Religious vs non-religous bases for morality

[MikeNovack]

Idiotic expectation. The atheist would not be basing much of anything directly on his/her atheism.

Right. So Atheism does not offer anybody any moral guidance, right? Essentially, it's an amoral worldview, one without moral information of any kind in it.

Well first of all I wasn't saying/agreeing atheists would have no basis for morality. I was referring to your original wording that they could not base it ON THEIR ATHEISM. I was claiming that a ridiculous expectation of yours. Belief in the existence of your god is central to YOUR system of beliefs. But it's not symmetrical. The atheist does not believe any gods exist, but that does not play such a central role. There are many things the atheist might alsom believe do not exist, like pink unicorns. So why didn't you say "the atheist cannot base his/her morality on disbelief that pink unicorns exist.

BUT FOR THE MOMENT. IC, explain.
a) If your moral system is valid because it is dictated by a god. what standing do you assign the moral systems dictated by other gods (to the believers of those gods? Do you understand this question? I am not a Christian but a person familiar with many religions and their moral teachings.

Do note that these moral teachings have a great deal in common << will return to this when discussing d=secularists >> But they are not identical.

b) Suppose the moral teachings of some false religion happen to be essentially identical to your own. I understand your argument, "not properly based", but can you say they are "wrong"?

c) If is your belief that matters, remember, that other person is just as much a believer in his/her gods.

<<< I'll wait to gom on to consider the secularist until I see your answers for the religious believers >>>

[Immanuel Can]

BUT FOR THE MOMENT. IC, explain.
a) If your moral system is valid because it is dictated by a god. what standing do you assign the moral systems dictated by other gods (to the believers of those gods? Do you understand this question? I am not a Christian but a person familiar with many religions and their moral teachings.

Asked and answered. See my last post on the other site.

[FlashDangerpants]

Mannie's case is lazy and stupid, as has been pointed out many times, it amounts to finding out what God's opinion is, and then telling everyone to stop asking any further questions.

Religion is not an adequate basis to establish moral facts. "Because God says so" is not necessary or sufficient explanation for why sex between two men is rightful or wrongful. Similarly, "God designed your hands for clasping in prayer not jerking your trouser meat" is insufficient reason not to pop out your schmeat and give it an occasional pounding if that's what makes you happy.

Without a non-circular explanation for how God happens to know what are the properties that make an action or choice the right or wrong one, none of this crap amounts anything more than might making right, and God being the mightiest and thus the rightiest.

Religion is a fraudulent basis for morality. Any Christian who wishes to pretend it compels his conscience merely overlays his own opinions upon God and then claims divine inspiration when he gets his own base desires back in the form of Heavenly Command to do what he already intended. It's downright sacrilegious.

There is no moral advantage in any religion. Nobody ever changes their morals at the command of God, they never need to, he obsequiously agrees with everybody who ever asks him. This is possible because there is no evidentiary basis to any of any religion's moral teachings. God is never constrained by the moral properties of anything, it's all just his supposed opinion which just so happens to be the same as your own in every damn case.

There wouldn't even be moral advantage in any true religion unless God stopped whatever he was doing to actually explain a method for interrogating moral properties that pertain to a situation or choice that doesn't just rely on prayer and looking inwards for wisdom.

[MikeNovack]

BUT FOR THE MOMENT. IC, explain.
a) If your moral system is valid because it is dictated by a god. what standing do you assign the moral systems dictated by other gods (to the believers of those gods? Do you understand this question? I am not a Christian but a person familiar with many religions and their moral teachings.

Asked and answered. See my last post on the other site.

A) Not asked and answered "on the other side"

B) I will IGNORE your attempts to pervert other threads. There is no "other side" where should be discussed.

C) A clear answer HERE. I am trying to get you to state whether or not you you are going to make the soundness of the basis of moral teahings of a religion depend on the TRUTH of that religion. You should be able to predict where I will go from there whichever way you answer.

D) Don't feel sorry for the atheist. The atheist likely feels the same way about you, lost in delusions about the great pink unicorns/

[Impenitent]

the great pink unicorns have nothing on the Purple Wombats...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

There is no "other side" where should be discussed.

Bad luck for you: you don't have a say, actually. You can get your answer there, or you can go without one.

[MikeNovack]

There is no "other side" where should be discussed.

Bad luck for you: you don't have a say, actually. You can get your answer there, or you can go without one.

Look, you are claiming "divine authorization" for morality. So what I am asking is perfectly relevant. BEFORE discussing with you the status of possible secular bases for morality I want to have a clear expression of what you say when we are discussing other religions/gods. BEFORE dealing with the asymmetrical, I want to see what you are claiming when symmetrical.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no "other side" where should be discussed.

Bad luck for you: you don't have a say, actually. You can get your answer there, or you can go without one.

