No God, No morals

[Deavonreye]

because one time not to long ago you said you couldn't find answers in a book


C.S. Lewis , give him more credit

He knows more than you

He may know more about some topics, but not everything, . . . and you have no idea what I know, nor him, for that matter. Again, you are just attacking. Why?

 

[Oats]

He may know more about some topics, but not everything, . . . and you have no idea what I know, nor him, for that matter. Again, you are just attacking. Why?

because you are being adamant


i can't talk to you unless i'm direct

if you read that you will see why both you and i were wrong

 

[Mike]

You seem to be very angry Oats. What's up? I siimply asked you to give me your take on what C.S. Lewis was saying and you attack?

Regardless, C.S. Lewis is an author, not a sociologist or anthropologist.

Actually, C.S. Lewis seems to have had much in common with you, DR. From wikipedia:

"Lewis was raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically 'very angry with God for not existing'."

Let's all calm down the rhetoric, okay? Stop taking things personally and lashing out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#cite_note-22

 

[Deavonreye]

Mike, I'm not all that familiar with C.S. Lewis. I don't do a lot of reading of that nature. I know he has a great imagination, though. As for the cut and paste from Oats, yes, people fail at being good or observing the law of nature. On the whole, however, it still works.

The topic of the thread is "no god, no morals", and that is obviously wrong. No, people aren't immune from becoming anti-social, but most people "work the system". The evidence of this can be seen in most modern cultures. The laws set up are seperate from any religious reasonings.

 

[Mike]

I realize the way I added that reminder to my response to Deavenreye, it looks like I was speaking to him. I wasn't.

This thread is very close to being zipped up. When I said "We all", I meant everyone. Please calm down and give a thought out response instead of reacting. We all can be reminded to do this now and then.

Sorry, DR. I should have separated that in a different post.

Thanks.

 

[Deavonreye]

Oh, no reason for appologies, Mike.

I had to change my post [above] a little.

 

[Jakeness]

"Lewis was raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically 'very angry with God for not existing'."

That quote from Lewis proves, to me at least, that he was never a real atheist. The statement contradicts itself because his anger is directed towards God, which means he thinks He exists.

EDIT: this didn't post before:

without God you can't tell someone to care about someone else

I care about other people all the time, without god. I find it sad that you require a deity to tell you what is right and wrong when even far less intelligent animals don't.

 

[Mike]

That quote from Lewis proves, to me at least, that he was never a real atheist. The statement contradicts itself because his anger is directed towards God, which means he thinks He exists.

Perhaps not a strict atheist. Very few go so far as to call themselves atheists as opposed to agnostics. If you found one line and that "proved" to you he wasn't an atheist, perhaps a little more digging will convince you.

C. S. Lewis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, then. I think we are off track again.

 

[Mike]

I find it sad that you require a deity to tell you what is right and wrong when even far less intelligent animals don't.

Jake, do you plan on being a part of this board for a while? You're newer here, and I'd encourage you to observe the thoughtful ways some of your fellow agnostics exchange thoughts without insulting our faith.

But you have it wrong. Morality is imprinted on the soul of every man; yours and mine. The difference is that I acknowledge that this comes from our Lord, and you reject that it does.

Be careful not to give yourself too much rope to do anything dangerous out here!

 

[Jakeness]

But you have it wrong. Morality is imprinted on the soul of every man; yours and mine. The difference is that I acknowledge that this comes from our Lord, and you reject that it does.

I agree with the general idea of that statement, that everyone has morals. (Obviously I disagree about where it comes from but that isn't important for this discussion.) The issue I have is that Oats here seems to believe that one cannot have morals if he is an atheist, which is just plain wrong.

I also have to point out that my previous comment wasn't an insult to Christianity, but admittedly it was one to Oats. Apparently if it weren't for the Bible, he would have no morals. And yet, "experiments with rats have shown that they will not take food if they know their actions will cause pain to another rat." (Taken from my link.) It was intended as more of a proof that religion is not necessary for morals than as an insult.

