How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[Harbal]

In order to resolve moral conflict by believing in God, one requires that God is Omniscient and knows moral facts which mean that morality is objective and any intelligent being can know it. We however know that there is no moral fact. Then how believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

I suppose that if you believe in the God of the Bible, you also believe that his word is law. I don't think God ever explains the reason behind his laws, he just tells you what the laws are. God says you must not kill, so if you kill, you are breaking God's law. I think it is the disobeying of God that is the moral crime here, and the killing is just incidental. You might have your own opinion on whether killing is a good or bad thing, but that is irrelevant, all that matters is that you obey God. It is a fact that killing is wrong purely because it is a violation of God's law. If you believe in God and the Bible, then the whole issue of morality is very simple and straight forward because there is only one moral imperative, which is obey God.

It is only when we come to secular, human law that we start having to put some thought into it. That is when we have to develop a moral code. Killing is an easy one; we can all see why it would not be a good thing if we were allowed to kill each other, no questions asked. The problem is that a great deal of our law was taken straight from the Bible, based on the presupposition that if God forbids something, it is morally wrong. It is only as we have become more enlightened that we have come to question this. For example, homosexuality was wrong, that was a fact as far as most people were concerned. Then, at some point, we began to question that belief, and came to realise the subjectivity of it, and changed the law accordingly.

You can only argue that there are moral facts if you either believe that God makes it so, or that they exist as some sort of property of the universe, although I wouldn't like to have to explain how they got there. If you do not believe in God, it isn't difficult to conclude that morality is completely subjective. For an atheist and a believer to have this argument is totally pointless, because neither has any chance at all of winning it.

[attofishpi]

In order to resolve moral conflict by believing in God, one requires that God is Omniscient and knows moral facts which mean that morality is objective and any intelligent being can know it. We however know that there is no moral fact. Then how believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

I suppose that if you believe in the God of the Bible, you also believe that his word is law. I don't think God ever explains the reason behind his laws, he just tells you what the laws are. God says you must not kill, so if you kill, you are breaking God's law. I think it is the disobeying of God that is the moral crime here, and the killing is just incidental. You might have your own opinion on whether killing is a good or bad thing, but that is irrelevant, all that matters is that you obey God. It is a fact that killing is wrong purely because it is a violation of God's law. If you believe in God and the Bible, then the whole issue of morality is very simple and straight forward because there is only one moral imperative, which is obey God.

It is only when we come to secular, human law that we start having to put some thought into it. That is when we have to develop a moral code. Killing is an easy one; we can all see why it would not be a good thing if we were allowed to kill each other, no questions asked. The problem is that a great deal of our law was taken straight from the Bible, based on the presupposition that if God forbids something, it is morally wrong. It is only as we have become more enlightened that we have come to question this. For example, homosexuality was wrong, that was a fact as far as most people were concerned. Then, at some point, we began to question that belief, and came to realise the subjectivity of it, and changed the law accordingly.

You can only argue that there are moral facts if you either believe that God makes it so, or that they exist as some sort of property of the universe, although I wouldn't like to have to explain how they got there. If you do not believe in God, it isn't difficult to conclude that morality is completely subjective. For an atheist and a believer to have this argument is totally pointless, because neither has any chance at all of winning it.

Hello Harbal! Where have you been? Hope you are doing well.

[Harbal]

Hello Harbal! Where have you been? Hope you are doing well.

I'm doing fine, fish pie. I retired last year, so I now feel old enough to come back here as a sage.

Nice to see you again.

[Belinda]

In order to resolve moral conflict by believing in God, one requires that God is Omniscient and knows moral facts which mean that morality is objective and any intelligent being can know it. We however know that there is no moral fact. Then how believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

I suppose that if you believe in the God of the Bible, you also believe that his word is law. I don't think God ever explains the reason behind his laws, he just tells you what the laws are. God says you must not kill, so if you kill, you are breaking God's law. I think it is the disobeying of God that is the moral crime here, and the killing is just incidental. You might have your own opinion on whether killing is a good or bad thing, but that is irrelevant, all that matters is that you obey God. It is a fact that killing is wrong purely because it is a violation of God's law. If you believe in God and the Bible, then the whole issue of morality is very simple and straight forward because there is only one moral imperative, which is obey God.

