religion and morality

[DPMartin]

"So, in acknowledging this, how then are you able to determine beyond a leap of faith or a "wager", if the Christian God is the optimal [or the only] path to objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side?"

Good stuff, and once a Christian reads that, he can't unread it, and he knows he's only taking a leap.

Here's the reasoning behind the 'wager'. And really nietzsche covered this far better than I ever could. This type of person feels that the world is doomed if god doesn't exist. They need a transcendent purpose to give life meaning and goodness. They can't settle with the fact that individual lives are mortal. That life continues after they die is not enough to satisfy them. See the self-centeredness here? It's subtle, but a defining feature of the religious spirit. They are so distraught by their own mortality that it escapes them entirely that there will be generations to come that have the possibility to live lives that are relatively full of joy and happiness (provided capitalism doesn't prematurely destroy the erf). 'It's all about 'me' (Stirner calls this the involuntary egoist), and if I'm miserable without belief in god (a greater cause than myself), so too must you be' (who finds no sacred cause other than himself), the religious man reasons. At the center of this degenerate soul is a heavy sickness born out of weakness, an inability to be satiated by any modest expectations for life. As he lives his life 'in fear and trembling', he naturally expects others to also do so, and is suspicious, envious, of anyone who does not experience the same dread and anxiety as he does.

The wager is simply the surrendering of a creature unfit for life who cannot find any joy in living unless he can believe he isn't mortal. And while it's perfectly reasonable to live in fear of them, I assure you: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of. These men are cowards.

Christianity isn’t a path to impartial or objective morality, nor is it supposed to be. Christianity is supposed to be the belief and trust in the risen Christ, and in all that Jesus Christ said and did.

Besides morality isn't objective
A judge’s position in a court of law (a set of morals agreed to) is supposed to be objective for the sake of the case, but he too is obligated to the same law and is supposed to be in agreement with it, or he wouldn't be a qualified judge. The two side arguing the justification for the judge to decide one way or the other are purely self-interest, because they are bound to the set of morals, in this case the law.

Morals are a agreement, a contract, a business agreement, a set of laws a people agree to live by, a covenant, a marriage agreement, a treaty between nations, so on and so forth, and is relative only to those in the agreement. if you betray the agreements you agree to be in then immorality is in question. Anyone outside of the agreement or not included in the agreement are not bound to the agreement. Morals are not inherent to the flesh or the nature of the beast. They are necessary for man to coexist in peace and wellbeing. Even if its within a household.

even in the case in nations where it is agreed that one can speak out against the rules within the law(agreement) one is still obligated obey that law until it is changed, because if one remain within the territory of that law then one agrees by default to honor those laws with the possibility of prosecution should one disobey.

[promethean75]

Praise be to Jesus.

[bahman]

...out in the world that we actually live and interact in, what some experience as good others experience as evil. What then is a philosopher to do when confronting this?

Good and evil are subjective. It depends on the eyes of the beholder. If you enjoy an act then that act is good, others might feel different, so it is evil to them.

Actually, in fact, good and evil are intersubjective. Moral perspectives are derived from particular historical and cultural contexts. And from the particular personal interactions that we have with others.

As I noted on an ILP post...

...imagine that you are a castaway on an island in which you are the only inhabitant. What of ethics then? Unless you believe in God, right and wrong comes to revolve solely around you and nature. If you survive another day then you have done the right things. If you don't then, well, obviously.

It is only if another castaway arrives on the island, that ethics becomes "for all practical purposes" a part of your life. Suddenly your behaviors in your own little world might be challenged by this newcomer. You do this, he or she thinks you should do something else instead. Then you become acquainted with the means employed to resolve such "conflicting goods": might makes right, right makes might, moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Abortion, for example. For the Amish it's Evil -- forbidden -- even if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered.

Whereas many argue that, on the contrary, what is truly evil is forcing women who become pregnant to give birth or risk being charged with a crime and going to prison.

Well, killing could be good or evil depending on circumstances.

Not just the circumstances, but how each of us as individuals have come subjectively to understand those circumstances given the life that we have lived predispoing us existentially to arguing [philosophically or otherwise] that abortion is good or abortion is evil.

Yes, it is or. Abortion could be good or evil.

For some moral objectivists it is good to have that option. But for other moral objectivist choosing that option is evil. Okay, then, philosophically, deontologically, which is it?