 

[darrell]

The topic of the thread is "no god, no morals", and that is obviously wrong.

That depends on what we mean by morality. If we simply mean a system of rules or laws set up to maintain order within a society, then I agree. C.S. Lewis argued that this "certain idea" that we ought to behave in a certain way was something inside of us. It's possible this could simply be a result of our upbringing - an ingrained social more as a result of our training, education and social influence. It's even possible that this idea - this "right-minded" way of thinking ;) - was a random instinct that evolved over time as living in society was an advantageous mode of survival for us humans.

However, if by morality we are speaking of absolute truths regarding right and wrong behavior, then it's another thing entirely. If we go with the above definition of "right minded" thinking, then there are no absolutes. For one thing, acceptable behavior varies between societies - what's totally acceptable in one society is wrong in another. For example, infaticide is practiced in some societies. Also, acceptable behavior changes over time within a society. In our own society, not that long ago, homosexuality was defined by professional psychology as abnormal. Not anymore. Even more, our society can't even agree on what's rigth and wrong. For example, the most recent statistic I heard (and I don't know if it's accurate) 42% of the people in the USA believe it's OK for a mother to kill her own unborn child while 58% believe it's wrong. So from a societal perspective, there are no absolute right and wrongs - it's subject to change. It's all relative. Anything goes.

As a Christian, I would say that's what's wrong with our society.

 

[Deavonreye]

darrell, I wouldn't say that "anything goes", but yes, the idea of "moral absolutes" is unfounded and "morals" will be different from one culture to the next. However, each culture still must work to the betterment of all the people. This doesn't happen all the time. The best example, currently, is what's happening in Egypt. You have an IMmoral leader and the people are rising up against him. Oddly, that is all happening in a culture who is even MORE "god centered" than the United States.

For the rest of the posters on this thread:

This "moral nature", I believe, is an emergent property with not just us, but any species who has determined that cooperation of the whole is of much greater benefit than solitary roaming/effort. Do a study on social species.

 

[Ashua]

I'm the biggest arguer of this truth. No God means there is no (absolute) moral arbiter. Means we make up our own moral codes and live by them. Which means they are only as absolute as the people who make them. No God, and we decide what is right in our own eyes.

 

[Deavonreye]

I'm the biggest arguer of this truth. No God means there is no (absolute) moral arbiter. Means we make up our own moral codes and live by them. Which means they are only as absolute as the people who make them. No God, and we decide what is right in our own eyes.

That would be the case, in a way. However, what may be "moral" in a muslim country, such as "beating a wife for her disobedience" is not a true "morality", and we see their society beginning to be adversely affected.

Nothing is perfect, but we have developed a society that works most of the time, but it takes work. We used to keep slaves at one time in this country. Whether or not those men [many of them of christian faiths] saw their actions as "moral" or not, I'm don't know. However, it was found to be immoral, thus a law created to keep this from happening. . . . . . which can be said to be anti-biblical, to be honest.

 

[Oats]

That would be the case, in a way. However, what may be "moral" in a muslim country, such as "beating a wife for her disobedience" is not a true "morality", and we see their society beginning to be adversely affected.

Nothing is perfect, but we have developed a society that works most of the time, but it takes work. We used to keep slaves at one time in this country. Whether or not those men [many of them of christian faiths] saw their actions as "moral" or not, I'm don't know. However, it was found to be immoral, thus a law created to keep this from happening. . . . . . which can be said to be anti-biblical, to be honest.

moral is consisted of Right and Wrong, not a law, however, a standard

 

[Deavonreye]

moral is consisted of Right and Wrong, not a law, however, a standard

Standards don't create societies. Laws do. What may be "right or wrong" is subjective to a person or culture, and is often agreed upon by the whole.

