Is a God Needed for Morality?

[agilis]

I was checking out the previews for the new movie "Nativity". All I can say is that Jesus' mother was HOT.

The poet Amiri Baraka once wrote that he didn't know of any proof that God exists, but that he could easily contact the Devil simply by dialing 911.

 

[Thalassamania]

I see... so, then based on your observation of my text, your "hypothesis" let's say, is that because one or two didn't understand my meaning, all won't? Or, perhaps you did

Words are a representation of ideas are they not? thoughts and expressions, abstract yes, but given that vein of thought ... if someone mutters "muggwaath" pointing to their throat as they turn blue ... i'd not be able to understand their meaning or implication? I really don't believe you believe that.

-----

Mike.

What I know is that to attempt to discuss science without agreement to use properly defined terms is a waste of time. Poetry and art are something altogether different.

 

[Midnight Star]

What I know is that to attempt to discuss science without agreement to use properly defined terms is a waste of time. Poetry and art are something altogether different.

It's interesting to think that science, has the ability to "envelope" something as abstract as morality? Or as spiritual God. Moreso, because of it's inability to do so, invalidates even the possibility for some to simply believe it's possible. What then would be the function of science in these instances? Wouldn't it be better applied elsewhere?

Just another thought ... in complex social systems, does the inhabitants really ever achieve the level of awareness of intent the original designer had or has?, since they are living within the confines of the design? How could they ever "think outside the box"? All of what they would know, and experience is based on that which is observed and done in the creation; orginal intent is intangible, as is a thought or idea. We could conclude or surmise what the intent was, based on what we observe, but we never really could know for sure, unless we were able to ask.

This is were it begins ... how do we ask? and would we really ever get an answer.

-----

Mike.

 

[Midnight Star]

I was checking out the previews for the new movie "Nativity". All I can say is that Jesus' mother was HOT.

What he or his mom really looked like, i'm not sure. In real life she couldv'e been

Which actress was it?

-----

Mike.

 

[agilis]

Which actress? I'm not sure. Queen Latifah?

 

[Kevrumbo]

As humans, we naturally aspire to what is best and good for our welfare so long as it’s within the ethical bounds of society –the consensus “greatest good” for all. Whether that involves Enlightenment, Self-Actualization, conferring of Grace or whatever –that’s up to the individual, he has the free will to choose (“Live Free or Die” as the New Hampshire folks say).

Do we need a God for morality? Well, we were smart enough to have figured out the “Power of God” (Fission/Fusion, the power of the Atom), but barely wise enough to keep from blowing ourselves up along with destroying this Planet. Secularly, I have faith in people, governments & society to do the right thing –Spiritually, I pray for the common wisdom & insight to resolve our differences. . .

 

[Kim]

Actually I think the question makes more sense if it's reversed.
Did Man seek God because of intrinsic moral feelings that needed to be explained?

 

[Bill51]

If there is no God and all life is the result of only random mutation and evolution, then it adds significantly to the credibility of the “selfish gene” theory as described by Richard Dawkins – and he points out that there is no such thing as morality to the function of genes and cells. The question then becomes whether the organism (man) inherits on a whole the same tendencies as the sum of all the parts, which would imply that for man to have morality it would be more than the sum of the genes and cells that make up the body.

Most definitions of morality imply if not explicitly require a concern for others and suppression of selfishness or concern only with the individual, which can to some extent be explained away in man as long term and abstract intelligence suppressing the natural order and nature of the individual genes and cells. The problem is that creates a conflict between the organism as a whole and the individual cells making up the organism, which creates an interesting paradox of the cells evolving in a different direction than the host desires to evolve resulting in the organism creating an unhealthy lifestyle for the cells to survive and that would shorten the potential life span of the organism as a whole.

I find this contradiction gets even worse when one looks at something like Marx theories of communism where man is expected to have moralistic behavior toward his fellow man through the use of man’s intelligent abilities to suppress the natural tendency of nature and one of the foundations of evolution in the fittest and strongest should survive at the expense of the less strong – while being committed to the concept of no God. Without God providing a morality to man, and with the cells of the body programmed to keep the either the individual cells or the host organism of the cells alive than no man would ever willingly give up his life for another person – so there would be no cops or soldiers to protect the weaker.

Now one can argue that morality (as we assume it to be defined) does exist at the cellular level but that would imply that individual cells know and understand the existence of similar sister cells of the same type existing in other organisms and those cells are willing to work with their host organism to preserve themselves in others at the expense of their direct offspring – but that gets pretty tough to explain without God to act as the communication channel between red blood cells in two different host organisms. If that communication is not available then we have morality being defined strictly at the individual level for the survival of only that individual cell or hosting organism and there would be no biological incentive to preserve any other member of the species is that individual were in any way weaker.

