An Explanation of My View of Morality

[Ted C]

Supposedly, because he's bigger than us. Sadly, that's pretty much their whole argument, although they like to use flowery language to describe it.

Let me condense EvilGrey's description of God's morality into two sentences:

1) "Might makes right, so obey Almighty God."

2) "Do what I say, not what I do."

[Admiral Valdemar]

Supposedly, because he's bigger than us. Sadly, that's pretty much their whole argument, although they like to use flowery language to describe it.

Let me condense EvilGrey's description of God's morality into two sentences:

1) "Might makes right, so obey Almighty God."

2) "Do what I say, not what I do."

Nuts, beat me to it.

[LadyTevar]

EvilGrey, where do you get this never-ending stream of "I'm Christian, I'm better than you, I know everything"? In all my 18 years of church-going, in an Baptist temple, I have never heard even HALF the stuff you've tried to pass off as "Authoritive" and "God's Word".

I've read several of your threads on this board, and in each one you've only proved yourself to have no real knowledge of anything you're talking about, and shown yourself only to be a fool.

So Shut Up.

If you're wanting to evangalize, try starting a prayer group at school, or organize a youth group meeting once a week. If you're wanting to preach, then go to Beulah and get your degree... and please for Heaven's Sake actually Learn How To Evangalize WITHOUT PISSING PEOPLE OFF!

Don't come to this board trying to start trouble, it will only get them annoyed and wind up with you looking like a fool again, and worse, make other Christians look foolish. The only thing you're doing with your flamebaiting and stubbornness is giving them more ammo to throw against us.

And I'll be praying for you. After all, God watches over children and fools.

[Peregrin Toker]

The problem I have with god's morality is simple.

As EvilGrey says, God is not bound by his rules.

So why the hell should we listen to anyone who sets down rules he himself will not follow?

Supposedly, because he's bigger than us. Sadly, that's pretty much their whole argument, although they like to use flowery language to describe it.

(insert reference to Kurgan from The Highlander)

[LadyTevar]

The problem I have with god's morality is simple.

As EvilGrey says, God is not bound by his rules.

So why the hell should we listen to anyone who sets down rules he himself will not follow?

Supposedly, because he's bigger than us. Sadly, that's pretty much their whole argument, although they like to use flowery language to describe it.

(insert reference to Kurgan from The Highlander)

Please Explain?

[Keevan_Colton]

Kurgan in a Church, flicking his tounge at the priest :-
I am but a worm!

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Because I have been somewhat recondite about my views of morality, thus leading to much confusion, I will elaborate upon how I came to my views:

The Nature of Morality in Atheism

Morality is inherently relative because it is defined by personal convictions and not an objective standard. The ever-so-revered Golden Rule is a subjective standard because the notion of not doing harm to others is not an absolute principle. Consequently, morality is only what each person makes of it, and no one is inherently right or wrong.

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.

The Nature of Morality in Enlightened Theism

There are two forms of morality: The arbitrary systems of man and the objective, universal system ordained by God.

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.)

The system ordained by God is:

1) Objective. It exists and will do so indefinitely, even after life perishes.

2) Absolute. It is perfect.

3) Universal. Its reach extends to all sentient beings -- assuming God wishes it to be universal.

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.

God's omnipotence, infallibility, and perfect nature make His sytem of morality objective, absolute, and universal; therefore, God's morality is superior to any form of manmade morality.

Because there has been an inability among the denizens of this BBS to distinguish God's actions from God's system of morality, it is important that I state the following:

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.

1) God is a sovereign being and is not bound to any system of morality, whether it be His own or those of men.

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.

2) Morality and actions are not the same. To deem God's system of morality as evil on the account of His actions is erroneous. God is neither moral nor immoral, good nor evil; God is neutral.

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.

3) Judging God as evil is impossible because a man's finite power is incapable of effectuating change in the actual nature of God. A man can deem a pencil evil, but objectively the pencil's neutral nature has not been altered. Likewise, a man can deem God evil, but his judgement is meaningless and powerless because it does not alter God's actual nature.

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.

[Queeb Salaron]

::Looks at Terwynn::

Hmm... that looks strangely familiar.

::Looks at his post on pg. 1::

Yep. REEEEEEAAAALLY familiar.

Good to see I'm on the same page as SOMEone.

[EvilGrey]

Queen Salaron, I wish you had actually read and understood what I had wrote before posting one giant response built on logical fallacies and erroneous presumptions. Your misuse -- which I can only attribute to ignorance -- of essential terms in the initial portion of your post rendered your response utterly nonsensical at best.

[Keevan_Colton]

Queen Salaron, I wish you had actually read and understood what I had wrote before posting one giant response built on logical fallacies and erroneous presumptions. Your misuse -- which I can only attribute to ignorance -- of essential terms in the initial portion of your post rendered your response utterly nonsensical at best.

Your logic revolves around a presumption you cannot prove and have not offered any conditions under which it would fail.....so by definition your entire post is illogical nonsensical and generally a steaming pile of bullshit.....

[EvilGrey]

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.

Having positive, innately good moral edicts sanctified by an immutable, lofty religion ensures morality has little chance to degenerate with the passage of time.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

It basically boils down to a measure of power. The system of morality with the greatest number of adherents in power is the one that becomes the de facto standard for society. Imagine what would happen if most people submitted to a Nazi-esque system? Unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility.