 

[darrell]

I'm the biggest arguer of this truth. No God means there is no (absolute) moral arbiter. Means we make up our own moral codes and live by them. Which means they are only as absolute as the people who make them. No God, and we decide what is right in our own eyes.

In case my previous post was misundertood, I do believe in moral absolutes, and their source is God. In my last post I was examining the societal model and the problems with it regarding morality. That's what I meant when I said, "As a Christian, I would say that's what's wrong with our society."

For the record, I do believe in moral absolutes, and their source is God. If there is no God, then there are no moral absolutes, and we're left with moral relativism: "You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me, and we'll just agree to disagree." That may be great for avoiding confrontation, but the problem with this type of thinking is it goes against reason.

Reason dictates:
IF a thing is either right or wrong
AND one person believes it's right and another person believes it's wrong
THEN one of them holds an incorrect belief

I do believe in moral absolutes. For example, it is always wrong to take an innocent life, whether it's legally euthanizing a crippled young woman who can't feed herself (as was done in Florida a few years ago), or killing a newborn because it's the wrong sex (as is done in some societies), or killing an unborn child because you don't want to be pregnant.

 

[Deavonreye]

Darrell, we definitely agree on what you said:

Reason dictates:
IF a thing is either right or wrong
AND one person believes it's right and another person believes it's wrong
THEN one of them holds an incorrect belief

It is just hard to get people to see where and why they are wrong.

I'm not one who believes in absolutes. Sometimes there are reasons for what may seem "immoral to another". But in a society that will last, the "let's agree to disagree" only goes so far. Laws are set up by the majority for the protection of the society. The only "agree to disagree" issues that matter are those that are usually not looked at as "moral or immoral".

As I said in another thread, what is "immoral" to me, and to our current society, was apparently condoned in the Old Testament, . . . . thus considered "moral" by those in that religious culture.

 

[darrell]

darrell, I wouldn't say that "anything goes", but yes, the idea of "moral absolutes" is unfounded and "morals" will be different from one culture to the next. However, each culture still must work to the betterment of all the people. This doesn't happen all the time. The best example, currently, is what's happening in Egypt. You have an IMmoral leader and the people are rising up against him. Oddly, that is all happening in a culture who is even MORE "god centered" than the United States.

For the rest of the posters on this thread:

This "moral nature", I believe, is an emergent property with not just us, but any species who has determined that cooperation of the whole is of much greater benefit than solitary roaming/effort. Do a study on social species.

Actually Deavon, I studied both sociology and social psychology when I was at university. While hardly an expert, I think I have a fair grasp of the social model, I just disagree with it, with regards to morality anyway.

So you believe:
moral absolutes are unfounded,
morals are defined by a society/culture and vary from culture to culture,
morals (social mores) are a product of members of a society working together for the benefit of the majority
(let me know if I've got you wrong here).

So from your social model, you believe that our "moral nature" - this "certain idea" as Lewis called it that we ought to act a certain way - is simply an "emergent property" - something within our psyche, a product of understanding that working together for the good of the whole is best for the individual?

In another thread, you stated:

Someone in their right mind won't murder a person indescriminately. They won't allow their anger to violate someone's rights. They won't allow their desires to go so far as to take another person's stuff. Basically, what I'm getting as is, someone in their right mind won't do something that would cause them a stay in the pen.

What if a society decides that killing everyone in another society will benefit them? Then they could take all their stuff and there'd be less competition for resources then. Is that then right-minded? Is that moral?

 

[Deavonreye]

In that scenario, that wouldn't be moral because it infringes upon the rights of others. I'm sure that the conquering nation wouldn't see the actions as "moral". The problem with this scenario is that the majority of people today would not see it as moral, . . . though this seemed to be the case in the distant past, which DID tend to dictate and define how humanity progressed [or often failed to progress for hundreds or thousands of years because of it].

I'm not an expert in sociology or psychology either. I'm just giving my own personal oppinion and also relaying what I've heard from others that tended to make sense to me.