Note: this post is a reply to a comment by Matt in a previous thread.
Where does morality come from, anyway?
Most theists believe it comes from God. In other words, morality - or “good” - is obeying God. Whatever it is that God wants, becomes moral; it follows that doing what God doesn’t want is immoral.
Putting aside, for now, the problem of determining what God really wants (not to mention whether he actually exists), which should already be enough reason not to accept this definition of morality, there’s a more important problem here: it’s arbitrary.
If morality is simply obeying or pleasing some being (whether human or divine), what about that being’s own morality? What if that being is wrong, or actually “evil”? I’ve dealt with this one before, in The Morality of God. What most theists do, here, is say that God is “above morality” - that he can’t be judged by us, or by anyone, that whatever God does is by definition “good”, and any rules he gives us don’t apply to him. In other words, if I kill someone, it’s immoral (not because murder is wrong for any reason, but simply because God said so), but if God kills someone, he was moral in doing so… because he sets the rules.
I believe it stands to reason that morality 1) must apply to each and everyone, instead of having someone “above morality” (much like a ruler can’t be above the law), and 2) can’t come just from someone’s desires or whims. If I believed God existed, but was evil, I wouldn’t worship him anyway - and if the price for that was hell, then, as I’ve read somewhere, nobody would be safe from such a monster anyway.
Now, a great many people believe, instead, that morality comes from society, that it’s defined by what society believes - or, in other words, by what most people believe. To them, morality is simply a social construct, there’s no reason why this is moral and that is immoral, other than it being accepted so by society.
If you think a little about it, it should be obvious that this way of thinking has the same problem: it’s arbitrary. Who’s to say that the majority is always right? Not a long time ago, slavery was accepted. Was it moral, back then? Did it become “wrong” only after most people came to believe it was wrong?
What about some of the more primitive Muslim countries today, where women are seen as downright inferior beings, with no voice at all, and rape is OK? Is it “moral” to do so, just because that’s what most people there believe? What about racism? Just a few decades ago, non-whites were seen as inferior… were they really inferior? Was it “moral” to be a racist, at the time?
What should define “moral”, then? I don’t have an absolute answer, but, in my opinion, morality should come from one’s love of life, from empathy to other human beings, and from rational principles.
I don’t kill my neighbor for his money. Why don’t I do it? Not because some god told me not to. Not because society tells me not to. Not because of fear of punishment - either divine or legal.
Instead, I don’t do it - and I don’t feel tempted to do it - because I don’t want to live in a world where people kill their neighbors for their money. That’s not a rational, civilized world; it’s a world of brutes, of beasts, of predators. That’s not the world I want for me, for my family, for my friends, and for my kids (when I have them).
I want to live as a rational being, and, to me, it’s moral to do so. I need no “compulsion” from God or society.
Related posts:
We feel bad, or ‘guilty’ when we do something we know is wrong.
And that’s almost everyone (Save sociopaths) not just religious people.
So God doesn’t make morals.
Society can be morally wrong too. In the days of slavery mentioned earlier, there were people who were drastically against it. So much so that they would risk thier own lives and sometimes the lives of their entire families to fight it just a little. (Underground railroads and so-forth)
So society doesn’t make morals either.
Morals aren’t solid though, they can be bent and broken. You can teach someone to be very greedy, even if they were growing up as loving children.
If your parents were to do something that was very much against what you concidered ‘moral’, you may feel LESS angry, or upset, or whatever because they are your parents… you may even justify it to yourself, but you’ll still know it’s wrong.
So morality is for the most part inate. Most people are good people, or at least trying to be. Where does that fit in with science though? Being moral doesn’t necessarily help someone in survival, and if your morals don’t match the ones of those around you, they could prove fatal.
DAH, I forgot to state that finding the origin of morality will prove very hard.
Neanderthals would bury thier dead, and care for thier sick. So it’s been around for a LONG LONG time. A VERY good mystery which needs to be questioned more.
Hmm, I think my suggestion explains the behavior of Neanderthals: they felt empathy towards their fellow men, and wanted to live in a (relatively more civilized) world where sick people were cared for, instead of being abandoned.
Not sure if they actually thought “What kind of a world do I want to live in?”
Maybe they just felt like doing something “good”, or felt bad about leaving someone to die.
I’m just saying, maybe it wasn’t a form of thought, more than a form of feeling.
I’m not saying that they reasoned it in a deep, philosophical way.
They probably figured out, however, that, by being “nice”, things tended to work out better for everyone.
So maybe the feeling of guilt is something that humans learned over time.
It seems to me that morals have something to do with the feeling of doing something good, or bad.
Maybe abiding by morals can be selfish in the way that you don’t want to feel the guilt of murdering said neighbor.
Or the good feeling you might get by helping an elder person up some steep stairs outweighs the bad feeling you’d get for rushing passed them.
Let me make sure I’ve understood you:
Your morality comes ultimately from a desire for safety. You want to avoid any harm to yourself or your family. In fact, you want the people of the world to all avoid harming each other.
There are two reasons why I can’t accept this formulation of morality:
1) It needs to defend itself from the same charge of arbitrariness with which you struck down morality from society. Just as different societies have different ideas about what constitutes morality, so do different societies (and different people) have different ideas about what constitutes harm and safety. Some people commit suicide, or have somebody else kill them - They obviously don’t wish to avoid death the same way I do. Some people like to pretend to be raped. Some people enjoy mutilating their bodies. Would you impose your definition of harm on everybody else in the world?
2) If you really want to be safe, it seems that the most effective way to do it is to gain power over others. If I’m a murderer or a robber, who am I going to murder or rob? The very moral, harmless man, or the powerful, scary man? The most effective way to avoid being harmed isn’t to avoid harming others, but to prevent others from harming you - By gaining power over them, whether through money or political power or by simple violence. If I’ve decided to murder somebody, and I find out that you’ve never ever harmed anybody before, is that going to prevent me from murdering you? Seems not.
Furthermore, I would defend Christian morality from the charge of arbitrariness by saying that it follows directly from the idea that each thing ought to do what it was created to do. Shovels ought to shovel, for they were made by man in order to shovel. Sailboats ought to sail, for they were made by man in order to sail. Mankind ought to praise God (for instance), for we were made by God in order to praise Him. Christians didn’t arbitrarily pick just some random being and say “Whatever he says is the right thing to do!” - We say that what you are determines what the right thing to do is, and that your Creator has told you what you are, and also what the right thing to do is.