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.

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.

[Frank Hipper]

EvilGrey, I'm curious as to where you got the impression that atheists follow some sort of doctrine.

[Joe]

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.

Ideas about the shape of the Earth have changed over the years as well. Does that change the fact that all along, there was one, true, objective description of the Earth's shape? No. Likewise, the fact that morality has been historically dynamic does not mean that there is no objective truth relating to it. The conclusion does not really follow the premise.

Indeed, but I've often wondered if our seemingly-universal set of morals ingrained within us are not the product of a divine power...

Occam's Razor says no.

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.

Earlier you said that God's code of morality is universal and it applies to all sentient beings; now you have contradicted yourself by claiming that the moral code in question does not apply to a sentient being, God. What part of this do you not understand?

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.

I am an atheist and consider myself a staunch moral objectivist. You are mistaken.

Regardless of God's nature, one fact remains certain: God stands above morality and is incapable of being judged.

Because he is bigger than us, correct? You have not proven this. Sorry.

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.

Jesus thought otherwise, unfortunately.

[EvilGrey]

EvilGrey, I'm curious as to where you got the impression that atheists follow some sort of doctrine.

Though I didn't say that, I guess I would contend that most do.

After all, few of us can earnestly claim we don't abide primarily by what we were indoctrinated with as children, or the tenets of a movement we've become enamored with later in life.

[Frank Hipper]

EvilGrey, I'm curious as to where you got the impression that atheists follow some sort of doctrine.

Though I didn't say that, I guess I would contend that most do.

No, you've never come out and said it, but you repeatedly make statements that would suggest a unifying doctrine exists, or more to the point, that you believe one exists.

After all, few of us can earnestly claim we don't abide primarily by what we were indoctrinated with as children, or the tenets of a movement we've become enamored with later in life.

Well, there's the rub now, isn't it. I was not aware of any tenets of atheism, I simply cannot accept that the supernatural exists. How that makes me part of a movement, I do not understand. Is there some sort of organization to this movement? Leaders?

[EvilGrey]

No, you've never come out and said it, but you repeatedly make statements that would suggest a unifying doctrine exists, or more to the point, that you believe one exists.

The belief that there is no God is a unifying principle of atheism, is it not?

Well, there's the rub now, isn't it. I was not aware of any tenets of atheism, I simply cannot accept that the supernatural exists. How that makes me part of a movement, I do not understand. Is there some sort of organization to this movement? Leaders?

Most atheists I know borrow their beliefs from other atheists. There's this intangible, rebellious movement that many atheists seem to attach themselves to.

[Queeb Salaron]

"Unifying principles" and "unifying doctrine" are two TOTALLY different things. You lose.

[EvilGrey]

"Unifying principles" and "unifying doctrine" are two TOTALLY different things. You lose.

doctrine: A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.

Apparently not. I win.

[SirNitram]

EvilGrey, again I ask why you are so afraid of explaining what your 'theism' is, since you so often use Christianity and Christian stuff to defend yourself, but dive behind 'I didn't say I'm Christian!' all the time. Is your faith so weak and nonexistant that you can't say?

[SirNitram]

"Unifying principles" and "unifying doctrine" are two TOTALLY different things. You lose.

doctrine: A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.

Apparently not. I win.

Bzzzzzt. The unifying principle of Atheism is not presented as a belief. I'm sorry, you're wrong.

[Joe]

OK, let's use some of that wonderful logic of yours to draw an analogy.

Most theists hold many of the same principles; belief in some sort of a supreme being, belief in the existence of the supernatural, belief in divine creation. Therefore, all theists hold the same doctrine as well.

[EvilGrey]

EvilGrey, again I ask why you are so afraid of explaining what your 'theism' is, since you so often use Christianity and Christian stuff to defend yourself, but dive behind 'I didn't say I'm Christian!' all the time. Is your faith so weak and nonexistant that you can't say?

My religion is inconsequential. I only bring up Christianity so often because most of you are Westerners.

[Frank Hipper]

Most atheists I know borrow their beliefs from other atheists. There's this intangible, rebellious movement that many atheists seem to attach themselves to.

Rebellious, eh? A sense of humor making an appearance?

Whatever philosophy classes you've been attending are giving you a none to singular POV, just because you find yourself in the midst of a group sharing a collective identity, due to belief, does not mean every thing that can be identified as a group behaves in a similar way. Structured, that is.

[SirNitram]

EvilGrey, again I ask why you are so afraid of explaining what your 'theism' is, since you so often use Christianity and Christian stuff to defend yourself, but dive behind 'I didn't say I'm Christian!' all the time. Is your faith so weak and nonexistant that you can't say?

My religion is inconsequential. I only bring up Christianity so often because most of you are Westerners.

It's quite consequental, it allows us to bring up references most directly. Now, state it. Here, I'll go first.

Human Secular Deist.

Now, yours? Or do you fear a name on the computer screen?

[Joe]

EvilGrey, again I ask why you are so afraid of explaining what your 'theism' is, since you so often use Christianity and Christian stuff to defend yourself, but dive behind 'I didn't say I'm Christian!' all the time. Is your faith so weak and nonexistant that you can't say?

My religion is inconsequential. I only bring up Christianity so often because most of you are Westerners.

If it is so inconsequential perhaps you should explain to us why in earlier threads you have taken great pains to unsuccessfully convince us of the perfection of Christianity.