)
I have nothing to respond. You are assuming a naturalistic world view and gave up ethics. Nothing I can do about that or say except I don't think and infacnt I have seen you cannot live consistantly with that thats why you attack the bible all the time saying "how can it support rape of women" you would have to pretty much say...well thats ok, its their thing I cannot judge them.

[nitecrawlur]

I have nothing to respond. You are assuming a naturalistic world view and gave up ethics. Nothing I can do about that or say except I don't think and infacnt I have seen you cannot live consistantly with that thats why you attack the bible all the time saying "how can it support rape of women" you would have to pretty much say...well thats ok, its their thing I cannot judge them.
I attack the Bible because it is inconsistant in itself and goes against its own code of ethics by "supporting rape of woman" not to mention attempted rape of men, but that isn't the point. Also, the Bible is sexist, so does that fit your current ethics also? Women are treated as property throughout the entire Bible and you're questioning, labeling and judging my morals when the very book you base your faith on defies itself?

I am not at all saying that rape in the Bible is ok simply because "it's their thing". I do think that is wrong, but that doesn't make me right to judge them. If the women wanted to get raped, then it wouldn't be rape. So in my opinion, what makes it wrong is that it is done against her will. Also, in my opinion, as well as most other people, rape in general is wrong. The Bible seems to not think so but you do? How do you explain that?

I don't believe I am the one who is inconsistant.

[NewGuy101]

I attack the Bible because it is inconsistant in itself and goes against its own code of ethics by "supporting rape of woman" not to mention attempted rape of men, but that isn't the point. Also, the Bible is sexist, so does that fit your current ethics also? Women are treated as property throughout the entire Bible and you're questioning, labeling and judging my morals when the very book you base your faith on defies itself?

I am not at all saying that rape in the Bible is ok simply because "it's their thing". I do think that is wrong, but that doesn't make me right to judge them. If the women wanted to get raped, then it wouldn't be rape. So in my opinion, what makes it wrong is that it is done against her will. Also, in my opinion, as well as most other people, rape in general is wrong. The Bible seems to not think so but you do? How do you explain that?

I don't believe I am the one who is inconsistant.
You don't attack the inconsistancies you attack it on MORAL grounds. I have seen you do it.

BTW, your critiques of the scripture are flawed based on a superficial reading of it which is what I pointed several times.

[nitecrawlur]

You don't attack the inconsistancies you attack it on MORAL grounds. I have seen you do it.

BTW, your critiques of the scripture are flawed based on a superficial reading of it which is what I pointed several times.
The Bibles "moral grounds" are one of its inconsistancies. If you would like I can name others but this thread is about morality. Did you read my post referring to the Book of Judges in a different thread? In case you didn't here it is again:

Judges 19

19 Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants: there is no want of any thing.

20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
21 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go

Ummmm.....perhaps I am "superficially reading" this but it seems quite obvious and I don't believe it is out of context.

I'm sure you already know, but a Levite is a clergy member. A clergy member that willingly gave his concubine and the daughter of the host to the soldiers to get raped simply to save himself.

Not to mention the degredation of woman on a more specific level, the soldiers wanted to rape the Levite but because he was a man, that sort of thing was unheard of and "wrong"......sure that makes perfect sense. This must be part of that "absolute morality" you are claiming. Morality must be subjective.

[NewGuy101]

The Bibles "moral grounds" are one of its inconsistancies. If you would like I can name others but this thread is about morality. Did you read my post referring to the Book of Judges in a different thread? In case you didn't here it is again:

Judges 19

19 Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants: there is no want of any thing.

20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
21 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go

Ummmm.....perhaps I am "superficially reading" this but it seems quite obvious and I don't believe it is out of context.

I'm sure you already know, but a Levite is a clergy member. A clergy member that willingly gave his concubine and the daughter of the host to the soldiers to get raped simply to save himself.

Not to mention the degredation of woman on a more specific level, the soldiers wanted to rape the Levite but because he was a man, that sort of thing was unheard of and "wrong"......sure that makes perfect sense. This must be part of that "absolute morality" you are claiming. Morality must be subjective.
go read my response in the other thread.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46529851&postcount=68

[nitecrawlur]

go read my response in the other thread.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46529851&postcount=68
Could you verify how this text from Judges is meant to be taken? What is it about this that I am "assuming"?