It is only when we come to secular, human law that we start having to put some thought into it. That is when we have to develop a moral code. Killing is an easy one; we can all see why it would not be a good thing if we were allowed to kill each other, no questions asked. The problem is that a great deal of our law was taken straight from the Bible, based on the presupposition that if God forbids something, it is morally wrong. It is only as we have become more enlightened that we have come to question this. For example, homosexuality was wrong, that was a fact as far as most people were concerned. Then, at some point, we began to question that belief, and came to realise the subjectivity of it, and changed the law accordingly.

You can only argue that there are moral facts if you either believe that God makes it so, or that they exist as some sort of property of the universe, although I wouldn't like to have to explain how they got there. If you do not believe in God, it isn't difficult to conclude that morality is completely subjective. For an atheist and a believer to have this argument is totally pointless, because neither has any chance at all of winning it.

Obedience matters for people who are devoted to an authoritarian religion, just as obedience matters for people who are devoted, whether they like it or not, to an authoritarian state. When Authority matters greatly to a modern society, if religion proper is not authoritarian, then some other myth such as a fascist, a communist , or a smaller cultish myth helps to support the Authority.

"God is dead" means not only that people no longer believe in a supernatural Being , it also means people cease to be obedient to Authority for the sake of the authority of inherited social class, or of wealth. Priests have been replaced by policemen.

[attofishpi]

Hello Harbal! Where have you been? Hope you are doing well.

I'm doing fine, fish pie. I retired last year, so I now feel old enough to come back here as a sage.

Nice to see you again.

Glad to hear it! I've got a great life too. I do what I want, when I want..but mainly still working for God painting pictures.

So, we should be blessed with more posts from you now that you have free time?

[Harbal]

Obedience matters for people who are devoted to an authoritarian religion, just as obedience matters for people who are devoted, whether they like it or not, to an authoritarian state. When Authority matters greatly to a modern society, if religion proper is not authoritarian, then some other myth such as a fascist, a communist , or a smaller cultish myth helps to support the Authority.

"God is dead" means not only that people no longer believe in a supernatural Being , it also means people cease to be obedient to Authority for the sake of the authority of inherited social class, or of wealth. Priests have been replaced by policemen.

A society has to have structure, and there has to be authority to impose it. I hate authority but it is a necessary evil, so, ideally, we should only have as much of it as is absolutely necessary. How much, is, to some extent, a matter of opinion.

[Harbal]

So, we should be blessed with more posts from you now that you have free time?

I'll do my best.

[Belinda]

Obedience matters for people who are devoted to an authoritarian religion, just as obedience matters for people who are devoted, whether they like it or not, to an authoritarian state. When Authority matters greatly to a modern society, if religion proper is not authoritarian, then some other myth such as a fascist, a communist , or a smaller cultish myth helps to support the Authority.

"God is dead" means not only that people no longer believe in a supernatural Being , it also means people cease to be obedient to Authority for the sake of the authority of inherited social class, or of wealth. Priests have been replaced by policemen.

A society has to have structure, and there has to be authority to impose it. I hate authority but it is a necessary evil, so, ideally, we should only have as much of it as is absolutely necessary. How much, is, to some extent, a matter of opinion.

Democracy is supposed to be the authority of the people and it's the only defence the people have against authoritarian priests and politicians. No religious or political regime should be for the benefit of a religious, political, or wealthy elite but for all the people.

[Harbal]

Democracy is supposed to be the authority of the people

What that means in practice is we get to choose who tells us what to do.

No religious or political regime should be for the benefit of a religious, political, or wealthy elite but for all the people.

Religious and political movements often start out with the best of intentions, but somewhere along the way the pursuit of power all too often replaces the benefit of the people as the driving force.

[Belinda]

Democracy is supposed to be the authority of the people

What that means in practice is we get to choose who tells us what to do.

No religious or political regime should be for the benefit of a religious, political, or wealthy elite but for all the people.

Religious and political movements often start out with the best of intentions, but somewhere along the way the pursuit of power all too often replaces the benefit of the people as the driving force.

Sure, we need to specialise, to delegate tasks to specialists. This includes politicians who have been delegated to legislate on our behalf. Democratic systems are not perfect but can be improved. For instance I support proportional representation as opposed to first past the post. Also, I support tertiary education for all if only to produce a more intelligent electorate.

