How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[Belinda]

Who is giving this "credit" of which you speak?

What is the "crediting" agent, or the rational basis for asserting that morality gets "credit"?

A society who's members did not conduct themselves according to any moral guidlines would not function very well, if at all. As I am a member of society it is in my interest to behave within a moral framework with regard to the other members of it, because only then can I expect those other members to behave within a moral framework towards me. Human beings are social animals, and our capacity for moral sensibility is hard wired into us. It makes sense to behave morally, because otherwise the benefits we derive from living socially would not be possible, and this is the rational basis on which I assert morality gets credit.

I don't actually believe that, say, a Christian and an atheist are motivated by different things when thy both believe that stealing is wrong and so refrain from doing it. The wrongness of stealing is inculcated into them by the society they are born into and grow up in. Were they both to give in to temptation and pocket money that did not belong to them, they would both experience exactly the same pangs of conscience.

If there is a difference between religious and secular morality, It probably shows up more in the case of victimless breaches of supposed morality. I am calling it victimless even though those who practice it are quite often the victims. A Catholic, for example, is told by his church that contraception is wrong, so he does not practice contraception, even though he, himself, might not see any good reason for that particular edict. In instances such as this, religious morality not only lacks the superiority you claim for it, but can also be down right harmful.

But religions are historically the only carriers of a codified moral messages . Only recently have reciprocal intentions been codified by secular authorities, after the American and the French revolutions and the United Nations (Unilateral Declaration of Human Rights).These grew out of previous religious morality and did not arise de novo.

Harbal wrote:

Human beings are social animals, and our capacity for moral sensibility is hard wired into us.

Probably true. However our ability to cooperate has been channelled into tribalism and tribal interests , and tribal goals still survive when for instance a nation or a religious sect such as the RC Church make people more devoted to the authority than to the people the authority pretends to serve. Religions as institutions deserve to be blamed for their bad intentions but religions have been the only conservers of the Christian message of universalisation , all men are equal.

Baby and bath water. Religions are not instituted by some supernatural presence but by men and it's men who will reform religions so that not the tribal but the universal message rules.

[Harbal]

But religions are historically the only carriers of a codified moral messages . Only recently have reciprocal intentions been codified by secular authorities, after the American and the French revolutions and the United Nations (Unilateral Declaration of Human Rights).These grew out of previous religious morality and did not arise de novo.

But what is the source of religious moral code? Since I don't believe it came from God, I have to conclude that those who set out these codes drew the substance of them from within themselves. Although I do have disdain for religion, I don't have any principles that force me to reject anything good that comes to us via religion. I'm sure moral code existed before religion did.

Religions as institutions deserve to be blamed for their bad intentions but religions have been the only conservers of the Christian message of universalisation , all men are equal.

Baby and bath water. Religions are not instituted by some supernatural presence but by men and it's men who will reform religions so that not the tribal but the universal message rules.

I'm not saying that nothing positive or good has ever come out of religion. The point I am trying to make is that morality can be practiced perfectly well in the absence of religion, and I would even suggest that that releases potential for it to be of a higher standard.

[Flannel Jesus]

But what is the source of religious moral code? Since I don't believe it came from God, I have to conclude that those who set out these codes drew the substance of them from within themselves.

Love this. And the cherry picking of morals by religious adherents shows that even followers morals don't entirely come from their holy books.

Religions as institutions deserve to be blamed for their bad intentions but religions have been the only conservers of the Christian message of universalisation , all men are equal.

Is that really fair though? Christianity has also been a cornerstone of the ethical defense of the practice of slavery. I haven't seen a secular defense of the ethics of slavery.

[bahman]

the fact by definition is a thing that is known or proved to be true.

That's got to be wrong.

If a fact were only something that was "known true," then it would not be a "fact" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or the world is round, or that water freezes at 0C/32F. Because at one time, those things were not "known" at all, or "proved" by anyone. Not a person on the planet "knew" them.

But they were still true.

You are mixing the truth with the fact.

Can God make adultery right? If not, why not?

Asked and answered.

Adultery is not consonant with character of God. It can never be "right."

But Allah permits killing the enemy of Muslims. So you need to provide a reason. Who is right or who is wrong? Without a reason, the conflict will never finish.

You've missed my entire explanation, I can see.

To be brief, I said that morality is that which is harmonious with the intrinsic nature of God Himself. Go and look again, I guess.

That is the definition of morality from the perspective of a believer. That is not the definition of moral fact.

If God is a fact (and, of course, I believe He is), then He is the basis of all moral facts.

No. If God is a fact and He is omniscient then He must have a reason why an act is wrong or right otherwise what He commands as wrong is arbitrary.

