EvilGrey wrote:GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Yes, morality is entirely relative. However, there are some exceptions. Generally it's wrong to kill people 'related' to you by ties of blood or community, it's usually wrong to engage in sexual relations with people related to you by ties of blood, and it's usually wrong to steal from people related to you by ties of blood or community. However, you don't need a God to explain this. These are concepts that developed as animals developed more complex ways of interacting cooperatively with one-another. For example, crocodiles, which are territorial loners, cheerfully eat any younger crocodile that wanders into range. Contrast this with lions, which have developed more sophisticated social concepts. Male lions won't kill their own cubs, yet will kill all cubs fathered by other males. This is driven entirely by evolutionary pressures.
Admittedly it may be very well true that there is no absolute, objective morality in existence, which is why I believe it is best for mankind to believe that there is. Morality is subject to change over time, as all things do, and not necessarily for the better. Certain religions have developed moral codes which most sane, compassionate people would agree are a paragon of what morality in an enlightened society should be. Secondly, beacuse we live in a time of such great cynicism and skepticism, few would be convinced of changing the doctrines of enlightened forms of theism, thus giving religions the advantage of being immutable indefinitely.
So would you say that it is still a good idea to pray to the Lord to smite your enemies so you can go and sell their women and children into slavery? Or in other delightful examples, wipe out the tribes of your enemies down to the last man, woman, and child? Or, perhaps, is it acceptable for people to slay the infidels on the promise that they shall recieve virgins in Heaven?
And it is arguable that the same basic set of moral principles will arise in every society. Why? Not because God made it so, but because those principles are essential to keep the members of society from turning it into a non-society.
EvilGrey wrote:
Having positive, innately good moral edicts sanctified by an immutable, lofty religion ensures morality has little chance to degenerate with the passage of time.
That, or you can preserve all the bad stuff (the hatred or intolerance sanctioned by God or His prophets) for all time. It is a double-edged sword, you know?
EvilGrey wrote:
As stated above, morality systems developed by humans aren't entirely arbitrary. They often share many core tenants. And it can be observed that these core tenants develop as a species evolves increasingly complex models of social cooperation. Thus, we can readily trim out the middleman (God.)
Indeed, but I've often wondered if our seemingly-universal set of morals ingrained within us are not the product of a divine power...
That presumes that God exists. First you must demonstrate that He exists, and then prove that basic morality didn't develop as a consequence of environment.
EvilGrey wrote:
And yet, you don't know the nature of God. Thus, what you say about the nature of deistic morality is nothing more than baseless assumption, mixed with a healthy dose of wishful thinking.
Yes, I agree. Neither I nor anyone else can truly proclaim an understanding of God. God may be an impersonal, pantheistic thing for all anyone knows. However, as I explained above, it may be better to believe that He is as described by enlightened religions. NT-era Christianity seems fairly decent.
But NT-era Christianity is just OT-era Yahweh-worship with a bit of polish. Jesus didn't say he was there to overthrow the Law, after all, but instead was there to fulfill it. And yes, if there was a God, you could describe Him in the best terms possible. On the other hand you can also claim that He's also a homicidal maniac. Again, the sword cuts both ways. Since it is impossible to directly know the mind of God, we have to judge Him by His actions.
EvilGrey wrote:
Yet we have to use God's actions as a yardstick when attempting to determine what sort of morality he espouses. Unless we were all suddenly blessed with the ability to know exactly what goes on in God's mind, He is a black-box. And the only way to figure out how a black-box works is to push in inputs and measure the outputs. And, it follows, unless God is a hypocritical psychopath (which would immediately invalidate the assumption that He is infallible and perfect, but for the purposes of this exercise, we will grant that He is perfect,) He follows His own morality. And if God follows the principles of His morality, then we can determine from His actions what that morality is.
God's actions would be inherently amoral because morality is subordinate to Him, not the other way around. God is beyond judgement and cannot be deemed anything other than amoral and neutral.
If God is perfectly amoral and neutral, then what baseline would He have in order to establish a divine morality? In the naturalistic view I've laid out, one can readily see that the baseline for morality comes from generations of trial and error. If it kept you from killing your neighbor over territorial fights, or becoming an inbred redneck in five generations, it stayed and wound up becoming hardwired. If God is perfectly amoral and neutral, then it can be concluded that He has no such experience.
EvilGrey wrote:
Then God's system of morality is purely arbitrary, if He can modify it and disobey it at will. And if God can change it on a whim, this must mean that His nature is imperfect and that he is fallible. If He wasn't, then there should be no problems with Him obeying his own system of morality . . . since it is perfect, after all.
God's sytem of morality is arbitrary to Him, but to us it's not. God's power literally changes objective morality in the universe. His perfection is unaffected by His changing of morality.
If He is above His own morality, then it is purely arbitrary. Since God isn't affected by His morality, then he can change it on a whim, or choose to enforce it upon one group of people and not another. That's a very poor definition of 'absolute' there.
EvilGrey wrote:
Wrong. In a moral being, morality guides action. The only population for whom morality does not guide action mostly fills our prison systems. And if God is purely neutral and amoral, then there cannot be a divine system of morality.
Those who commit abhorrent actions are not necessarily immoral; it depends on whose morals you are judging him against. From an atheist's perspective, a murderer is evil only to those who believe murderers are evil; all others will think otherwise. Because atheism implicitly rejects objective morality, no one is correct in their judgement regarding the moral character of the murderer.
Morality develops from society. It is wrong to kill people living in your society. It reduces the overall productivity of your society. It is, however, justifiable to kill those who would seek to disrupt and destroy your society. In that regard, morality is entirely subjective. And yet, it is also purely objective, as you can bet that the other guy thinks the exact same way about you.
EvilGrey wrote:
So you admit that you can't know the true nature of God. Thus, God is a black-box. (For the uninitiated, a black-box is a system that does something, yet the exact working mechanisms are supposed to be hidden from the user.) And, that means, for those of us who seek to understand the nature of God, the only way to do so is by observing His actions, and comparing them with established yardsticks. Thus, if God performs numerous actions that register as "evil" by our standards, then it is strongly indicated that God is an evil being.
Regardless of God's nature, one fact remains certain: God stands above morality and is incapable of being judged.
Then there is no absolute system of divine morality. In order for it to be absolute, God has to be affected by it as well. Otherwise He can change it at will and make it purely subjective and arbitrary. You can either have a God who sets down a system of absolute, perfect morality, who can be judged by that yardstick, or you can have a God that is above morality, making any morality He sets down just as 'arbitrary' as any man-made system.
EvilGrey wrote:
That being said, I believe it would be prudent for us to ignore the OT because, well, it's not exactly the most positive source for morals in the modern age. Protestants do it anyways, so it's not a big deal. :)
You can't pick and choose the evidence that makes you look good. If you're going to objectively judge God, then all the evidence has to be considered.