Look, you are claiming "divine authorization" for morality. So what I am asking is perfectly relevant.

And you have your answer.

[MikeNovack]

WHY the assumption that the moral code of a "false religion" would NECESSARILY be false.

It would depend. It could be accidentally true in some part; but it would be highly likely to go wrong in others, due to the falseness of its grounding suppositions. And if it contradicts others, then both cannot logically be true at the same time...so we'd have to see if there is a genuine contradiction involved.

All moral frameworks have be assessed against the divine standard, of course.

You have just argued:
If A implies B
A is false
then B is false << that is very bad logic >>

The falseness of its grounding (not dictated by TRUE gods) is no good reason to assume the moral teachings would be very different. And in fact, if you looked at the moral teachings of several religions you would not find them as highly divergent as you expect. Please step back to ask (and try to answer) if these moral teachings of false religions didn't come from false gods, where DID they come from? Maybe where from might explain why they tend to resemble each other more than they differ.

[Immanuel Can]

WHY the assumption that the moral code of a "false religion" would NECESSARILY be false.

It would depend. It could be accidentally true in some part; but it would be highly likely to go wrong in others, due to the falseness of its grounding suppositions. And if it contradicts others, then both cannot logically be true at the same time...so we'd have to see if there is a genuine contradiction involved.

All moral frameworks have be assessed against the divine standard, of course.

You have just argued:
If A implies B
A is false
then B is false << that is very bad logic >>

Yes, it is...but it is not the argument I have made.

What I have said is that a false belief can produce a true conclusion...but only by accident, not by logical soundness. And I have pointed out that a belief system that lacks any moral premises cannot rationally produce any moral conclusions. That's also true, and logical and correct.

And in fact, if you looked at the moral teachings of several religions you would not find them as highly divergent as you expect.

You're quite wrong. Verifiably so, in fact. And now I suspect that you have not done any research into alternate religions, because nobody who had done any could possibly believe what you say.

I have read, in their entirety, the Koran, the Dhammapada, the Tao, the entire Tanakh (many times), the Gita, and various other such stuff, such as the Gnostics and the historically-acclaimed Atheists, such as large sections of Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, Jung, Hume, Sartre, Foucault, etc...and I can tell you for certain that the moral precepts insisted on by each of these is radically different from Judeo-Christian moral teaching...with the exception of the Tanakh, of course. There's no way a fair observer could possibly conclude they were the same. Only by being very superficial and badly informed could one suppose otherwise.

And think about what you're saying: it's not charitable, though at first, you might suppose it is. You're actually saying that the Muslims, the Hindus, the Christians, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Gnostics, the Atheists...none of them have anything unique, specific or valuable to offer, but that all of them simply turn out to be some off-colour version of some generic morality that bears none of their names and owes nothing to the specialness of any tradition, at least in regard to moral teachings.

Is that what you believe?

...they tend to resemble each other more than they differ.

You would have to keep all of them in the fuzziest of focus to imagine that was true. Superficially, of course, you can catch some resemblances: but dive into the particulars, and that impression goes away fast. What surface agreement there is seems to come from the universal conscience God has put in all men; but the details, the particulars, the specific precepts...well, you can't possibly suppose they reflect more resemblance than difference. The specific differences are quite stark. One religion says "love your enemies," and another says "kill the infidels." How do you reconcile that?

[MikeNovack]

You're quite wrong. Verifiably so, in fact. And now I suspect that you have not done any research into alternate religions, because nobody who had done any could possibly believe what you say.

I have read, in their entirety, the Koran, the Dhammapada, the Tao, the entire Tanakh (many times), the Gita, and various other such stuff, such as the Gnostics and the historically-acclaimed Atheists .... (we haven't gottenzTHERE yet)y each of these is radically different from Judeo-Christian moral teaching..

And think about what you're saying: it's not charitable, though at first, you might suppose it is. You're actually saying that the Muslims, the Hindus, the Christians, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Gnostics, the Atheists...none of them have anything unique, specific or valuable to offer, but that all of them simply turn out to be some off-colour version of some generic morality that bears none of their names and owes nothing to the specialness of any tradition, at least in regard to moral teachings.
<< the various different religions are ABOUT fundamentally different thins --- that doesn't make their teachings about "how should man live wit man all that different >>

Is that what you believe?

What surface agreement there is seems to come from the universal conscience God has put in all men; but the details, the particulars, the specific precepts. << AH, here it is (the where comes from) ---- I will repeat below >>

"What surface agreement there is seems to come from the universal conscience God has put in all men; but the details, the particulars, the specific precepts."

So you believe your true god has provided all men with this universal conscience by which they know right from wrong (know morality). And that THIS is the source of the moral teachings of the false religions. They might believe these teachings come from their gods but actually they come from your true god.