To me the only way morality in a non egocentric manner can exist is by God creating or implanting a common morality in man that sees the survival of mankind as more important than the individual’s survival instinct – which pretty much makes pure evolution without some intelligent design a non-functioning theory.

 

[Thalassamania]

If there is no God and all life is the result of only random mutation and evolution, then it adds significantly to the credibility of the “selfish gene” theory as described by Richard Dawkins – and he points out that there is no such thing as morality to the function of genes and cells. The question then becomes whether the organism (man) inherits on a whole the same tendencies as the sum of all the parts, which would imply that for man to have morality it would be more than the sum of the genes and cells that make up the body.

First, its not "theory" but rather a hypothesis. Second, Dawkins does indeed make the case, only a little tongue in cheek, that there is no such thing as morality to the function of genes and cells. And one might extend that to your implication(s). But that is like saying that because there is such thing as shelter in a blueprint and pile of building materials a house would have to be more than the sum of its parts to keep the rain off you.

Most definitions of morality imply if not explicitly require a concern for others and suppression of selfishness or concern only with the individual, which can to some extent be explained away in man as long term and abstract intelligence suppressing the natural order and nature of the individual genes and cells. The problem is that creates a conflict between the organism as a whole and the individual cells making up the organism, which creates an interesting paradox of the cells evolving in a different direction than the host desires to evolve resulting in the organism creating an unhealthy lifestyle for the cells to survive and that would shorten the potential life span of the organism as a whole.

There is no conflict between the gene and the cell, there is a conflict between the short term good of the organism and the long term good of the organism. This is an example of what is known as balancing selection and usually results in a compromise. But in the case that you bring up selection will favor the long term good because selection is the transmission of a set of genes to succeeding generations and man is a fairly long lived organism with a very lengthy non-reproductive childhood.

I find this contradiction gets even worse when one looks at something like Marx theories of communism where man is expected to have moralistic behavior toward his fellow man through the use of man’s intelligent abilities to suppress the natural tendency of nature and one of the foundations of evolution in the fittest and strongest should survive at the expense of the less strong – while being committed to the concept of no God. Without God providing a morality to man, and with the cells of the body programmed to keep the either the individual cells or the host organism of the cells alive than no man would ever willingly give up his life for another person – so there would be no cops or soldiers to protect the weaker.

The problem, never grasped by Marx, what that man’s altruistic nature was evolved in small tribal groups with little contact with other groups (and contact with others may well have been less than friendly) so there was selection for an organism that was an altruist at home and real bugger when out and about. This, I think, is a much clearer and similar explanation for the situation in which we find ourselves today than a god attempting to mediate man’s worse nature with carrot and stick.

Now one can argue that morality (as we assume it to be defined) does exist at the cellular level but that would imply that individual cells know and understand the existence of similar sister cells of the same type existing in other organisms and those cells are willing to work with their host organism to preserve themselves in others at the expense of their direct offspring – but that gets pretty tough to explain without God to act as the communication channel between red blood cells in two different host organisms. If that communication is not available then we have morality being defined strictly at the individual level for the survival of only that individual cell or hosting organism and there would be no biological incentive to preserve any other member of the species is that individual were in any way weaker.

I am confused by what you are calling “understanding” in i=an individual cell, especially when you extend that a god mediated communication twixt red blood cells that carry no genetic information.

To me the only way morality in a non egocentric manner can exist is by God creating or implanting a common morality in man that sees the survival of mankind as more important than the individual’s survival instinct – which pretty much makes pure evolution without some intelligent design a non-functioning theory.

Have you, in fact, read “The Selfish Gene?” Are you familiar with competing hypothesis oft termed “group selection?” Have you ever heard the term, “kin selection?” There are but a few the many ways in with morality can exist, right down to the gene level, without a god.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Quote:
Originally Posted by agilis
People who act ethically mainly because they fear that God will punish them if they do not are not to be trusted.

It's not clear to me how agilis is comming to that conclusion. Beyond that the statement reflects what seems to be a common misconception. I don't try to act in a way that pleases God in an attempt to avoid punishment. It's a forgone conclusion that I will not be totally successful and I already have forgiveness for those failures through Christ. My desire to please God is an expression of love for God and a result of having faith that the things that "please God" are the things that are best.

That said, the things that I believe to be pleasing to God may not be pleasing to you. I

Truer words have never been 'spoken' and this has been my belief for quite some time. I live a moral life because I am able to discern right and wrong without the need to be told by a higher authority. I am suspicious of those that cannot do the same.

Here's the other side of that coin. I believe that you lead what you think is a moral life. However, since I believe that there is a God and that, by default, He decides what is moral, I am more than suspicious of anyone who thinks they are able to discern apart from God. Again, the fallibility of mans wisdom compared to the infallibility of Gods wisdom is a basic tenant of what the Bible teaches. You trust you but I don't. I trust God.