Whereas for the moral nihilists [like me] it is "good" or "evil" depending on how your life unfolded predisposing you existentially to embrace one or another set of political prejudices. And then always open to change "given new experiences, relationships and information/knowledge in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change".

But: the moral nihilists [like me] have no way to actually demonstrate that there is in fact no God, or no deontological assessment.

Even the belief in moral nihilism itself is no less an existential leap of faith.

I have an argument against God. I however cannot understand how the existence of God makes objectivism true.

[iambiguous]

I have an argument against God. I however cannot understand how the existence of God makes objectivism true.

That depends on how one comes to understand what a God, the God, their God encompasses.

For example, most Christians have told me that they believe God is both omniscient and omnipotent. And that seems important in regard to objective morality because then it can be assumed that there is no question of choosing behaviors that God is not aware of. And in being aware of all the behaviors you choose you are then to be assessed on Judgment Day.

And if the behaviors you choose are or are not deemed by God to be Virtuous or Sinful, what would the Judgment then be predicated on. God flipping a coin?

Indeed, the point I often raise is that the Bible is not flat-out detailed regarding what is or is not acceptable behavior in God's mind. He does a piss-poor job there. Depending on the denomination this behavior or that behavior may or may not be sinful. The Bible is open to interpretation to say the least. But that seems to be God's fuck up.

The 10 Commandments. Okay, but what about mitigating and aggravating circumstances? What about mental conditions/diseases or brain tumors or flagrant indoctrination.

Though, sure, I'd imagine there is a way of looking at all this such that God is not necessarily equated with objective morality. I have merely come to think of it as I have now. I'm more than open to alternative views.

[bahman]

I have an argument against God. I however cannot understand how the existence of God makes objectivism true.

That depends on how one comes to understand what a God, the God, their God encompasses.

For example, most Christians have told me that they believe God is both omniscient and omnipotent. And that seems important in regard to objective morality because then it can be assumed that there is no question of choosing behaviors that God is not aware of. And in being aware of all the behaviors you choose you are then to be assessed on Judgment Day.

And if the behaviors you choose are or are not deemed by God to be Virtuous or Sinful, what would the Judgment then be predicated on. God flipping a coin?

Indeed, the point I often raise is that the Bible is not flat-out detailed regarding what is or is not acceptable behavior in God's mind. He does a piss-poor job there. Depending on the denomination this behavior or that behavior may or may not be sinful. The Bible is open to interpretation to say the least. But that seems to be God's fuck up.

The 10 Commandments. Okay, but what about mitigating and aggravating circumstances? What about mental conditions/diseases or brain tumors or flagrant indoctrination.

Though, sure, I'd imagine there is a way of looking at all this such that God is not necessarily equated with objective morality. I have merely come to think of it as I have now. I'm more than open to alternative views.

I have a few objections here: 1) God cannot know the future since we are free to choose. 2) Our behaviors mostly depend on our tendencies toward different things, and our tendencies are mostly rotted in our natures so we cannot be responsible for what we have the tendency toward, therefore we are not responsible for our behavior in most cases. Of course, we are free to fight against our tendencies and choose to do otherwise, what we have a tendency toward, but that requires a constant fight forever (if there is a life after death) that is an impossible task (we finally in most cases give up even in the short life we have here on earth). 3) Who is responsible for creating individuals with certain natures that have tendencies toward certain things? God, if not nature.

[iambiguous]

I have a few objections here: 1) God cannot know the future since we are free to choose.

Yes, that's a point I often raise myself: how to reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy. But those like IC here, confronted with the "for all practical purposes" implications of that, "think up" these "analytical contraptions" to explain it...away?

2) Our behaviors mostly depend on our tendencies toward different things, and our tendencies are mostly rotted [rooted?] in our natures so we cannot be responsible for what we have the tendency toward, therefore we are not responsible for our behavior in most cases.

Yes, and here I explore the extent to which our "tendencies" are rooted more in the subjective, existential parameters of dasein..."I" derived from interacting with others out in a particular world understood in a particular way historically, culturally, socially, politically, personally etc., or, if, using the tools of philosophy, we can ascertain the most rational and virtuous way in which to understand these clearly conflicting tendencies regarding dozens and dozens of "conflicting goods" that have fiercely divided us down through the ages.

As for what we are responsible for here, who is to really say with any degree of sophistication given all the variables involved. And in lives having to confront endless contingencies, change and change.

