Jewish atheists

[metis]

Look at it from this standpoint -- if morality doesn't stem from God, then there is no real justifiable reason to correct others if you think they are being immoral.  For instance, if your friend lies to you, make a mental note that he does this sort of thing, but can you really be upset with him if morality is relative?  If you told him that lying is wrong, couldn't he reasonably respond that it's only wrong for you, but not for him?

So the only reason you won't lie is because a deity or deities will punish you if you do? 

What about trust and friendship?  What about relying on friends for help?  All societies need a moral order in order to function.  There's an old joke that goes that if two Englishmen were stranded on an island, the first thing they'd do is form a government.  Government helps in the formation of morals (even though sometimes we have to wonder if they think that morals should apply to them). 

Shalom,
Vern   

[Acumen]

Vern,

So the only reason you won't lie is because a deity or deities will punish you if you do?

Well, that is certainly one reason, but not the "only" reason.  The other reason is that we desire a good relationship with God. 

Government helps in the formation of morals (even though sometimes we have to wonder if they think that morals should apply to them).

If one accepts that God is both intelligent and He created us, then He created us for a purpose.  Within that purpose lies our morality.  If the purpose of a hammer is to strike an object repetitively, and it falls apart after one strike, then it's not a good hammer because it didn't fulfill its intended purpose.  If humans do not fulfill their intended purpose, then they are not good humans regardless what sort of conventions they've established.  This type of reasoning only works if there is a Creator being.  Remove the Creator being, and you have no immutable force upon which to establish objectively reliable morality.  Crudely put, it becomes every man for himself.

-Acumen

[Howiedds]

Hi Vern. I think the Hispanic Panic did something good here. I'm finding it much easier to use than the new beliefnet, and there are fewer crazies. Of course, then you showed up...there goes the neighborhood.

Have a good Thanksgiving everyone.

[SUPERMAN]

Howie,

Thanks for the endoresment!  We hope that every member feels comfortable here, and we adminstrators are open for suggestions on how to do just that.

[gracebyfaith]

Vern,
Welcome!  You should be an interesting read.  I'm gathering you're not
convinced there is a God?

I have to be honest, I'm not accustomed to discussing Christian, Catholic
or Jewish principles without using the Scriptures.  Though, it looks like Acumen
is doing a good job...


Howie,
I will be enjoying our Thanksgiving with family and friends!  If any of you like
sweet potatoes - I have a recipe for sweet potato casserole that everybody
loves, I'll share it with anyone interested or with your lovely wives.

God bless you all!
Grace

[metis]

This type of reasoning only works if there is a Creator being.  Remove the Creator being, and you have no immutable force upon which to establish objectively reliable morality.  Crudely put, it becomes every man for himself.

I'm afraid you're either ignoring the fact that societies need morals or you may not be realizing the significance of that fact.  The pressure put on us in any society is immense.  A general rule of thumb that we use in anthropology is that the smaller the society, the more effective social pressure tends to be.  However, this "rule" doesn't always work as in the case if we study Japanese society, which has a very low crime rate compared to the States and yet most Japanese are non-theistic.  But by your account, the States should have a much lower crime rate since over 90% of all Americans profess a belief in a deity.

If we cannot have convincing evidence of a deity or deities, since belief is based on faith, then how can one automatically give credit to these deities as the basis for all morality?  Where's the evidence?  All I see is speculation built on top of more speculation.  It could be right, but I'll not bet the house on it.

However, at this point, let me clear the air a little.  Unlike Dawkins and Harris, I'd rather accentuate the positive in religion while at the same time recognizing the possible dangers that lie within.  IOW, I am not anti-religious.  I have no axe to grind.

Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

Hi Vern. I think the Hispanic Panic did something good here. I'm finding it much easier to use than the new beliefnet, and there are fewer crazies. Of course, then you showed up...there goes the neighborhood.

Have a good Thanksgiving everyone.

Ditto my friend, and the same to the rest of you.  And, btw, you need at least one crazy here to stir the pot a tad. 

Shalom & I'll see you all on the other side of the turkey,
Vern

[metis]

Welcome!  You should be an interesting read.  I'm gathering you're not
convinced there is a God?

I have to be honest, I'm not accustomed to discussing Christian, Catholic
or Jewish principles without using the Scriptures. 

First of all, thankyou for your warm welcome.  I appreciate that, and I look forward to discussing things with you.

Yes, I am non-theistic (even though I've pretty much became this way in the last few years, I only "came out of the closet" about a year or so ago).  Don't be afraid to use scripture around me-- I don't have a problem with that. 

Shalom & enjoy the holiday,
Vern 

[Acumen]

Vern,

I'm afraid you're either ignoring the fact that societies need morals or you may not be realizing the significance of that fact. 