[NewGuy101]

Could you verify how this text from Judges is meant to be taken? What is it about this that I am "assuming"?
It's a historical event, you are assuming that actions that certain individuals took are to be always applied. The church has been known to try to protect women throughout history besides what the liberals say.

[nitecrawlur]

It's a historical event, you are assuming that actions that certain individuals took are to be always applied. The church has been known to try to protect women throughout history besides what the liberals say.
Again, you say I'm assuming but unless you provide a globally accepted translation of what this context in Judges means then you are only assuming and are twisting what it says to fit your arguement. I read it and took it for what it says. If you are saying there is a deeper meaning please specify don't just tell me I'm "superfically reading" it and taking it out of context.

[NewGuy101]

Again, you say I'm assuming but unless you provide a globally accepted translation of what this context in Judges means then you are only assuming and are twisting what it says to fit your arguement. I read it and took it for what it says. If you are saying there is a deeper meaning please specify don't just tell me I'm "superfically reading" it and taking it out of context.
You are telling a Christian what the scripture says? That's a good one.

[nitecrawlur]

You are telling a Christian what the scripture says? That's a good one.
Hahaha! Yes I am giving my opinion and interpretation of this particular one. It seems as though you can't present any gobal translation. If that is true then my theory would be correct in the sense that all anyone can do is assume and only the author knows/knew what it's meaning is. By saying I amwrong about it is saying that you disagree and hold a different opinion on what it says. So you really have no ground to say someone else is wrong.

[NewGuy101]

Hahaha! Yes I am giving my opinion and interpretation of this particular one. It seems as though you can't present any gobal translation. If that is true then my theory would be correct in the sense that all anyone can do is assume and only the author knows/knew what it's meaning is. By saying I amwrong about it is saying that you disagree and hold a different opinion on what it says. So you really have no ground to say someone else is wrong.
GEE seems you are saying that we cannot know what any text means because it depends on interpretation. Lets see how that works when you read your computer manual.

And I do have ground to say your interpretaion is wrong, I have studied theology for 3 years. I have studied different methods of hermenuetics, biblical theology and different biblical frameworks. You came here read a text incorrectly, put your assumptions on it and claim to have the same worth of exegeting scripture.

If you want to keep this game up go a head, I'm done with this. You don't want to accept biblical truth and by all means thats fine with me.

[nitecrawlur]

GEE seems you are saying that we cannot know what any text means because it depends on interpretation. Lets see how that works when you read your computer manual.


You criticized me for comparing God to a human and yet you compare God's word to a technicians manual? Sounds kind of hypocritical.

The tech's manual is true because you can see that for yourself when you set-up your computer.


And I do have ground to say your interpretaion is wrong, I have studied theology for 3 years. I have studied different methods of hermenuetics, biblical theology and different biblical frameworks. You came here read a text incorrectly, put your assumptions on it and claim to have the same worth of exegeting scripture.


I hope you continue to study theology because it is very enlightening and interesting. I graduated from Wake Forest University in NC last year with a masters in theology. I was ordained shortly after with the title of reverend as you can see in my profile. So I have a pretty good sense of what I am talking about.

Some people take the Bible in a literal sense and others do not. How is the Bible true when some many Christians cannot agree on it's meaning. And what makes you think your INTERPRETATION is correct over others?



If you want to keep this game up go a head, I'm done with this. You don't want to accept biblical truth and by all means thats fine with me.


Look, there is no need for a hostile debate. It seems you're getting agrivated some. But before we end I would like to make two points.

The first being what I have already mentioned above about how Christians interpret the Bible differently. I already wrote so I won't write it again. You're a bright guy I'm sure you got that message.

Second, it seems as though you are unwilling to accept others opinion on Christianity. You stand without sway which is not a "thinkers" way of discussing an issue. You may argue the same against me but I feel as though my presentation had more evidential base than yours since I could give examples when you simply just "said" things. Again, take no offense but that is not good practice to present a case without hard evidence.