But of course, if you don't believe in God, you will have no knowledge of moral facts, and no way of explaining why action X is moral or immoral, even if you believe and practice rigorously as if it is.

You don't have the knowledge of moral facts otherwise you would have stated it by now.

[Harbal]

You don't have the knowledge of moral facts otherwise you would have stated it by now.

This is how it always is when the argument rests on whether God exists. Those arguing against his existence are constantly required to account for and explain this, that and the other, whereas all the defender of God has to say is, "well God just made it happen", and it is considered that nothing more need be said on the matter.

This state of affairs can descend into extreme depths of absurdity when the issue is something like evolution versus creationism. Those batting for evolution are expected to describe in minute detail how such and such biological process could possibly lead to such and such outcome when what they are being asked would put demands on even a professor in the field. Yet, "God did it", is all the creationist feels he need say. Don't ask how God did it, because that is God's business.

[bahman]

You don't have the knowledge of moral facts otherwise you would have stated it by now.

This is how it always is when the argument rests on whether God exists. Those arguing against his existence are constantly required to account for and explain this, that and the other, whereas all the defender of God has to say is, "well God just made it happen", and it is considered that nothing more need be said on the matter.

This state of affairs can descend into extreme depths of absurdity when the issue is something like evolution versus creationism. Those batting for evolution are expected to describe in minute detail how such and such biological process could possibly lead to such and such outcome when what they are being asked would put demands on even a professor in the field. Yet, "God did it", is all the creationist feels he need say. Don't ask how God did it, because that is God's business.

I agree with you 100%.

[Immanuel Can]

Who is giving this "credit" of which you speak?

What is the "crediting" agent, or the rational basis for asserting that morality gets "credit"?

A society who's members did not conduct themselves according to any moral guidlines would not function very well, if at all.

Oh, so long as you have "guidelines," or even just "rules" or "laws," you can keep a society going for a very long while on totally immoral things.

Look at how long Mideastern societies have oppressed women and minorities and murdered their opposition -- since no less than the 6th Century, there's been jihadis running around conquering, murdering and raping...but they have Sharia to codify it all, so it's considered just fine for them. Their society is more stable, in some ways, than liberal democracies appear to be: at least there's no assurance that liberal democracy will survive for sixteen more centuries.

So social stability or social functioning is a bit of a non-starter there. You can get it in highly immoral ways.

Human beings are social animals, and our capacity for moral sensibility is hard wired into us.

Well, Christians say the same thing: we all have a conscience.

It makes sense to behave morally, because otherwise the benefits we derive from living socially would not be possible,

Apparently, the "benefits" can be had by anybody who compels a code...be it moral or not. Sharia proves that, I think.

I don't actually believe that, say, a Christian and an atheist are motivated by different things when thy both believe that stealing is wrong and so refrain from doing it.

You might be right. But maybe the Atheist and the Theist are simply responding to their God-given consciences, in that case.

That doesn't, of course, make a case for Atheism.

If there is a difference between religious and secular morality, It probably shows up more in the case of victimless breaches of supposed morality.

It's hard to say when a crime is "victimless." Usually what that means is, "I don't care about the victims there actually are."

For example, tax evasion...victimless crime? Maybe. But what about lying...when one deprives another person of the truth in a matter, is there no "victim" for that? What about abortion -- if one doesn't admit that the baby is human...victimless crime?

In instances such as this, religious morality not only lacks the superiority you claim for it, but can also be down right harmful.

Oh, I don't claim any "superiority" for anything called "religious morality."

In fact, the example with which I began is an even starker case of "religious morality" gone bad, I think we'd both agree. But I haven't noticed any superiority in "Atheist morality," either, with well over 100 million people killed by avowedly Atheist regimes in the last century alone, and still counting today. But I do notice this: that whereas the lunatic jihadi can explain to you why the is going to slit our throats, the Atheist can't explain either why he is shooting us into a ditch, nor why, on the other hand, he is being nice.

Everything he does, morally speaking, simply has to be done without legitimative basis: for a world with no God has no justification for any action. They're all equally contingent, all equally optional, and none more objectively morally "right" than another. I think Nietzsche saw that clearly: without God, we end up "beyond good and evil," to use his turn of phrase.

[Immanuel Can]

You are mixing the truth with the fact.

I'll need your explanation of how "facts" are not "true."

Can God make adultery right? If not, why not?

Asked and answered.

Adultery is not consonant with character of God. It can never be "right."

But Allah permits...

Allah is a fake god. Both you and I know that much.

If God is a fact and He is omniscient then He must have a reason why an act is wrong or right...