I don't think you fully understood my earlier posts.  By morality, I mean the purpose of our lives.  I think you're referring to cultural conventions.  The two are not the same, but sometimes they can be.

However, this "rule" doesn't always work as in the case if we study Japanese society, which has a very low crime rate compared to the States and yet most Japanese are non-theistic.  But by your account, the States should have a much lower crime rate since over 90% of all Americans profess a belief in a deity.

I get the feeling that you've had debates like this before with other Christians.  But my views aren't stereotypical.  I'm not saying theists are more moral that non-theists.  In fact, I think that in many cases, the contrary is true.  I'm not talking about "being moral," but rather "knowing" morality.  I don't think the non-theist knows what morality is, although they may live a moral life in many ways.  How is this?  Many times, cultural convention and morality run along the same path.  Generally, lying is wrong morally and culturally.  The atheist may believe that lying is wrong because that's what he was taught, and it seems to work especially in relationship settings.  The theist, on the other hand, believes the same thing, but also believes that being truthful is doing what God has ordained, and therefore truthful people are being moral.  The theist knows something about the foundation of morality, whereas the atheist knows the cultural convention.

-Acumen

[metis]

I don't think you fully understood my earlier posts.  By morality, I mean the purpose of our lives.  I think you're referring to cultural conventions.  The two are not the same, but sometimes they can be.

Ah, and it's that last sentence that brings us together.  There's a fine line between "morality" and "conventions", and much of the time I'm not certain that we can differentiate between the two.

The theist knows something about the foundation of morality, whereas the atheist knows the cultural convention.

One correction: the theist BELIEVES he/she knows about the foundation of morality.  Maybe they do, but maybe they don't.  But the "bottom line" still is that this: theistic belief is just that-- belief.  It should not be considered some sort of slam-dunk fact.  And no matter whether one calls the basis of morality "morals" or "conventions", the results are the same.

We now know that much of our morality is based on our genetic predisposition, although not all individuals are affected the same exact way (there are "delinquents" even amongst bacteria believe it or not).  But, as we previously discussed, we should not assume that this predisposition is of a theistic source nor assume that it can't be.  Either way, it exists and, logically speaking (I hope), it would have to exist from an evolutionary point of view with any social animal even if no deity was involved.  If it didn't, there simply would be no society.

Shalom & time to go to bed-- we have 30 people and 2 turkeys around our table tomorrow,
Vern   

[Acumen]

Vern,

One correction: the theist BELIEVES he/she knows about the foundation of morality.  Maybe they do, but maybe they don't.  But the "bottom line" still is that this: theistic belief is just that-- belief.  It should not be considered some sort of slam-dunk fact.  And no matter whether one calls the basis of morality "morals" or "conventions", the results are the same.

Okay, now I'm a tad frustrated because I lost my post.  Okay, here it goes again.

If my presumption that God exists is right, then I believe we can know how the machinery of morality works.  It would take careful investigation, but I believe it would be worth while.

We now know that much of our morality is based on our genetic predisposition, although not all individuals are affected the same exact way (there are "delinquents" even amongst bacteria believe it or not).  But, as we previously discussed, we should not assume that this predisposition is of a theistic source nor assume that it can't be.  Either way, it exists and, logically speaking (I hope), it would have to exist from an evolutionary point of view with any social animal even if no deity was involved.  If it didn't, there simply would be no society.

I agree that moral proclivities can be transmitted through genetic code.  From an evolutionary standpoint, certain characteristics and abilities that enhance the survival of the species are transmitted from generation to generation.  Part of these abilities is the ability recognize that certain behaviors are beneficial and tend to promote survival.  Once recognized, these behaviors are then considered acceptable by members of the species, and like genetic code, they are passed down from generation to generation as convention.  Convention includes anything from prohibitions agaist murder to fleeing the pursuit of police.

Morality, as I see it, is purposeful.  It is not restricted to those behaviors that promote the survival of the species.  In fact, sometimes it stands in the face of our survival.  Sometimes doing the right thing willy cost you your life.  I don't believe that morality is the result of evolution (even if I accepted the theory of evolution).  Morality is a map to the purpose of life.  Evolution cannot speak to purpose, but rather it only speaks to coincidence.  There is no purpose to why the species develop characteristics and abilites that promote survival, they just do because it works.  Conducting our lives to enhance our survival is not moral, rather it's instinctual and conventional.

P.S., personally, I think my lost post was better.

-Acumen 

[metis]

I don't believe that morality is the result of evolution (even if I accepted the theory of evolution).  Morality is a map to the purpose of life.  Evolution cannot speak to purpose, but rather it only speaks to coincidence.  There is no purpose to why the species develop characteristics and abilites that promote survival, they just do because it works.  Conducting our lives to enhance our survival is not moral, rather it's instinctual and conventional.