Morality is a good example of “group think”. What most people believe is “moral” becomes moral. But… there does seem to be some sort of standards that contribute to a better way of life for individuals and society alike. Perhaps this is what you meant by “rational principles”.
My observation is that morality comes down to the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I like the way buddha put it:
” LIFE IS DEAR TO ALL. PUTTING ONESELF IN THE PLACE OF ANOTHER, ONE SHOULD NOT KILL NOR CAUSE ANOTHER TO KILL.” -buddha
Being a Buddhist let me a offer a different perspective on morality or ethics which is neither theist nor materialistic. From the Buddhist point of view ethics or morals are not a subjective construct created by society or god. It is rather a kind of natural law, a description of a process that occurs or power that exists in the world.
Very much like the gravity keeps us on the ground harming other sentient beings brings, in the long term, bad results for the one that harms. For example, you can kill others and rob others - but somehow it is hard to do this and remain a happy, relaxed man. In other words, if you cause suffering some suffering will arise too in your experience, in your life. Not to get into too much detail (like for example the role of intentions in all that), since all sentient beings want to avoid suffering they naturally avoid harming others unnecessarily. For example, predators kill mostly to eat and not for pleasure. And people are, in general, “good” - meaning they avoid harming others.
I found your blog interesting and I think I’ll return, I sometimes write on similar topics.
You might find the work done by Bernard Gert, specifically Morality: Its Nature and Justification, of some use here. Gert, unlike so many in the past, takes on morality as a discriptive endeavor, as opposed to a creative endeavor. What I mean is that instead of concocting some nifty scheme, ala Kant, Mill, etc., Gert starts with observation.
From rationality and vulnerability, morality develops. It is not relative to individuals, countries, or cultures, and of course not to religions either. Rather morality is objecitve and knowable, if we choose to get past all of the nonsense that has been tossed at us with the false label of “morality.”
A quick point from Andy’s comments. People who fail to harm are moral, but not necessarily good. The distinction which is often forgotten or overlooked is that moral nature is not a strict dichotomy. If we commit unjustified harm, the act is immoral (evil). If we reduce harm, increase pleasure, the act is morally good. However when we simply abide by our moral obligation to not cause harm, then we are simply moral. Neither good nor evil. Being good or being evil takes positive action, whereas being simply moral requires no action at all, rather the refraining from action.
An observation on Joshua’s comments: If morality were the golden rule, then when a salesman approaches you, you are morally obligated to make the purchase, after all you are to treat others as you would have them treat you, and were you the salesman you would certainly want everyone to buy from you… Yes this is a bit of a silly example, but it shows how the golden rule simply fails to be a moral guide. If you really want to have fun with it, imagine running into a sadist or masochist…
TXStorm, dont get me started on sales! Having come from a long line of salesmen, I know from experience that the best salesmen are very often the biggest liars. Honesty usually doesn’t sell products. Sad but true.
Anyways, Im not really sure that your point is that solid. Morality has to do with right and wrong actions, not making others happy. By golden rule I mean: I love life and the lives of those in my family so I have to assume that everyone else feels the same about themselves and their own family. So I would never think of taking a life. I want to be treated with respect and so I must assume that everyone else would want the same. When you follow this thinking through in every area of life, you are left with a list of standards that represent “morals”.
So when we apply this to sales I dont see it breaking down at all. Heres my view, but I am very open to discuss it.
If I was wrong about something, I would want to be corrected so that I could be free of ignorance. So I can say that others also want to be free from ignorance. Having said that:
The job of a salesman is not to sell their product to everyone but to make the product available to those who need it. Of course, if people only bought stuff they NEEDED, companies wouldn’t make that much money. So sales has turned into a process of CONVINCING people that they need your product. Essentially, salesmen are selling lies. So since they are not treating people in a way that they themselves would like to be treated, morally speaking, I would be wrong to support them. By purchasing from them, I would be allowing them to treat me unfairly and allowing them to remain in ignorance about their actions.
I hope that came across somewhat rational.
Joshua,
So assume that the salesman will be honest. Then the golden rule still tells you that you are morally obligated to buy his product, after all the honest salesman still wants to make a living. Or as I suggested look to the sadist. You run into a sadist, now the sadist would really want for you to allow him/her to cause you pain, and were you a sadist you would want this also. Therefore you are morally obligated, if we buy into the golden rule, to allow them to cause you pain.
Yes there is a break down, but the breakdown occurs in the golden rule. We have been told for so long that it is the be all end all of morality that when now faced with clear counter-examples, that is to say that when we are shown necessary consequences of accepting the golden rule as a real moral rule, we balk and say that there must be something wrong with the reasoning, not the rule..
http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/Courses/251/gert-paper.html
That should help clarify why the golden rule (and other slogans) simply fail to be moral rules.
Matt: it’s not really safety, but freedom. By “freedom”, here, I mean that I can do what I want with my life, not that I can do whatever I want even if it involves others - that’s power, not “freedom”.
And you forgot the “civilized” and “rational” parts. Rationally, the initiation of force is wrong. It doesn’t depend on what society believes at a particular time. So I don’t do it, and I don’t want it done to me.
I mostly agree with Ayn Rand’s definition of “good”: it’s whatever promotes life. Not simply basic survival as an animal, but life as a rational human being. By judging anything in those terms, you can see whether something is “good” or “evil”.
For instance, a dangerous criminal should obviously be stopped, since he is preventing people around him from living as rational beings, forcing them to focus on basic survival, to live in fear of physical aggression - and that fear is, itself, a kind of psychological aggression.
A god - a real, existing god - which made everyone live in fear, and punished people for reasoning, for using their minds - like many Christians believe God does - would be an evil god. By defining “good” as whatever that god wanted, you’d be defining “good” as evil.
TXStrom,
Again, the job of a salesman is to present a product to a potential customer. Since my product is not for everyone, my goal is to find people who actually need my product. Having said that, if I was a sales person, I would want people to take the time to listen to my sales pitch and see if the product was right for them.