He does: it's his nature that is the reason. And that's not at all arbitrary. God's character is not arbitrary. It's intrinsic.

You have to keep in mind this obvious fact: the universe is contingent. It's a product God created. It did not have to exist, and one day, it will cease to exist -- a fact we can know even from science itself. And in that universe, it is not the case that, say, "adultery" existed before God did, and He had to come along and say, "Well, now...I've got to declare this to be wrong...I wonder what reason I can find..."

When the universe was made, it was made to reflect the image and glory of God Himself. That's its right function and purpose. And it's ours, too. When we fulfill that purpose, in any way, what we are doing is objectively good. When we refuse to, in any way...by lying, cheating, proving unfaithful, being greedy, killing people God has made...we are doing objectively bad things. But the deep reason is that morality is created-into the very nature of the universe itself; it has inherent functions and procedures for which it is designed and intended, and things for which it has not been designed and intended. Those are our moral and immoral things.

That's all the reason there needs to be. You may not like that, but it will still be true.

[Harbal]

It's hard to say when a crime is "victimless." Usually what that means is, "I don't care about the victims there actually are."

For example, tax evasion...victimless crime? Maybe. But what about lying...when one deprives another person of the truth in a matter, is there no "victim" for that? What about abortion -- if one doesn't admit that the baby is human...victimless crime?

I gave an example of what I meant by "victimless", with the case of contraception. If you break your religion's moral code by using contraception, who is the victim?

I have explained my view of morality in the absense of religious belief as well as I can. You don't accept it, and I don't accept your critique of it, and that's that. It wouldn't actually make any difference if I agreed with you, I still wouldn't be able to believe in the existence of God.

[promethean75]

"I think Nietzsche saw that clearly: without God, we end up "beyond good and evil," to use his turn of phrase"

his phrase, but not at all what is meant in the context of its use there. you imply that this state of 'beyond good and evil' is a consequence of the loss of 'god' and with it, moral certainty. a dangerous task to be feared.

N on the other hand calls this BG&E state something that should be aspired to, wanted, as a goal. To get beyond the petty christian moral trifling that stifles any progress, creativity and improvement of the individual.

But you gotta understand how N perceived Christianity. It isn't just the trivial product of an error of reasoning, but a deep seated soul sickness born out of fear, exhaustion and repulsion at the world.

[Immanuel Can]

It's hard to say when a crime is "victimless." Usually what that means is, "I don't care about the victims there actually are."

For example, tax evasion...victimless crime? Maybe. But what about lying...when one deprives another person of the truth in a matter, is there no "victim" for that? What about abortion -- if one doesn't admit that the baby is human...victimless crime?

I gave an example of what I meant by "victimless", with the case of contraception. If you break your religion's moral code by using contraception, who is the victim?

I don't share the Catholic view of contraception. It seems unproblematic to me, because there's not even DNA capable of constituting a human being then. But yes, the Catholics have a different view: I don't know for sure what their rationale is, except that that is what they've been told to advocate by their ecclesiastical authorities.

I wouldn't take a position on that basis, myself.

I have explained my view of morality in the absense of religious belief as well as I can. You don't accept it, and I don't accept your critique of it, and that's that.

Yes, we can leave it there, if you like. Still, I've put my finger on the key issue: the lack of legitimation. Atheism has no means to show that precept X or Y is grounded in its view of reality. It has to take all morality as merely human feelings, but devoid of reference to moral facts. That's a significant difficulty for any secular moralist...you might call it a version of the is-ought dilemma, if you will.

It wouldn't actually make any difference if I agreed with you, I still wouldn't be able to believe in the existence of God.

I'm curious. Don't feel pushed to answer, but here's what I'm wondering.

I'm wondering if that's a pure product of you not having (yet) encountered sufficient evidence to convince you of the existence of God, or is that a product of will? Is it an "I would believe in God if I could, but I can't" situation, or a "I don't want to believe in God anyway" situation?

Or ignore me.

As the quip goes, "Even if we never located a joyous soothsayer, maybe we can still find a happy medium."

[bahman]

You are mixing the truth with the fact.

I'll need your explanation of how "facts" are not "true."

I didn't say so. Facts are known or proven to be true.

Asked and answered.

Adultery is not consonant with character of God. It can never be "right."

But Allah permits...

Allah is a fake god. Both you and I know that much.

Oh, come on. You need an argument to show that Allah is a fake God.

If God is a fact and He is omniscient then He must have a reason why an act is wrong or right...

He does: it's his nature that is the reason. And that's not at all arbitrary. God's character is not arbitrary. It's intrinsic.

People have been worshiping different Gods each has His or Her own nature all the time. What you said is just a claim even if it is true does not mean that we are having a moral fact.