Sorry, I am now getting a little confused. You say moral teachings are valid if coming from your (true) god IF you believe in that god and believe that god gave you those moral directives but become invalid if you believe in some other gods and that these directives came from those gods (but the directives themselves actually came from your one true god)

If A is TRUE, does it become not true if my beliefs about why A is true are false/invalid? Is that what you are arguing?

And of course we have the additional problem, symmetry. I accept that your belief in the truth of your god, your religion, and its teachings. But I also see that person over there, just as sincere in belief in the truth of his/her gods, his/her religion and its teachings. I do not see any obvious way to resolve this.

If X is true then X is true ---- this tautology does not depend on whether I believe X is true for good/logical reasons, believe X is true but without a sound logical basis, or believe X is false.

[Immanuel Can]

"What surface agreement there is seems to come from the universal conscience God has put in all men; but the details, the particulars, the specific precepts."

So you believe your true god has provided all men with this universal conscience by which they know right from wrong (know morality).

Not perfectly, but indicatively. There are some basics that everybody knows instinctively: unfortunately, culture and ideology are two things that can override good conscience, and convince people that evil things are good and good things are evil. So that internal "fire alarm' is susceptible to being made dysfunctional by outside forces.

Hence, the necessity of the divine standard -- to correct for human perfidy.

Sorry, I am now getting a little confused.

The above should clear it up for you.

I accept that your belief in the truth of your god, your religion, and its teachings. But I also see that person over there, just as sincere in belief in the truth of his/her gods, his/her religion and its teachings.

If "sincere" meant "moral," you'd have a case. But unfortunately, it's quite possible to be "sincerely wrong."

I don't doubt that the terrorist bomber who kills civilians believes he's being virtuous in his own, twisted way. I see no reason to doubt that he believes Allah will reward him with 72 perpetual rape victims in Paradise, for the actions he took on Oct. 7th. He believes it so fervently that he's willing to immolate not only Jews but his own people and himself in order to commit to it. I think we have good reason to believe in his "sincerity."

But is "sincerity" an indicator of morality? No. It's only one of several conditions necessary for an action to be moral...and conformity to the divine standard is the ultimate. "Thou shalt not commit murder." He has forgotten that. "Thou shalt have no other God's but HaShem." He has not cared for that. "Love your neighbour as yourself": he has definitely not followed that. Nevertheless, his morality is to be judged not merely by our instinctive revulsion, and not by whatever limited light is left in his own seared conscience, however "sincere," but by the divine standard against which he has offended.

[MikeNovack]

Not what I was applying "sincerity" to.

A sincerely believes his/her gods are the true god.
B sincerely believes his/her gods are the true god.
( and so forth for C, D, E, ........ there are lots of religions)

They are not in agreement about TRUTH

What can any of A, B, C, ..... say to X (not a believer -- but that does not mean committed to a belief gods do not exist). Why do you expect X to consider any of these clams differently?

[Immanuel Can]

Not what I was applying "sincerity" to.

A sincerely believes his/her gods are the true god.
B sincerely believes his/her gods are the true god.

Tom sincerely believes the earth is flat.
Cindy sincerely believes the earth is round.
No difference: sincerity adds no content at all with regard to truth.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Idiotic expectation. The atheist would not be basing much of anything directly on his/her atheism.

Right. So Atheism does not offer anybody any moral guidance, right? Essentially, it's an amoral worldview, one without moral information of any kind in it.

Well first of all I wasn't saying/agreeing atheists would have no basis for morality. I was referring to your original wording that they could not base it ON THEIR ATHEISM. I was claiming that a ridiculous expectation of yours. Belief in the existence of your god is central to YOUR system of beliefs. But it's not symmetrical. The atheist does not believe any gods exist, but that does not play such a central role. There are many things the atheist might alsom believe do not exist, like pink unicorns. So why didn't you say "the atheist cannot base his/her morality on disbelief that pink unicorns exist.

BUT FOR THE MOMENT. IC, explain.
a) If your moral system is valid because it is dictated by a god. what standing do you assign the moral systems dictated by other gods (to the believers of those gods? Do you understand this question? I am not a Christian but a person familiar with many religions and their moral teachings.

Do note that these moral teachings have a great deal in common << will return to this when discussing d=secularists >> But they are not identical.

b) Suppose the moral teachings of some false religion happen to be essentially identical to your own. I understand your argument, "not properly based", but can you say they are "wrong"?

c) If is your belief that matters, remember, that other person is just as much a believer in his/her gods.

<<< I'll wait to gom on to consider the secularist until I see your answers for the religious believers >>>

Morality only exists in terms of how one should treat another that has not agreed to be bound to that one. For one morality is subjective, as long as one does not taint the other. One must stay in their own lane of life to be morally sound.