Of course, we are free to fight against our tendencies and choose to do otherwise, what we have a tendency toward, but that requires a constant fight forever (if there is a life after death) that is an impossible task (we finally in most cases give up even in the short life we have here on earth).

Here, it all comes down [for me] to how "fractured and fragmented" "I" becomes given the assumptions that I make regarding both religion and morality in these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

All I can do then is to suggest that in regard to these points, we focus in on a particular set of circumstances.

3) Who is responsible for creating individuals with certain natures that have tendencies toward certain things? God, if not nature.

Me, I'm not interested so much in the answers people give, but in the extent to which they can demonstrate that what they do believe about God and morality [or No God and morality] is in fact that which all rational men and women are in turn obligated to believe.

Down here though, not up in the spiritual contraption, "world of words" clouds.

[henry quirk]

Me, I'm not interested so much in the answers people give, but in the extent to which they can demonstrate that what they do believe about God and morality [or No God and morality] is in fact that which all rational men and women are in turn obligated to believe.

As I reckon it: the only thing you're obligated to do is respect the life, liberty, and property of the other guy (as he is obligated to respect yours) if not for his sake, then your own (cuz as you kill, enslave, rape, and steal your way thru that nihilistic life, you will meet up with someone who chooses to self-defend instead of give in to get thru and *poof* you're gone).

I await your standard diversionary hooey.

[iambiguous]

Science and Morality
Science doesn’t give us a script for what to value or believe in, but it helps us write that script
Jim Kozubek at Scientific American

In 2008, the President's Council on Bioethics released a 555-page report, titled Human Dignity and Bioethics, which fielded essays by wide array of thinkers including the progressive philosopher Daniel Dennett and conservatives such as Leon Kass. As Dennett put the problem, “When we start treating living bodies as motherboards on which to assemble cyborgs, or as spare parts collections to be sold to the highest bidder, where will it all end?”

Where all of this gets particularly problematic in today's world is when the relationship between science and morality gets entangled in turn in capitalism. There's what is in fact scientifically true or false, what is in fact moral or immoral and what will in fact sell or not sell.

After all, once -- whether in the field of bioethics or elsewhere -- big bucks can be made the slope only gets all the more slippery. Then science itself can be used to rationalize almost anything. Science and the Defense Department for example. Science and Big Pharma.

The solution of rescuing human dignity from the commercial forces of science, Dennett noted, cannot involve resorting to “traditional myths” since this “will backfire” but instead concepts of human dignity should be based on our sovereign right to “belief in the belief that something matters.”

Okay, Mr. Scientist, get together with Mr. Ethicist and send those avaricious capitalists down the most rational and righteous path in regard to research in the realm of human biology.

Explain to us all of the far more important things that ought to matter to us than making a fortune manipulating and reconstructing human biology into...whatever sells.

As for sustaining human dignity...hire a clever publicist for that.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

[iambiguous]

Me, I'm not interested so much in the answers people give, but in the extent to which they can demonstrate that what they do believe about God and morality [or No God and morality] is in fact that which all rational men and women are in turn obligated to believe.

As I reckon it: the only thing you're obligated to do is respect the life, liberty, and property of the other guy (as he is obligated to respect yours) if not for his sake, then your own (cuz as you kill, enslave, rape, and steal your way thru that nihilistic life, you will meet up with someone who chooses to self-defend instead of give in to get thru and *poof* you're gone).

I await your standard diversionary hooey.

Again, that's not my point.

Given a particular context in which mere mortals come to conflicting conclusions regarding the right thing to do, it's not what others "reckon" that interest me, but how they go about demonstrating that all other rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to "reckon" it as they do too.

The "life and liberty" of the unborn fetus or the "life and liberty" of a woman who is pregnant and does not want to be. She was raped for example.

Now, sure, if your moral font of choice is, say, the Christian God, you merely have to quote Scripture in order to demonstrate that what you reckon is true about the morality of abortion, others are obligated to reckon too. Reminding them that, if they don't, they'll burn in Hell.

Is God your moral font of choice.

If so, let's bring the discussion around to this:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

[bahman]

I have a few objections here: 1) God cannot know the future since we are free to choose.

Yes, that's a point I often raise myself: how to reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy. But those like IC here, confronted with the "for all practical purposes" implications of that, "think up" these "analytical contraptions" to explain it...away?