[Immanuel Can]

You are mixing the truth with the fact.

I'll need your explanation of how "facts" are not "true."

I didn't say so. Facts are known or proven to be true.

Now you're mixing truth with facts. But you say a person shouldn't do that...

I can't make any sense out of what you are saying.

But Allah permits...

Allah is a fake god. Both you and I know that much.

Oh, come on. You need an argument to show that Allah is a fake God.

To you? I don't think so. Maybe to a Muslim...are you a Muslim?

People have been worshiping different Gods each has His or Her own nature all the time.

Yep. And most of them are fake gods. Like any other real entity, one can describe God rightly, or describe God wrongly.

And actually, everybody thinks that: they just disagree over which purported "gods" they think are fake...not over the fact of the existence of fakes.

[Harbal]

Yes, we can leave it there, if you like. Still, I've put my finger on the key issue: the lack of legitimation. Atheism has no means to show that precept X or Y is grounded in its view of reality. It has to take all morality as merely human feelings, but devoid of reference to moral facts.

Society, as a collection of human beings legitimates it. But morality is a matter of human feeling. You seem to suggest that that invalidates it in some way, but I don't understand why you think that. I suspect it is something to do with "moral facts", of which I completely refute the existence. Anyway, it seems to work, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it, as they say.

I'm wondering if that's a pure product of you not having (yet) encountered sufficient evidence to convince you of the existence of God, or is that a product of will? Is it an "I would believe in God if I could, but I can't" situation, or a "I don't want to believe in God anyway" situation?

Yes, as soon as God is mentioned I have a kneejerk reaction to rebel, I admit that that has become a habit. Underlying that, though, there is what I consider to be solid ground.

First off, my atheism is what you might call passive. It is just a lack of belief in something, rather than an active disbelief, if you understand the distinction I am trying to make. Some people are convinced that there is a monster in Loch Ness, some people are convinced that there is the wreck of an alien spacecraft in an air force hanger somewhere in America, and some people are convinced that there is a God. I just don't happen to share any of those beliefs, because they all run counter to my own observation and experience of life. Although I grew up in a Christian culture, there was never an attempt by anyone to influence me in how seriously I took it, and perhaps that is why I was never in the position of having to shake off any baggage before arriving at atheism.

I don't think I have a fundamental aversion to the idea of God, and although I don't have the slightest reason to think he might exist, I don't absolutely dismiss the idea out of hand. The God of the Bible is a different matter altogether, and I freely admit that the last thing I would want is for that God to exist. Fortunately, I have no worries on that score.

So if it turns out that I am wrong, and there is a God, I'm sure he would not be so petty as to condemn me to eternal damnation merely for not realising he was there. Call me an agnostic with atheistic tendencies if you like.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, we can leave it there, if you like. Still, I've put my finger on the key issue: the lack of legitimation. Atheism has no means to show that precept X or Y is grounded in its view of reality. It has to take all morality as merely human feelings, but devoid of reference to moral facts.

Society, as a collection of human beings legitimates it.

Except that "societies" disagree about everything. One "society" even disagrees with itself, over time.

So that won't work.

But morality is a matter of human feeling. You seem to suggest that that invalidates it in some way, but I don't understand why you think that.

Oh, that's easy.

It's because human beings have all kinds of feelings, many of them entirely unwarranted. So the only way we know whether or not a feeling is warranted is by looking at the facts. My "feeling" that I may drown in my bathtub or that there's a psycho in my closet may be very strong; but that fear is only warranted if I am in danger of drowning in my bathtub or if there IS a psycho in my closet.

But what facts are we looking at when we say something "feels moral" or does not "feel moral"? How do we test to know whether or not the "feeling" is warranted?

I'm wondering if that's a pure product of you not having (yet) encountered sufficient evidence to convince you of the existence of God, or is that a product of will? Is it an "I would believe in God if I could, but I can't" situation, or a "I don't want to believe in God anyway" situation?

Yes, as soon as God is mentioned I have a kneejerk reaction to rebel, I admit that that has become a habit. Underlying that, though, there is what I consider to be solid ground.

First off, my atheism is what you might call passive. It is just a lack of belief in something, rather than an active disbelief, if you understand the distinction I am trying to make.

I do.

I don't think I have a fundamental aversion to the idea of God, and although I don't have the slightest reason to think he might exist, I don't absolutely dismiss the idea out of hand. The God of the Bible is a different matter altogether, and I freely admit that the last thing I would want is for that God to exist. Fortunately, I have no worries on that score.

Interesting. Is there something in particular that makes you specifically uncomfortable with the God of the Bible?