So am I as the customer morally obligated to buy from the salesperson? No, not at all. I should however, listen to him and see if what he is selling is right for me.
Im sorry, but I don’t see the golden rule breaking down. When you talk about sadists wanting to hurt people, what they really want is for their desires to be fulfilled. Knowing that they want their own desires to be fulfilled they should know that others feel the same way. The golden rule would lead them to find others who would willingly participate.
If I see an amazingly sexy woman walk by, I would probably want to have my way with her. Your saying that the golden rule should give me the right to have my way. That doesn’t make any sense. The golden rule says that If I should be able to have my way, then others should get their way too. So If were to let go of all self control and force myself on her, then any 300lb biker could rightfully make me his bitch. The golden rule says that since I don’t want to be some dudes bitch, I shouldn’t force myself on this women either.
TXStrom,
Again, the job of a salesman is to present a product to a potential customer. Since my product is not for everyone, my goal is to find people who actually need my product. Having said that, if I was a sales person, I would want people to take the time to listen to my sales pitch and see if the product was right for them.
So am I as the customer morally obligated to buy from the salesperson? No, not at all. I should however, listen to him and see if what he is selling is right for me.
Im sorry, but I don’t see the golden rule breaking down. When you talk about sadists wanting to hurt people, what they really want is for their desires to be fulfilled. Knowing that they want their own desires to be fulfilled they should know that others feel the same way. The golden rule would lead them to find others who would willingly participate.
If I see an amazingly sexy woman walk by, I would probably want to have my way with her. Your saying that the golden rule should give me the right to have my way. That doesn’t make any sense. The golden rule says that If I should be able to have my way, then others should get their way too. So If were to let go of all self control and force myself on her, then any 300lb biker could rightfully make me his bitch. The golden rule says that since I don’t want to be some dudes bitch, I shouldn’t force myself on this women either.
-sorry if this posts 2xs… browser timed out.
Pedro: The reason I didn’t address the terms “civilized” and “rational” is that they don’t seem to me to contribute much to any real understanding of morality. Perhaps it’s simply that you’re using the words in a way that I’m unfamiliar with, so I didn’t understand you. If so, please correct me.
“Civilized” is the same as “polite” - Both mean, in their root languages, “in the manner of the city” - But you’re probably using it to mean “nice” or “not causing pain”. Somebody can be very civilized and also very evil. Think of the suave, debonair super-villian. Either use of the term, as a yardstick for morality, will have the same problem with arbitrariness as society and safety have.
I take rationality to be the ability think reasonably - that is, to follow the forms of logic to make conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. Saying that something is “rational”, then, means that you can give a reason for it. So when you say that your morality is “rational”, you’re just saying, “I can give a good reason for my morality” - And that’s different from saying what that good reason is. For instance, when you say “Rationally, the initiation of force is wrong.”, that doesn’t tell me why you think that the initiation of force is wrong - it just tells me that you think you have a good reason for claiming that the initiation of force is wrong.
However, I agree with you that freedom is most likely a concept immune to the charge of arbitrariness. Everybody does want to be free, and everybody means pretty much the same thing by ‘freedom’.
But it seems like protecting your freedom requires gaining even more power over people than protecting your safety would. Who would I be most willing to try to enslave? The meek, moral, harmless man, or the scary, violent, dangerous man?
For instance: I’m not free to do what I please with my own money. It’s not somebody else’s money. It’s mine. I earned it. Yet the government demands a certain amount of it, against my will, and backs that demand up with force. They are infringing on my freedom. And any number of other ways could be mentioned in which the government doesn’t allow me to do what I want with my life.
If my reason for not fighting to overthrow that government is that it wouldn’t be “civil” or “rational” to do so, then I need to know what the rationalization is, and I need to know why civility isn’t totally arbitrary.
TXStrom,
Again, the job of a salesman is to present a product to a potential customer. Since my product is not for everyone, my goal is to find people who actually need my product. Having said that, if I was a sales person, I would want people to take the time to listen to my sales pitch and see if the product was right for them.
So am I as the customer morally obligated to buy from the salesperson? No, not at all. I should however, listen to him and see if what he is selling is right for me.
Im sorry, but I don’t see the golden rule breaking down. When you talk about sadists wanting to hurt people, what they really want is for their desires to be fulfilled. Knowing that they want their own desires to be fulfilled they should know that others feel the same way. The golden rule would lead them to find others who would willingly participate.
If I see an amazingly sexy woman walk by, I would probably want to have my way with her. Your saying that the golden rule should give me the right to have my way. That doesn’t make any sense. The golden rule says that If I should be able to have my way, then others should get their way too. So If I were to let go of all self control and force myself on her, then any 300lb biker could rightfully make me his bit@#. The golden rule says that since I don’t want to be some dudes bit@# , I shouldn’t force myself on this women either.
Joshua: No, not at all. I should however, listen to him and see if what he is selling is right for me.
Okay so you are in the middle of rushing your dying mother to the hospital and you come across a salesman, by your own admission the golden rule says that THE moral action is to stop and listen to the salesman.
BTW appealing to a strange and very apologetic notion of what the ideal salesman demeanor might should be, in no way relates to the fact that he wants to make a sale and therefore by the golden rule you MUST buy his product regardless of whether or not you actually need it. You are relying upon an unrealistic notion of what human behavior OUGHT TO BE as opposed to actually applying the golden rule to actual human behavior and attitudes as they in fact are. The golden rule never says that “if one were pure and true, already all good, then they are only obligated to follow the golden rule as if all others were also already pure and true, already all good.” Rather it says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” So the woman you may lust after is morally obligated to have sex with anyone who desires that she have sex with them. After all the golden rule simply puts her in their shoes, making their desires moral obligations to her.
If you add on different conditionals, as you have done here, then you are not in fact using the golden rule, but instead are simply dictating a new rule which may or may not be related to the golden rule. Even so as my example with your dying mother clearly shows, even with the different conditionals, the rule still fails. Remember that the golden rule says nothing about your behavior being dependent upon anyone else obeying the rule…
BTW did you check out the link which contain more detailed explanations of the failings of the golden rule and other slogan?
Buying something from someone doesn’t give you good morals.
(I’m sure there are exceptions)
Where do morals come from though?