[Harbal]

For instance I support proportional representation as opposed to first past the post. Also,

That sounds fairer, but I don't really know how it works, I'm not really a student of politics, or even a particularly interested layman. How well does it work where they already have it?

I support tertiary education for all if only to produce a more intelligent electorate.

And I would support it if only to increase the chances of bumping into someone with whom it is possible to have an intelligent conversation.

[bahman]

I already defined the moral fact for you. Do you want me to define it again?

Yep. Go right ahead.

I guess you'd better explain what sort of "reason" you think God would need to have, other than that the person in question is rebellious and insulting the the Supreme Being in the universe...

Your God is Omniscient yet you are not aware of a single moral fact that God knows and gives the command base on that?

I'll need your definition of "moral fact," first.

Moral facts are a set of principles that the rightness or wrongness of an act can be derived from.

Utterly irrelevant.

It is very relevant indeed. Different people believe different things so there will be moral conflicts as far as no moral fact is provided by an authority such as God.

Well, any time people "believe different things," and those things are directly contradictory, then some will be right and some will be wrong; or they will all be wrong.

But it is logically impossible for them all to be right.

So at least somebody is simply wrong. That's a fact you can take to the bank.

That is true that one group is right and others are wrong. But you need facts to show which one is right and others are wrong.

Truth is not an opinion poll. Truth doesn't change depending on the number of people who believe something. Truth is a function of reality.

True, but how could you justify that what you believe is true?

With reference to reality.

Come on this is not a justification.

That tells you one thing for sure: one of them is right, and one of them is wrong. That's all that tells you.

Now, given you own natural sense of morality, which one of those two would you guess is more moral? (Of course, your guess won't determine that; but indulge me.)

My natural sense of morality is not important.

Wait...you just said that what "people believe" is relevant. Now you say "what you believe" is not?

But I didn't ask you whether or not it was "important." I simply asked you what you would be inclined to think.

The killing could be right or wrong for example. Everything is a matter of the situation. And to realize what is right to do in a situation you need moral facts.

Which do you think is more likely to be the genuinely "moral" instruction, the instruction of Christ, or the word of Islam?

To me none.

So it's neither good to love your enemy NOR good to kill him? Explain.

Good and evil are both fundamental. Whether I am doing good or evil is a matter of situation.

[Harbal]

Moral facts are a set of principles that the rightness or wrongness of an act can be derived from.

Principles are not facts.

[bahman]

In order to resolve moral conflict by believing in God, one requires that God is Omniscient and knows moral facts which mean that morality is objective and any intelligent being can know it. We however know that there is no moral fact. Then how believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

I suppose that if you believe in the God of the Bible, you also believe that his word is law. I don't think God ever explains the reason behind his laws, he just tells you what the laws are. God says you must not kill, so if you kill, you are breaking God's law. I think it is the disobeying of God that is the moral crime here, and the killing is just incidental. You might have your own opinion on whether killing is a good or bad thing, but that is irrelevant, all that matters is that you obey God. It is a fact that killing is wrong purely because it is a violation of God's law. If you believe in God and the Bible, then the whole issue of morality is very simple and straight forward because there is only one moral imperative, which is obey God.

It is only when we come to secular, human law that we start having to put some thought into it. That is when we have to develop a moral code. Killing is an easy one; we can all see why it would not be a good thing if we were allowed to kill each other, no questions asked. The problem is that a great deal of our law was taken straight from the Bible, based on the presupposition that if God forbids something, it is morally wrong. It is only as we have become more enlightened that we have come to question this. For example, homosexuality was wrong, that was a fact as far as most people were concerned. Then, at some point, we began to question that belief, and came to realise the subjectivity of it, and changed the law accordingly.

You can only argue that there are moral facts if you either believe that God makes it so, or that they exist as some sort of property of the universe, although I wouldn't like to have to explain how they got there. If you do not believe in God, it isn't difficult to conclude that morality is completely subjective. For an atheist and a believer to have this argument is totally pointless, because neither has any chance at all of winning it.

The moral facts are needed since otherwise the conflict between different religions, such as war, keeps going. For example, in Islam, it is asked to kill your enemy while in Christianity it is asked to love your enemy. How can you tell which one is right if you don't have any fact?

[bahman]

Moral facts are a set of principles that the rightness or wrongness of an act can be derived from.

Principles are not facts.

Moral principles are a set of principles that the rightness or wrongness of an act can be derived from. How about this?