Is a God Needed for Morality?

[Thalassamania]

An estimate of 5,000 total killed in the spanish inquisition? I'll see you that and raise you 800,000 per year killed in abortions in the US as reported by the CDC

That's 5,000 sentient people versus 800,000 non-sentient, obligate parasite cell masses. Let's save the abortion discussion for another thread, that will get us shutdown in an (adult human) heartbeat.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Ahh...the old temporary state argument. It's tired, but still gets brought up.

I'm not sure what makes an arguement tired but is that the same as saying that it isn't valid?

I really don't want to get into a debate about abortion, since we speak different languages on the topic, but unborn babies, while in a temporary state of non-sentience, never were sentient.

And this is relevant how?

This differs from a comatose patient who used to be sentient and may become so in the future. Although, that is why we have medical proxies and DNRs, so patients can choose (or have their proxies choose) their fate should they end up in a vegetative state. I have no doubt that you believe a terminally ill patient living the remainder of their life in excruciating pain should suck it up rather than end their pain through euthanasia, also.

You shouldn't be so quick to assume. Personally I'm willing to accept an individuals choice concerning their own death whether or not I think their decision is "right".

Anyhow, Sentience has nothing to do with intelligence. I can accept the consequences of your argument. Yes, there are some that fall into the category of not sentient and I do believe as humans we have the ability to discern who has the 'right' to live.

In our increasingly secular society we not only "discern" who has a right to live but we make it law. I don't know that the question of whether or not it's "moral is answered though.

Well, my perspective is that your 'reasoning' was taken from a book of stories analogous to Grim's Fairy Tales. Maybe I should use Hansel and Gretel as my moral compass. It has just as much validity. That's what I mean by speaking different languages. You assume that there is a god and you assume that the bible is not just a book of stories. We can't really have much of a conversation on the matter since we don't share the foundational beliefs.

Exactly. My reasoning comes from one place and yours from another. They are not the same and they aren't going to be. You are completely free to use Grims, Mother Goose or whatever you want. Whether or not we can discuss it doesn't change the fact that on ,amy points it ultimately it has to get worked out. Sometimes it's a vote and sometimes it's a fight but somebody is going to decide.

 

[Midnight Star]

As not to borrow a word or phrase from another poster - creating an never ending perpetual chain...

I've seen the inferences throughout most of this thread, but never quite openly asked. Why not go ahead and ask it:

Does everyone believe that forcing religion upon another person, either through physical force, peer pressure, situational advantage, threats and all the like, really equates to a true conversion? A true, "changing of the heart and mind"?

-----

Mike.

 

[Thalassamania]

Please guys, let's let abortion go, or take it to a difffent thread. I fear that the half life of an abortion thread would be less than a day.

 

[Thalassamania]

Does everyone believe that forcing religion upon another person, either through physical force, peer pressure, situational advantage, threats and all the like, really equates to a true conversion? A true, "changing of the heart and mind"?

No. Does anyone feet that is is right to force someone else to live by their personal religious convictions?

 

[Midnight Star]

No. Does anyone feet that is is right to force someone else to live by their personal religious convictions?

That's a really tough question to answer. No I don't, but it happens everywhere, in and outside of the religious context. We are all guilty of it; religions, non-religious leaders and scientists alike, dogmatizing the world to fit their own personal views and concessions. That's why I used the word "child" in my above post. A child doesnt really care what a person is or does (unless they see it first hand, then they are either in shock or think cooooool!), and would readily be friends with a criminal as well as a godly person. A child simply is, no thought of life, death or anything else ... they simply wonder and live in the creation around them; a wisdom beyond their years. They don't go out and convert or force, they simply are. Whether the world is saved or burned doesnt even enter their minds, but sadly, as in all wars are some of the most tragic victims.

-----

Mike.

 

[Soggy]

That's a really tough question to answer. No I don't, but it happens everywhere, in and outside of the religious context. We are all guilty of it; religions, non-religious leaders and scientists alike, dogmatizing the world to fit their own personal views and concessions. That's why I used the word "child" in my above post. A child doesnt really care what a person is or does (unless they see it first hand, then they are either in shock or think cooooool!), and would readily be friends with a criminal as well as a godly person. A child simply is, no thought of life, death or anything else ... they simply wonder and live in the creation around them; a wisdom beyond their years. They don't go out and convert or force, they simply are. Whether the world is saved or burned doesnt even enter their minds, but sadly, as in all wars are some of the most tragic victims.

What you are describing is oft spoke of in martial arts. Shoshin, or "beginner's mind." It's a valuable thing to keep in mind throughout life.

 

[lamont]

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.

Nice try, but you're wrong.

If we assume that morality has a genetic component then two individual who get the 'moral' gene will be able to cooperate. That will increase their survival advantages in the case of non-zero sum prisoner's dillemma types of situations and that will promote the propagation of the gene. The organisms which do not have the gene and do not cooperate will tend to engage in short-sighted strategies towards the prisoner dillemma which will not be as successful in the long run on average.

I'm not saying its as simple as that, but that's enough to make your proof completely fall apart.

What you are missing is that while genes are inherantly completely selfish, the individual organisms which carry those genes can act cooperatively to enhance the survivability of the selfish genes they carry. Thus you get the 'runt gene' where one of the organisms makes the ultimate sacrifice and effectively kills itself in times of scarcity so that its litter mates will have a better survival advantage and will propagate the runt gene. From the perspective of the organism with the activated runt gene which dies, it is the ultimate sacrifice -- from the persepctive of the runt gene carried by all the littermates, it is entirely "selfish".

While the whole is not any bigger than the sum of the parts you do get emergent behavior at the level of the organism that is not apparent at the level of the gene (much like you don't see the self-reproducing behavior of genetics in chemistry at the level of single amino acids).

 

[Thalassamania]

That's a really tough question to answer.

I find that a very easy question to answer, the answer is no.

 

[Midnight Star]

What you are describing is oft spoke of in martial arts. Shoshin, or "beginner's mind." It's a valuable thing to keep in mind throughout life.

In a never ending quest to find a seat, I discovered there was no seat. Again, in a never ending quest to find a place, there was no place. Until at last I moved. My it sure is busy over there.

I filled the cup, and then sought to empty it ... coming full circle back to the beginning. What if the cup was never filled? Would philosophy still apply?

btw: I LOVE martial arts!!!

-----

Mike.