Was it a calculated decision, something else?
Was it part of evolution, or do beings just HAVE morals?
I think people just have them… that’s why it’s so hard to explain them.
Kren,
If you will allow me to offer only the roughest sketches of how morality came to be, in fact was necessarily a part of our existence, I can offer some brief (VERY brief) explanation.
Being rational beings in the sense of aware thinking beings, we can speculate and contemplate; we can reason. Being vulnerable beings we are aware of harm and know pain.
Now, we also recognize that we do not want harm to come to ourselves, or to those for whom we care. In order to have some protections, in order to be able to condemn such harms, we recognize that we must allow that others (presumably those for whom we do not already care) are also worthwhile beings. Given all of this, we recognize that the rules we would put in place to protect ourselves and those for whom we care, apply equally to all rational vulnerable beings.
That is the down and dirty explanation of how morality came to be, and why it came to be..
But of course the exceptions come immediately to mind in the form of nazi germany, Stalin’s USSR, USA slavery and countless others..
Though a thorough examination can explain away these events showing that in fact these same rules were still in place, the short answer is that we are also fallible beings. Almost all of the immoral acts of history on a large scale are due to the arbitrary and unjustified exclusion of a group of individuals from the status of moral agent. So take the US Constitution for example, which openly calls blacks less than human, counting them as only 2/3rds of a person. The Nazi’s did the same thing with the jews (gays and others also) declaring them non-human, therefore not under the protection of morality. To us now, with increased knowledge and awareness we recognize that these attitudes have no place in morality, but we can also see that these do not diminish morality but rather show where we as rational, vulnerable beings, are also fallible.
If we choose to examine morality across time and culture we find the same moral rules cropping up time and again (especially if we ignore religion which only masquerades as morality for purely evil intent only), despite the misapplication of some of those rules.
So basically, to put it even simpler, by putting ourselves in others shoes, we can feel the harm our own actions may cause them. Guilt.
I realize I’m not the smartest person in the world, and maybe I totally missunderstood you, but…
[quote post="149"]If we choose to examine morality across time and culture we find the same moral rules cropping up time and again (especially if we ignore religion which only masquerades as morality for purely evil intent only), despite the misapplication of some of those rules.[/quote]
… is the part I don’t agree with.
I can see your point of course. People who believe (AND WORSHIP) the God who was this horrible creature who commited genocide time and time again. Religion, making money, controling people, governments, nations. Religion, the reason behind so many wars, so many dead.
But people make their own decisions.
People used religion as their own form of control.
A person shot that persons grandpa in ‘Nam.
A person convinced a bunch of other people to drink poison and “cleanse” themselves.
People committed genocide.
Religion is just the #1 excuse people use to justify sociopathic views.
If there wasn’t religion, people might just say that.. trees made them do it. Or something more realistic nowadays… the News.
Furthermore, most people who are religious, be it Muslim, Budhist, Wiccan, Christian, Jehovas Whitness, Voodoo, Jewish, Unification, whatever, (you can see alot of them, go outside) won’t hurt you becuase “God said so”. They won’t masquerade in it and judge you, (unless they are of a certain religion, and you judge them first) and do not commit evil on religions behalf, regardless of what thier religious books say.
Kren,
It is not about guilt, but practicality. By understanding that morality must be universal in order for me to enjoy its benefits, rational beings adopt an impartial attitude as to the application of the moral rules with regard to those to whom they apply.
Yes people committed those actions, but you seem to overlook the fact that they created religion in order to control others (some religions more than others of course) which is itself evil, and then took the very actions you mention in the name of that religion and at the behest of that religion.
It is not merely that someone is claiming that “god made me do it” but rather there are large numbers getting together to essentially dehumanize other groups of individuals (like how christians will consider all others to be doomed to hell and beneath contempt), which simply opens up the door to treating those others in ways that have no regard for the moral status of those others.
Religion at its core is about denying the self, denying the worth of the individual, which has two very negative consequences: 1. It removes responsibility for one’s own actions (despite empty rhetoric to the contrary). 2. It removes value of others such that any action seems moral in the eyes of the religious. After all if a “god” created us, determined our lives, and can certainly stop me if it wants, then I surely cannot do wrong…
[quote post="149"]Yes people committed those actions, but you seem to overlook the fact that they created religion in order to control others (some religions more than others of course) which is itself evil, and then took the very actions you mention in the name of that religion and at the behest of that religion.[/quote]
If it’s a fact that people created religion to gain control, it can’t be claimed as so, because nobody knows that.
The fact that people took those actions was my point. Evil doesn’t stem from religion. People turn to religion to better themselves. Evil stems from people. However there are some things repeated in many religions alike that people can learn from.
It’s also not denying the worth of an individual. It does not remove responsibility, free will makes us responsible. Nor does it devoid consequences. (hell) The fact that it removes the value of others is a good point though. The point being that so many people think so. So many people interpret it that way, and some people even act on it. Instead of being a way to reach into spirituality, a lot of people take some things as cues for hate. Again, they justify sociopathic views with it. Which (obviouisely now) gives religion a bad name.
Kren,
While evil did not originate with religion, this fact in no way reduces the evil nature of religion, nor the evil caused by, created by and promoted by religion.
“a lot of people take some things as cues for hate”
Of course they do, it is also at the core of religion.
BTW by making up this magical mystery being that controls everything, created everything and determined everything (necessarily so in the case of the judeo-xn god, pretenses and protests about “free-will” notwithstanding) religion does in fact deny the individual. What is this god called? “Lord”…. “Our Father” “The big Kahuna” (okay maybe not so often the last one..
The point is that religion is all about denying your own value. You are merely a mote in “god’s” eye.. We are doomed to be sinners because we cannot help our evil nature (so religion tells us) etc. etc. ad infinitum.
BTW you cannot have the judeo-xn god and free will.. it is supposed to be omniscient and created all, which means that it knowingly chose the world in which you wore the shirt you wore today (or any other decision you want to look at) rather than another. If this is not determinism defined, then nothing can be.
That’s exactly the kind of thinking that gives religion a bad name. The thinking that God made you do it. That god made your decisions for you. I’m not sure if any holy writings actually have this contradiction: (They probably do, but I can’t site them) the one that says that God decides all (judeo-XN), and the other one that says everybody has free will, and therefore has to pay the consequences of thier actions.