What are analytical contraptions?

2) Our behaviors mostly depend on our tendencies toward different things, and our tendencies are mostly rotted [rooted?] in our natures so we cannot be responsible for what we have the tendency toward, therefore we are not responsible for our behavior in most cases.

Yes, and here I explore the extent to which our "tendencies" are rooted more in the subjective, existential parameters of dasein..."I" derived from interacting with others out in a particular world understood in a particular way historically, culturally, socially, politically, personally etc., or, if, using the tools of philosophy, we can ascertain the most rational and virtuous way in which to understand these clearly conflicting tendencies regarding dozens and dozens of "conflicting goods" that have fiercely divided us down through the ages.

As for what we are responsible for here, who is to really say with any degree of sophistication given all the variables involved. And in lives having to confront endless contingencies, change and change.

I agree with what you said.

Of course, we are free to fight against our tendencies and choose to do otherwise, what we have a tendency toward, but that requires a constant fight forever (if there is a life after death) that is an impossible task (we finally in most cases give up even in the short life we have here on earth).

Here, it all comes down [for me] to how "fractured and fragmented" "I" becomes given the assumptions that I make regarding both religion and morality in these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

All I can do then is to suggest that in regard to these points, we focus in on a particular set of circumstances.

Yes, I agree that our personalities and beliefs are subject to change over time. We constantly looking forward to find the truth. The truth is obviously objective but how about morality? The other key question is if we can derive any truth value about morality (for example if morality is objective or relative, etc.) given the truth? The truth is about what and how things are, for example, we are minds/individuals and we are equal. Morality questions our actions on the other hand. I personally don't see any link between the truth and morality now.

[henry quirk]

biggy,

if your moral font of choice is, say, the Christian God

Sorry, I can't help you in your vendetta: I'm not Christian or a theist, and -- in this discussion between you and me -- God is not relevant.

You asked for a universal font: I gave you a universal commonality.

As I said over in the infanticide thread: It doesn't matter if your self-possession is God-derived or is just a function of amoral biology. Either way, you know you belong to yourself. And as a common intuition, one shared by everyone, everywhere, it can serve as a foundation for a minimal standard (ethical/legal [or, dare I say it?, moral]) that can apply to everyone.

I get it, guy: as with Walker, you'd prefer I play straight man.

I'm not doin' that.

-----

The "life and liberty" of the unborn fetus or the "life and liberty" of a woman who is pregnant and does not want to be. She was raped for example.

Let's weigh the conflicting goods...

What does Mary lose if we side with her unborn son?

Nine months.

What does Mary's unborn son lose if we side with Mary?

His life.

[iambiguous]

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website

So where do our morals come from, then, if not from religion? That’s a complicated question: There seem to be genetic as well as cultural components. These cultural components are influenced by religion, to be sure.

Yes, but which religion? Revolving around which alleged God over the length and breadth of thousands of years in communities that worshipped and adored every imaginable rendition of Him that, well, could be imagined. And then all of the No God facsimiles with their own [to me] wholly unintelligible No God immortality and salvation.

Then we pile on all of the No God Period secular fonts derived from the simple fact that when human beings interact there is no getting around the absolute necessity for "rules of behavior". Prescriptions and proscriptions which reward this and punish that.

And then when, re Marx, surplus labor derived from our more recent political economies allowed for the existence of philosophers, those able to concoct all manner of "philosophical" narratives, it still doesn't change that basic reality.

From or not from religion, nature more or less than nurture, morality comes from the very existence of the human condition itself.

Thus...

This equation happens even for atheists, who often take up the mores of their culture, which happens to have been influenced heavily by religions they don’t even ascribe to. So it’s not that religion does not effect morality, it’s just that morality also impacts religion.

Atheists don’t score differently than religious people when given moral dilemmas. Clearly, we all have morality.

Whether you’re religious or not, morality comes from the same place.

Of course, all I do is to explore that "place" given my own set of assumptions here. Though, unlike most, the "place" I've come to has resulted in my own moral philosophy having been deconstructed into a "for all practical purposes" fractured and fragmented sense of futility. I don't see the glass either half full or half empty...but having fallen to Earth and been shattered in a thousand pieces.

And all derived from the assumption that a God, the God does not exist.

Though, by all means, if you can convince me that He does, give it your best shot.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

[iambiguous]

I have a few objections here: 1) God cannot know the future since we are free to choose.

