quote:Maybe I read this wrong but it sounds like you just said that, "If I believe God clearly reveals his morality to me then I will act according to that mandate regardless of what God may say in the future to me."
I don't remember if "Thou shalt not kill" occurred before or after "Moses, sacrifice your son to me", but I don't think it matters. In the end, what God says goes, right?
I think you meant, "Abraham sacrifice your son to me." And that happened before Moses. But your larger point of what God says goes is right. But then again, how could it be otherwise? If God showed up and REALLY told you to do something, how could you not do it if your goal is to be happy? But besides that I really don't think it's that simple. In my case even if you believe God clearly speaks to men, that does not mean you neccesarily 100% understand God's true purpose behind a communique. If I thought I heard God saying to me, "Hey man, I changed my mind, do whatever the hell you want." I'd seriously question the message, and compare it to observations I've made my entire life about the nature of God.
If God said, "Vote for a constitutional ammendment that bans gay marriage," I would seriously consider why he would ask something like that of me. I'd probably pray many times for confirmation, as well as a rationale. So far I've yet to be commanded to do something and had God say, "Just do it, don't ask questions!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If your morality is derived from faith in god and his morality, then what's to stop you from going and killing people as long as you believe that's what god wants?
The real question might be closer to "What's to stop you from believing that that's what God wants?"
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you meant, "Abraham sacrifice your son to me." And that happened before Moses.
Yeah, I fixed that.
quote:If God showed up and REALLY told you to do something, how could you not do it if your goal is to be happy?
That depends on what happiness means. Would I rather be happy and kill my son, or be unhappy and let him live? What is more honorable?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God showed up and REALLY told you to do something, how could you not do it if your goal is to be happy?
I value my own morals above my happiness.
Of course, if god really wanted it done, he could just force me, so the issue would probably be moot.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...I believe that scripture is more correctly understood as "certain people wrote down their translation of stories that other people wrote down, tha had been passed down through oral tradition about what they thought God said..." (even more complicated than that but you get the idea)
The manifestation of God that speaks directly to me would be what I would call the Holy Spirit. It is generally very difficult to distinguish that "voice" from my own. I'm not sure what the difference is (or whether there even is a difference) between that voice and my own "best" self voice.
So, if I thought I was hearing voices telling me to go and kill someone I would (if I were sane) weigh that against my experience (and that of others) of God and dismiss it. Or seek medical help. Or look for hidden speakers. I would not assume it was God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well...I believe that scripture is more correctly understood as "certain people wrote down stories than had been passed down through oral tradition about what they thought God said..."
I agree with you, however our interpretation is not a universal one. The idea that God abhors homosexuality and that one must prevent gay marriage to be true to Christianity is a pervasive one. The Mormon church has explicitly endorsed a gay marriage ban, and most evangelicals organizations have as well.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads, I read the article. My morality is not based on a fear of punishment but instead on knowing that God wants good for me (and everyone else) and trying to act accordingly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that some religious views are not as scary as others doesn't change the fact that there is no objective means of determine which ones are correct. As long as we accept faith as a valid epistemology, we give license to any conclusion that faith may produce.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well...I believe that scripture is more correctly understood as "certain people wrote down stories than had been passed down through oral tradition about what they thought God said..."
I agree with you, however our interpretation is not a universal one. The idea that God abhors homosexuality and that one must prevent gay marriage to be true to Christianity is a pervasive one. The Mormon church has explicitly endorsed a gay marriage ban, and most evangelicals organizations have as well.
Yup. My own Church has some issue with it as well. I think they are wrong.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that any epistemology can be [mis]used to produce conclusions that we are not willing to license.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The purpose was to explain that morals such as "don't kill" do not come from God but are inherent characteristics of most human beings.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The fact that some religious views are not as scary as others doesn't change the fact that there is no objective means of determine which ones are correct. As long as we accept faith as a valid epistemology, we give license to any conclusion that faith may produce.
No we don't. We can question their assumptions and the conclusions they draw from them. We can test their conclusions against their assumptions and what evidence we do have and either agree or disagree. Or think that they are nuts.
We certainly don't have to allow them to do demonstrable harm.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that some religious views are not as scary as others doesn't change the fact that there is no objective means of determine which ones are correct. As long as we accept faith as a valid epistemology, we give license to any conclusion that faith may produce.
And yet we've established that there's no objective means outside faith to establish morality, either. So what exactly is the point of calling out this particular form of "un-objective" moral reasoning as opposed to the the other forms?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It seems to me that any epistemology can be [mis]used to produce conclusions that we are not willing to license.
True, but at least with materialistic epistemologies, we can independently examine the results. Also, materialistic epistemologies are not prescriptive. We have to take it upon ourselves to decide the correct course of action, given the available data. The scientific method would never produce the result "massacre everyone in this city except for the women - you can keep them for yourselves."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet we've established that there's no objective means outside faith to establish morality, either. So what exactly is the point of calling out this particular form of "un-objective" moral reasoning as opposed to the the other forms?
Because when you can refer to an incorporeal entity which cannot be objectively examined for justification, there is no way to argue against your position.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet we've established that there's no objective means outside faith to establish morality, either. So what exactly is the point of calling out this particular form of "un-objective" moral reasoning as opposed to the the other forms?
Because when you can refer to an incorporeal entity which cannot be objectively examined for justification, there is no way to argue against your position.
Sure there is. See above.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The scientific method would never produce the result "massacre everyone in this city except for the women - you can keep them for yourselves."