It’s dangerous to think that, and prejudice to think that all religioius people think that.
People make their own decisions. Don’t you?
OBVIOUSELY yes, and that goes for everyone. Therefore it wasn’t any religion who made this guy, or that nation, do an evil deed. It was them, the people.
AGAIN, religion doesn’t promote evil, people just use it justify thier own evil deeds.
It’s the #1 excuse for tyrany. Humanities scapegoat. “God did said it’s okay.” It’s SADLY obvious if you just watch GW on PBS.
If it’s true that people created religion, as a tool, then how can a tool be held responsible for peoples doing? You don’t say hammers are bad because someone used it to kill.
If it’s not true, and there is a God. Wouldn’t it make sense to let us learn from our own wrongs instead of making us do them?
Morality must be a choice. Going from the existential stance that humans must live as an example of how we’d have all others live, morality is an expression of our ideal world. Acting immoral is thus acting against our own understandings of what we see as being good… it doesn’t really matter how we come to that understanding for it to be moral or not, though I’m quite assured that moral thinking is a derivative of something human.
Kren,
We are getting far astray from the topic, and I fear that you are not reading what I have written. I absolutely believe in free will, but have pointed out that necessarily religion (in particular the judeo-xn notions) deny it as a possibility, even if it does claim somewhere in its writing that free will exists. The god that knows all, and creates all necessarily DETERMINED all by that choice of world to create.
You are putting the cart before the horse in attributing the OBSERVATIONS about the nature of religion as the CAUSE of the nature of religion. Noticing the enherent evil nature of religion does not give religion a bad name, the evil nature of religion gives religion the bad name it so justly deserves.
As for this “god” “letting us learn” from our own wrongs instead of making us do them, there are a great many problems with this question, not the least of which is that it could easily do both. Furthermore since this “god” is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, then it could easily could have chosen to create a world where we have free will, but where we just so happen to posess the knowledge of the wrongs such that we never choose to commit evil acts. That world is not the world in which we live, therefore the judeo-xn god CANNOT and DOES NOT exist.
Furthermore, returning to the topic at hand, if we hold to the judeo-xn notion that such a god would necessarily be all good as well, and we know that in fact it did not create a world without evil, we know that it cannot be all good, therefore if in fact it existed, it would necessarily be an evil being (which lends even more weight to the fact that religion itself is evil).
Yes we’ve gotten off topic.
No, Religion, the belief in a diety, or life after death is not evil.
Yes I read what you wrote, and you make a wonderful point.
[quote post="149"]Furthermore since this “god” is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, then it could easily could have chosen to create a world where we have free will, but where we just so happen to posess the knowledge of the wrongs such that we never choose to commit evil acts. That world is not the world in which we live, therefore the judeo-xn god CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. [/quote]
Free will can’t be free if we don’t have the power to do things we know are wrong.
Usually when we do commit evil acts, we know full well that they are evil, and do them anyways. Weather or not that God does or does not exist, I can’t argue… but you’re failing at proving it doesn’t.
Actually Kren the failing is on your side since your comments do not take into account the points already made.
If this “god” were all powerful then it could create a world in which we have free will but in which we actually never choose evil, as I have already pointed out.
Yes you can stipulate all day that religion is not evil, but until you account for all of the evidence that in fact it is evil, the claims ring hollow. So far you’ve not accounted for ANY of the evil nature of religion as denying it without any consideration or examination simply does not count as accounting for the evidence.
Regardless, morality and religion are necessarily at odds with one another given the focus of religion, as well as the separation from responsibility and accountability which have already been noted. Where religion gives you religious rules designed to cause harm to the individual while at the same time promoting the religion and the power of those controlling the religion, morality tells us what is ACTUALLY right and wrong, and is the result of being rational vulnerable beings. The objectives of each are very different, with one focused upon negatives and harm to ourselves and the other, and morality focused upon NOT causing harm to others…
[quote post="149"]If this “god” were all powerful then it could create a world in which we have free will but in which we actually never choose evil, as I have already pointed out. [/quote]
How does this make sense?
Having free will makes it OUR choice. Controling our choices so we would never choose evil… hmmm… that’s not free will is it?
Evidence like what? What evidence shows that it’s evil. You say religion focuses upon negativess and harm to ourselves and others… how? Which rules are designed to do harm to people?
Morality and religion being at odds… you are right. Because people think they are the same and as I noted they are obviously not. People thinking that their religion is morally correct are in danger of acting like someone of another religion, or no religion is lesser than them.
I’m sorry to double post, but I think I missed something.
The evidence that you (TX) were speaking of.
[quote post="149"]The point is that religion is all about denying your own value. You are merely a mote in “god’s” eye.. We are doomed to be sinners because we cannot help our evil nature (so religion tells us) etc. etc. ad infinitum.[/quote]
I think that’s one. The thing is, it’s not correct. Especially if you know what you are, which is a human being. You don’t have to be religious at all to look at a large picture of humanity and see that one individual is a small part of humanity itself. Sure we’re all individuals, and each one of us is unique, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re all the same species. Plus, by calling something a God, you are also not diminishing your self worth. After all we are not Gods, we are humans, wether there is a God or not.
And yes, we are “doomed”, to make mistakes. Religous or not. Everybody has thier downfalls, some people cheat, some are alcoholics, some are pompous, and some are just plain mean. Nobody is perfect, religous or not. So I see no connection that specifically links all of these things with religion, and nothing else.
Kren,
As I noted the confusion itself is quite clear, and the observations noted already still stand unchallenged.
No where did I say anything at all about this god controlling your actions. I observed that an all powerful, omniscient creator could choose to create any world at all. This includes worlds with and without free will, but let’s limit our examination to only those with free will. Now amongst those infinite worlds with free will from which this all knowing god can choose, there are an infinite number in which no one ever chooses an evil act. They are free to choose an evil act, but just so happen to never choose one. This god can choose to create this world (since he knows what form all worlds could possibly take). That is not the world in which we live.
Therefore either 1. That god does not exist 2. That god is not good.(see #1) 3. That god is not all powerful (see #1) or 4. That god is not all knowing (see #1).