Yes, that's a point I often raise myself: how to reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy. But those like IC here, confronted with the "for all practical purposes" implications of that, "think up" these "analytical contraptions" to explain it...away?

What are analytical contraptions?

Well, when discussing religion and morality, my aim is always bring the exchange out into the world that we live and interact with others in. What is someone's particular moral philosophy? How is that related to their own particular understanding of God and religion?

And then: How are both derived [or not derived] from the manner in which I construe moral and spiritual values as the existential embodiment of dasein.

IC and others here seem less intent on going there and more intent on keeping the exchange up in the spiritual clouds.

Well, to me they are anyway.

Thus...

...here I explore the extent to which our "tendencies" are rooted more in the subjective, existential parameters of dasein..."I" derived from interacting with others out in a particular world understood in a particular way historically, culturally, socially, politically, personally etc., or, if, using the tools of philosophy, we can ascertain the most rational and virtuous way in which to understand these clearly conflicting tendencies regarding dozens and dozens of "conflicting goods" that have fiercely divided us down through the ages.

As for what we are responsible for here, who is to really say with any degree of sophistication given all the variables involved. And in lives having to confront endless contingencies, change and change.

I agree with what you said.

But what separates me from most others [even those who generally agree with me] is that my understanding of both morality and religion is now "fractured and fragmented" such that "I" am unable to believe that one frame of mind here is necessarily more rational than another. I'm "drawn and quartered" in regard to all moral conflicts. And I can not imagine this changing without becoming convinced that a God, the God does in fact exist.

In other words, No God = this frame of mind...

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

...to me now.

So, basically, I too come to ask myself, "the truth is obviously objective but how about morality?"

The either/or world truths rooted in the laws of nature, math, the logical rules of language. They are everywhere. But what of morality and metaphysics? What is the human brain even capable of knowing objectively here?

The very limits of human knowledge perhaps?

[iambiguous]

biggy,

if your moral font of choice is, say, the Christian God

Sorry, I can't help you in your vendetta: I'm not Christian or a theist, and -- in this discussion between you and me -- God is not relevant.

You asked for a universal font: I gave you a universal commonality.

And how is this not merely derived from the assumptions that you make about it "in your head"? After all, in regard to morality and religion, there are hundreds and hundreds of hopelessly conflicting narratives out there that start with that assumption.

People will tell you what they think and believe and claim to know. All of them basically insisting as you do that there is indeed a "universal commonality". Only it's not yours, it's theirs.

So, sure, they can come here and you can discuss and debate with them who is right and who is wrong. But, again, my aim is to shift all that to actual demonstrable evidence able to confirm which set of assumptions is the most rational. And hence for some also the most virtuous.

Given a particular moral and religious context in which value judgments come into conflict.

Instead, in my view, your own "evidence" revolves more around presumptuous intellectual contraptions like this...

As I said over in the infanticide thread: It doesn't matter if your self-possession is God-derived or is just a function of amoral biology. Either way, you know you belong to yourself. And as a common intuition, one shared by everyone, everywhere, it can serve as a foundation for a minimal standard (ethical/legal [or, dare I say it?, moral]) that can apply to everyone.

What "on Earth" is this supposed to mean at the existential intersection of morality and religion with respect to the hopelessly conflicting moral and religious dogmas out in the world we live in?

Given a conflagration like the abortion wars.

Here's what you "reckon" is objectively true here

The "life and liberty" of the unborn fetus or the "life and liberty" of a woman who is pregnant and does not want to be. She was raped for example.

Let's weigh the conflicting goods...

What does Mary lose if we side with her unborn son?

Nine months.

What does Mary's unborn son lose if we side with Mary?

His life.

Okay, so Mary raped and impregnated should spend the next nine months of her life being reminded of that terrible ordeal. And what if this pregnancy results in complications that threaten her own life? And what if this pregnancy should completely disrupt her life...her educational pursuits or her employment or her relationships with others.

Indeed, aren't men lucky that they never have to face this sort of trauma?

Also, what of those who insist that a zygote or embryo or early stage fetus is not really a human being at all, but a "clump of cells". Are they necessarily wrong because that doesn't square with your own "universal commonality".

And then the part where you delve more deeply into the manner in which I suggest that your own moral and political prejudices here are but the existential embodiment of dasein.

[henry quirk]

Biggy,

actual demonstrable evidence

I gave you some.