I think you underestimate people's imaginations and how they could [mis]use the scientific method.
The scientific method excludes prescriptive results. If they are producing prescriptive results they are no longer using the scientific method.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Any epistemology can, and almost certainly will, be [mis]used to produce horrendous results. Not just faith.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Precisely.
Any epistemology can, and almost certainly will, be [mis]used to produce horrendous results. Not just faith.
You seem to be saying that someone can hammer a nail in with a wrench. What I'm saying is that they've put down wrench and grabbed a hammer. They aren't misusing the wrench because they aren't using a wrench in the first place.
Yes, people can do something different and call it the scientific method, but that doesn't mean they are using/misusing the scientific method.
In any case, it's easy to point out how someone is *not* using the scientific method properly. You cannot make the same claim on how someone is praying, chanting, etc.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You cannot make the same claim on how someone is praying, chanting, etc.
Why not?
Because of the lack of objectivity. How do I demonstrate that my method of prayer is superior to your method of prayer?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
When dealing with faith, that's not a show-stopper.
I don't believe that all faith is equally true, or that all conclusions drawn from faith are equally valid, even thought I know I can't demonstrate that in any manner that would generally be called "objective".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Threads, why do you think they are inherent characteristics of most human beings?
From the article
quote:The very fact that a religious person would be afraid of God withdrawing Its threat to punish them for committing murder, shows that they have a revulsion of murder which is independent of whether God punishes murder or not. If they had no sense that murder was wrong independently of divine retribution, the prospect of God not punishing murder would be no more existentially horrifying than the prospect of God not punishing sneezing.
Whether or not you are fearful of god is not relevant to that point.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you think that we have that revulsion?
It's pretty universal in the animal kingdom, particularly among the animals most like ourselves. The reluctance to kill other members of your species arbitrarily seems to be an attribute of mammals as much as endothermy is. Presumably there is a survival benefit.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: *puzzled* Where are you getting that belief? That mammals don't kill each other?
Ever watched Meerkat Manor?
There are specific situations in which animals AND men kill their own, generally over resources. It's not arbitrary though.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you think that we have that revulsion?
It's pretty universal in the animal kingdom, particularly among the animals most like ourselves. The reluctance to kill other members of your species arbitrarily seems to be an attribute of mammals as much as endothermy is. Presumably there is a survival benefit.
posted
You can't name a source? You've been touting the scientific method and it means you don't have to take things on faith and how it is rational and then you state something as fact and can't name a source.
Why do you believe what you said? Can you find a source that has put the question through decent testing?
If not, why do you believe it?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that your touted rational, scientific process? You'll believe anything that sounds vaguely like it could be true?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I cannot, off the top of my head, name a specific source that applies to that general statement. I was basing it off extensive reading of literature regarding mammal behavior which contained few examples of such behavior.
I also cannot name a source that indicates that mammals tend to not defecate one one another's heads or compulsively eat hair, but I also feel confident in making that assertion based on the absence of such behavior from the reading I have done.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I mean, you claim it, you're using it in an argument, an argument as a matter of fact concerns the reliabilty of sources. Claiming to be a mini-expert because of some online poking around and possibly watching Animal Planet isn't a good citing. It certainly isn't useful as evidence - anyone hearing would have to rely on you as the expert, and you haven't provided a reason to accept you as an expert in this area.
Just one source? Somewhere?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is that your touted rational, scientific process?
It was my opinion stated in an informal conversation based on my personal experience in studying the subject. If I were to actually need to make an important decision based on that information, then I'd more rigorously investigate it to verify that my opinion represents reality as well as I believe that it does.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Because you're asking me to do the equivalent of "prove there's no god." You want me to find a source that says animals don't do X where most papers are in the form of animals do Y. It's the absence of data suggesting that mammals are inherently violent to members of their own species upon which I base my opinion. That absence can be found in virtually any literature on animal behavior.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the absence of data suggesting that mammals are inherently violent to members of their own species upon which I base my opinion.
The absense of data that has become apparent by recreational reading online and watching Animal Planet?
Those are pretty low standards for a study. Is that your standard for studies that claim to have reached something true by the scientific method as well?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sure. How does that fit with the "survival of the fittest" idea? How do we explain the survival of species that do kill their own kind (us for example). Does it exist on a gene? Is it learned behavior?
It doesn't really matter. I was just making the point (to Threads, I think) that, "it is an inherent characteristic" is not really a much better answer than, "God made us that way".
Nor are they contradictory answers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How do we explain the survival of species that do kill their own kind (us for example).
Hang on, he didn't say that most mammals never kill their own kind, just that they generally don't do it arbitrarily -- that there is generally a reluctance to kill members of one's own species among mammals.
That doesn't mean they don't do it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The absense of data that has become apparent by recreational reading online and watching Animal Planet?
Offline too, but yeah. Not sure if you have any hobbies, but if you do then you are bound to have exposed yourself to quite a lot more material on the subject than the average Joe. I feel that my opinion is an informed one, regardless of how you wish to characterize it.
quote:Those are pretty low standards for a study.
I never claimed to be producing a study. I expressed my somewhat educated opinion. If you disagree, that's cool. If you disagree and have counter-evidence, even more cool. If I happen across any literature that addresses intra-species non-violence in a broad manner, I'll be sure to pass it on.
quote:Is that your standard for studies that claim to have reached something true by the scientific method as well?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