Denying the self, as is necessary with the assumption of a “higher being” (see even THAT language is insulting and demeaning to the individual) is inherently harmful. Now I do wholeheartedly agree that those of one religion look upon others of another religion as evil, and they look at those individuals who choose reason and reality instead of illusion and evil (AKA religion) as doubly so. But that is natural as that is inherent in the teachings of religion.
I agree with you that your comments in that last post have no connection to anything at all, most especially to this topic. Certainly they do not address the quote you included in the post. We are doomed to be sinners BY religion because we are doomed to be sinners (so goes the reasoning, or more accurately the complete absence of reasoning) We are worthless and trivial (as noted in the “mote in god’s eye” reference) in the eyes of religion. All that is of value is devotion (read: subservience) to the religion.
But then in addressing these points of confusion, I am contributing to the off topic elements..
What of the distinction between causing harm (which is an inherently part of religion) and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?
So God is evil, or does not exist because we don’t live in a perfect world. We have responsibility. Responsibility is a good thing. I’m glad I have it. We can’t have responsibility unless we have choices. The fact that we don’t live in any of the infinite worlds where sin doesn’t exist doesn’t disprove God.
If you think I didn’t adress that quote, read it again. You may think I’m stupid. Maybe I am compared to you, but the fact that I explained how (I think) you were wrong isn’t something it takes a smart person to see.
Religion or no religion, causing harm is an inherent part of being human. Maybe you think people are only evil if they are religious, but religion didn’t cause evil.
The last question I don’t understand.
To take out the parentheses, you asked:
“What of the distinction between causing harm and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?”
That question answers itself.
If you wanted to ask what the difference between morality and religion are, that’s not hard to see either. Religion is a belief of something beyond life. Morality is as Will put it:
[quote post="149"]morality is an expression of our ideal world. [/quote]
That’s with or without religion. Some religious values act as good moral values. Such as don’t kill, and don’t judge. Which by the way, aren’t evil thoughts. (I think.)
sigh.. Of coruse you have not addressed the points, for to do so would mean facing the impossibility of the judeo-xn god, which you are demonstrating you are not willing to consider. Notice how you never address the actual statement but instead try to mischaracterize them as strawmen which you then sort of point a dull stick at and claim that it is defeated… This is not reason it is wishful feeling (not even wishful THINKING)
Responsibility is a red herring. Nothing I have said deals with or relies upon responsibility, therefore your introduction of it must necessarily be a distraction tactic.
Keep the parenthetical comments in as they put the question in context. I agree that it is obvious, but what you seem to have missed by this is that you are arguing AGAINST that obvious fact. But then too it is simply true that you have not address that distinction preferring instead to ramble on about how evil is good if it come s from religion and that religion cannot be evil despite or because of its many evil aspects.
Morality is NOT an expression of any ideal. Morality is the informal public system by which actions are judged. It exists NOW, and has always existed. It is not mere subjective nonsense (aka religion) but rather can be studied, observed, and acurately described.
As for the quote, it is not a mere matter of belief, but one of objective fact that NOTHING you said in that post bore any relevance to the quote. I fyou believe otherwise, perhaps you should read it again.
Then if you still hold that false belief, perhaps you should read it without the subtitles in your head which never made it to the page.
On the impossibility of the judeo-xn god, rather than employ these intellectually dishonest tactics, why not address the arguments and facts offered? Follow the reasoning, for it is perfectly sound and not once addressed by the repititions you have made that religion is good, either because of its inherent evil nature or despite all of the inherent evils which are being ignored.
Rose colored glassess and wishful feeling never served anyone well… Truth requires a willingness to look critically at the world and accept that where reality and your beliefs collide, reality is never mistaken.
Facing a point doesn’t mean taking it as fact.
Like when you claimed this,
[quote post="149"]Yes people committed those actions, but you seem to overlook the fact that they created religion in order to control others (some religions more than others of course) which is itself evil, and then took the very actions you mention in the name of that religion and at the behest of that religion.[/quote]
and I stated that nobody knows what religion was created for, so you can’t claim that as a fact.
I faced your point, and didn’t agree with it.
And then claiming that God CAN’T and DOES NOT exist, simply because we have the freedom to sin.
Your point was that since we don’t live in a world free of evil God doesn’t exist.
But that’s not fact.
IF God does exist than he obviousely created humans with the ability to do evil. Once again, free will.
YOU think that somehow God can’t exist if we live in a world of imperfections. (BTW some people think that such a world would be called heaven) But that doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Being a God he could create any and all worlds, the fact that we live in one and instead of another doesn’t disprove a God.
Basically you’ve claimed things as fact that obviousely aren’t so. And when I object with a simple retort, you just say that I ignored it, which I didn’t. Not once mentioning that anything you say is in your opinnion, or speculation, but instead… fact.
I didn’t mean to mix your words with that quote, and I apologize if it seemed that I was trying to distort them. I was just trying to understand the question. Why? Because you never seem to mention evil once without having religion tied directly to it. It seems you think that they are one in the same.
I DID address the arguements and things you CLAIM as facts.
You can call any religion wishfull thinking. The simple FACT is, that you can’t disprove it, and you are judging MANY other people who have never judged you.
Knowbody knows what religion was created for??? Come on. We know that in fact it was created to contrl the actions of others (see the historical texts from xnty for a prime example of this)It was created to give illusion of explanation where no explanation was readily available, or where the truth was distasteful to those in power. It was created to justify any action that those in power wished to take.
BTW universalizing from a single example is a fallacy. Just because you might not be familiar with the creation of religions, it does not follow that everyone else must also be ignorant of the subject.
“IF God does exist than he obviousely created humans with the ability to do evil. Once again, free will.
YOU think that somehow God can’t exist if we live in a world of imperfections. (BTW some people think that such a world would be called heaven) But that doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Being a God he could create any and all worlds, the fact that we live in one and instead of another doesn’t disprove a God.”
This is simply dishonest of you on many levels. First I have not taken the position you attribute to me. I understand that if you were to actually face the facts, the actual arguments given that your world view would necessarily crumble, but that unwillingness on your poart does not constitute a failure on my part. I have taken the premises given by religion, that there is an all powerful, all good, all knowing, creator of all, and shown that these characteristics CANNOT coexist in any entity. This IS fact, and no amount of denying that fact will change reality. This is why you avoid the actual argument given.