Yes, it is true that, if you define "morality" in the way you have, then evolution is not a "moral" endeavor since it doesn't establish a "purpose in life" ( I would be more inclined to use the terms "morality" as not being synonymous with "purpose", and this appears as to why we were apparently talking past each other).

Let me ask you a question: why don't you accept the theory of evolution?  IOW, what's your "bottom line" here?

P.S., personally, I think my lost post was better.

That's sounds a bit too much like the fish that got away. 

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

Yes, it is true that, if you define "morality" in the way you have, then evolution is not a "moral" endeavor since it doesn't establish a "purpose in life" ( I would be more inclined to use the terms "morality" as not being synonymous with "purpose", and this appears as to why we were apparently talking past each other).

The reason I define morality in objective terms is because the way people appear to respond to issues of morality.  If you greeted me, and in turn I punched you in the face, I think you would be mad because I wronged you.  You could give me many reasons why I shouldn't punch you.  First, it hurts.  Second, you're my elder.  Third, I wouldn't like it if it was done to me.  Fourth, you didn't do anything to deserve it.  Fifth, it could negatively impact your health, (e.g., concussion, permanent brain injury, heart attack).  And I'm sure there are more reasons you could give to indicate my moral contravention.

People typically don't say, "I'm mad because punching me violates the law" or "I'm mad because my genetic makeup and instinct doesn't like it."  In order for morality to be objective (not just a matter of opinion), it must be true regardless what humans it affects, and it must come from an objective source. 

Let me ask you a question: why don't you accept the theory of evolution?  IOW, what's your "bottom line" here?

Create a thread, and we will talk about it.   

-Acumen

[metis]

People typically don't say, "I'm mad because punching me violates the law" or "I'm mad because my genetic makeup and instinct doesn't like it."  In order for morality to be objective (not just a matter of opinion), it must be true regardless what humans it affects, and it must come from an objective source. 

But our sociability is tied up in our genes by all indications, since all human societies as far as we can trace back are social and, therefore, need a foundation of morals to keep the order.  Religion is one source, but it's certainly not the only, and it may not have been the original-- sort of the chicken-and-egg situation.  Even if there was no religion, it's quite obvious that we would have developed morality anyway.  We are not like orangutans who only get together for mating purposes.

 

Create a thread, and we will talk about it.   

I asked the same question of you on the thread where i.d. is being discussed, so why not post it there.



Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

Acumen:  People typically don't say, "I'm mad because punching me violates the law" or "I'm mad because my genetic makeup and instinct doesn't like it."  In order for morality to be objective (not just a matter of opinion), it must be true regardless what humans it affects, and it must come from an objective source. 

Vern:  But our sociability is tied up in our genes by all indications, since all human societies as far as we can trace back are social and, therefore, need a foundation of morals to keep the order.  Religion is one source, but it's certainly not the only, and it may not have been the original-- sort of the chicken-and-egg situation.  Even if there was no religion, it's quite obvious that we would have developed morality anyway.  We are not like orangutans who only get together for mating purposes.

If that is the case, then morality isn't a fixed objective set of rules that can be applied to people with any real meaning.  Every man is still for himself.

I asked the same question of you on the thread where i.d. is being discussed, so why not post it there.

I thought that thread was a Creationism topic.  But if you want to discussion the theory of evolution there, then I don't have a problem with it.

-Acumen

[julrich]

If that primate is a bonobo then I'd guess you chose it as your avatar because they have more social intelligence than other primates (possibly including humans!).

Moses comes down the mountain and announces to the Israelites:  There's good news and bad news.  The good news is I've got Him down to ten.  The bad news is adultery is still in.

The point being that right and wrong is a four-lane two-way street.  It's not all about divine law or all about philosophical ethics.  It's some of both.  I think the authoritarian and the humanist conscience (a la Fromm) both have a place in our development as ethical beings.  I think this corresponds to the child and adult parts of our personality (a la Maimonides).  And I think parts of this development are hardwired in our DNA as a result of socio-biological evolution (a la E. Wilson).

shalom
big julie

[julrich]

since I think I get the forehead star, I'll offer another one to the first person who can tell what my avatar caption says.

jules

[metis]

since I think I get the forehead star, I'll offer another one to the first person who can tell what my avatar caption says.

jules

That Miss Piggy is your sister? 

BTW, you only get 1/2 a star, but I give you much credit that you perceived that it's a bonobo and not a chimp.  The rationale for it is that bonobos appear to be the closest to us ancestrally.  Matter of fact, after looking at your picture, I'm not certain that we can say that some humans are any kind of advancement at all.   

Shalom,
Vern

[julrich]

ROTFLMAO!

But she's my mother.  But that's not the caption.  No star for you!  Half or otherwise. 

shalom
big julie

[river]

Big Julie,

Let's shoot craps?