Religion and evil are not identical, and no where have I said otherwise. Religion is but a subset of evil, not the whole of it.
As for judging people, you are yet again being dishonest. I am employing reason and objective fact to reach necessarily true conclusions about the world. That you personally do not like the world, do not like reality is of no consequence to me, to the facts, or to the arguments given.
You claim that you address the arguments given and the facts offered, but the fact is that you have not once done so. For instance here you pretend to address the sound argument given that the judeo-xn notion of god is necessarily contradictory by attributing to me an argument which merely says that since we live in an imperfect world, no god can exist. Yet you cannot find any evidence to support this strawman argument, since I never once offered it. You fail to address the actual arguments every time you make up your own and claim that they are the arguments of others.
You are right in that I do not claim reason to be mere opinion, I do not pretend that modus tolens is merely my opinion, but then neither do I claim that the world is a sphere is merely my opinion or that 2+2=4 is merely my opinion.
I have seen this tactic taken often by those of faith. They try to pretend that all of treality is merely opinion, therefore their baseless and false beliefs are of equal value to reason and evidence. Reason is not the same as faith. Reality is not identical to illusion. Truth is not identical to falsehoods. And fact is not mere opinion.
You keep making the mistake that when you fail to grasp an argument, or when you fail to address an argument at all, that argument must be mere opinion. Obviously this is fallacious reasoning.
[quote post="149"]For instance here you pretend to address the sound argument given that the judeo-xn notion of god is necessarily contradictory by attributing to me an argument which merely says that since we live in an imperfect world, no god can exist. Yet you cannot find any evidence to support this strawman argument, since I never once offered it[/quote]
A few posts earlier..
[quote post="149"]Furthermore since this “god” is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, then it could easily could have chosen to create a world where we have free will, but where we just so happen to posess the knowledge of the wrongs such that we never choose to commit evil acts. That world is not the world in which we live, therefore the judeo-xn god CANNOT and DOES NOT exist. [/quote]
Forgive me if that ISN’T the same arguement. If the judeo-xn God, and the God you were stating in the first quote are different, and you meant to say one thing and not the other. I’m not trying pick fights here, it just seemed like you might have said that you didn’t say something, that, you said. (Whew)
My favorite quote from you so far is this.
[quote post="149"]Knowbody knows what religion was created for??? Come on. We know that in fact it was created to contrl the actions of others (see the historical texts from xnty for a prime example of this)It was created to give illusion of explanation where no explanation was readily available, or where the truth was distasteful to those in power. It was created to justify any action that those in power wished to take. [/quote]
Explanation where no explanation was readily available, being an origin of religion is GREAT reasoning. I think this is close to Pedro’s distaste for the “God of the gaps” arguement, in which once something that used to be explained as an act of God, is proven to be science, believers back off, and take another view. Many things that used to be explained by “God did it” are now obviousely science at work.
Christianity was by far not the first religion… so the writings of Christianity aren’t going to explain the origin of religion, or why it was created. That’s not good reasoning.
The world is a sphere, has been proven. 2+2=4… proven. The origin of religion, hasn’t. Therefore it’s opinnion. There’s nothing wrong with reason at all, and I must say, I’ve been outdone here by you TX. Your ability to pick apart christianity is great. The whole “God can’t exist because we live in an imperfect world” arguement, I thought was wrong. The reason why is that according to xnity THAT god can create whatever he wants, perfect or imperfect, and has.
Where do I stand now?
To disprove (OR PROVE) such a being, which (IMO) humans can’t define, with other human definitions, is impossible. (Pedro’s probably screaming “GOD OF THE GAPS!”) Like understanding infinity. I still think there is a God, of some sort. But you TX, have helped me by showing me the downfalls of some religions.
TXstorm: For some reason this sites spam filter banned me. . . . just now coming back to this site to reply.
I was glancing over this long debate between yourself and Kren. At one point you accused her of not reading your reply. Concerning our discussion I would have to say you displayed the same fault with your last response to mine. If you would like to continue the conversation I will gladly pick it up. If so, let me know.. Otherwise Ill catch you on another post
Kren,
I really wish you would stop attributing positions to me that I have never even so much as hinted at. I have offered no statement nor any argument that could be reasonably interpreted as “The whole “God can’t exist because we live in an imperfect world” arguement”
My inclination is to suggest a rudimentary study of logic accompanied by some lessons in the meaning of language. I suggest this because the arguments offered were showing necessary contradictions, not at all relying upon any “imperfection” in the world. You trivialize these inherently contradictory aspects of the judeo-xn god notion by pretending that the argument is directed at “imperfections” in the world rather than at the very core of the notion of such a god. This tactic is intellectually dishonest, as you well know.
As for the origin of religion, you are again making the logical error of assuming that since you personally are ignorant (by your own admission) of the history of religion, then necessarily no one could possibly know it. To prove conclusively that this argument form is invalid let’s look at other things of which you are not aware: my own life serves as a fine example. You do not know my history, or my origin, yet obviously I do. Since I do know my origin, and your argument necessitates that no one could possibly know my origin since you do not know it, clearly your argument must be invalid. From true premises and your argument, we can reach false or absurd conclusions. This is the very meaning of invalid argument forms.
While I have been referring to the judeo-xn notion of a “god” virtually all of this can be applied to any notion of a god with the same result: the entity in question cannot possibly exist. The only method for saving the god-concept denies the very nature of a “god.” So what does that leave?
Joshua,
Pick it up if you like. The arguments I have offered, and those found in the links I offered are perfectly sound, which leaves the golden rule and its derivatives without a leg to stand on..
TX- Sorry if I missunderstood you.
IMO, pointing out a contradiction in one way people look at their God doesn’t prove it to be evil. It proves that that way of thinking is contradictory.
I never assumed that nobody could know your origin because I didn’t. What I did assume is that nobody could know the origin of religion, because I don’t think we have any writings from that time laying around, and even if we did, it would still be viable reasoning to believe that religion (in a rudementary form at least) existed even before a formal written language did.
But I have to admit, that doesn’t prove anything either. It simply casts shadow.
To stop myself from assuming things, I have to ask you what you mean by this:
[quote post="149"]While I have been referring to the judeo-xn notion of a “god” virtually all of this can be applied to any notion of a god with the same result: the entity in question cannot possibly exist. The only method for saving the god-concept denies the very nature of a “god.” So what does that leave?[/quote]
Does it mean that by pointing out contradictory beliefs, you can disprove God?
sigh..
You define X in explicit terms. Those terms are shown to never be possible to occur. Therefore necessarily X cannt exist. It is really that simple.
The judeo-xn god CANNOT possibly exist as described. If you abandon that description, then necessarioly you abandon that “god.”
BTW to YET AGAIN correct you blatantly false mischaracterizations, I did not point out a mere contradiction in the way that people look at their god (notice you assume the existence a priori??) but rather I pointed out that there exist countless contradictions inherent in the VERY NATURE of the supposed entity. Face that fact and you might take a step forward.
I did not ever refer to contradictory beliefs, though you try in vain to introduce that strawman, instead I pointed out inherent contradictions in the very nature of the beast. Quite a different thing indeed…
Ask yourself why it is that you work so very hard to avoid the straight forward simple and clear refutations offered. If you can do this you will find great illumination.
First of all, I didn’t mean to define anything. Especially some superpowerful being that I can’t understand.
Second, you say that you didn’t point out a mere contradiction in the way people look at their god. But that’s exactly what you did. (I THINK… pretty sure) You sighted specific, contradictory beliefs.
Infact that’s all you (or anybody) can do. That’s all I can do when I try to think on that side of the coin. Just like you, I can pick out peoples contradictions to the way they define some god. But how far can I get with that, when I know that if such a being exists, human beings [quote post="149"]What of the distinction between causing harm (which is an inherently part of religion) and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?[/quote]
can’t define it?
You say that you pointed out inherent contradictions in the very nature of the beast. How did you learn of this nature? Did God tell you? Can you quote it on that? I don’t think so. You can only quote what people speculated, or reported in writings a few thousand years ago. If this beast is something that we can’t understand (Which, even the staunchest CHATHOLICS will admit, even though they have chapters and chapters of humans tries to do so, and even some atheists I know personally will say) as humans, than all of our speculations of course would be flawed. So pointing out a flaw in a humans perspective of such a thing doesn’t disprove it. The very nature itself is another thing nobody knows (IF it exists).
Notice how I say “IF it exist” and sometimes IMO. Yet you seem to imply that I am being stubborn. Like I am claiming something to be true which is not something I did, but something YOU did in claiming staunchly that there is not any God. What I am doing is asking you if you are so sure of everything?
On a side note:
When it comes to religion being Evil. Evil is as evil does. Religion cannot do evil, nor can it do good. It’s someones beleif in a something that’s not physical, in a guidance to thier physical actions to sway them (Or control them perhaps) towards bettere choices in life. Maybe they believe that if they kill someone they go to hell, or that they will be born again after they die. Still, when it comes to actions, it’s not the religion that does them, it’s the humans. If they do it on behalf of the religion, (Like judging people, which is against most religions) then usually they are just using parts of that religion to justify thier own sociopathic views. Sometimes maybe they read something that says Gay people are against God, and think that they have the right to judge them. (Which is contradictory to the religion of Christians)
Further… if religion is what someone BASES thier life on, and it’s evil… then the core of what that person BASES thier life on is evil… wouldn’t that make that person evil? After all, they BASE their LIVES on it. I would say no. Because I’ve watched as reporters said that this group of Muslims did this, or this group of Christians did this. And history can show you about the crusades, and many, many wars that were based on religion. But I don’t think things change THAT much… and as far as I can SPECULATE… there were religious people at home wondering why the fuck they were so different from the people thier country was going to war with. After all, they both believed in something.
In Lamens terms, if you will, we don’t do things because of religion, we do them because we choose to, and using religion as a guide, would throw most of us away from such horrid choices as murder.
Fourth, and this is beside the point but, when you wrote…
[quote post="149"]What of the distinction between causing harm (which is an inherently part of religion) and morality which is the lessening of harm or at least the avoidance of causing harm?[/quote]
And I took out the parentheses, to understand the question without them…
In English writing, or, if you have English conversations on a daily basis, when you put parenthesis around something, it is just an addition, and not part of the statement, or question provided.
This is something I actually know, because not only did I grow up in America, where we speak the language, but I had to go through English studies until mid college, and that was explained… WAY earlier.
Then you said:
[quote post="149"]Keep the parenthetical comments in as they put the question in context.[/quote]
Parenthesis aren’t meant to be part of the context. They are on the side. Unlike Algebra, where what’s in parenthesis is part of the actual problem provided. So,(For future reference) when you write something, and put something in parenthesis, expect that person to think it’s a side note.
Last, let me thank you, TX. I’m admitedly, not the smartest person. The fact that I could even have a debate with you means that at the least, I can get you to try to explain things to me, which says that you are willing to help those you think are misguided, and I am willing to help myself if I am.
I believe in something you think is absolutely false. You believe something that I think you can’t take as fact. All in all, I think we disagree on weather there is or is not a God, something neither of us can prove, and is not a reason to have harsh feelings towards one another… the “sigh…” implied such feelings.
TX storm… and anybody else for that matter.
I’ve come to the conclusion that I MAY be wrong… and that proving or disproving such a thing is absolutely stupid, because it can’t be done.
Therefore I withdrawal. In all honesty I have to say, that you have won, because if I have assumed the existance of such a being, it’s a false assumtion. I love the conversations we have had, and I for one, have learned about many things even if you’ve confused me so many times.
To quote an athiest that I am very close with, “Religion is a way for people to balance their bodies, and minds. If a person is sick, they can take pills, or believe thier psychologist, or psychotherapist, and be okay. They can balance thier minds and bodies. If they take too many pills, they can hurt themselves, much like if they take religion too seriousely, they can end up hurting others.”
I’ll take this into my own thinking… and say that I can’t continue this conversation. If you want me to say that you’ve won… I won’t.. because you’ll never prove religion is evil, or that God doesn’t exist.
Thanks TX, for all of your spare time you have spent on this. I unfortunately, don’t have much at all… and have spent too much on the subject… I’