Does morality require a god?

[EricE]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

Ah, Alma 30:48. I love seeing the scriptures come to life.

I love Korihor. The second freethinker in the Book of Mormon to be martyred. Tell me, since Alma 30 spends a lot of time talking about how it supposedly wasn't illegal to believe other things, why was Korihor arrested?

Also, if Alma 30:48 is evidence of the existence of a god, then please demonstrate it. I don't even need to be struck dumb, haha. But the only rational position on any assertion is to withhold belief until the truth of the proposition has been demonstrated.

[EricE]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

The external source is problematic...  But any internal code is equality problematic for the exact same reasons....  Therefore your solution of a universal moral code lacks any kind of workable framework on which to build.

You can't get people to agree on God... nor can you get people to agree morality, because all morality is.. is God by another name... Another arbitrator of right and wrong.

@Godless @rpframe

I don't agree. I think there are moral absolutes which all can agree on, and they fall back on my argument that morality is founded upon well being (of the individual, society, and the species). Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, etc. Those moral absolutes are objective, and provide a solid foundation. 

Now, building upon that to broaden the secular moral system we live in is certainly subjective. But that's a good thing, because it allows us to grow as we learn more. That doesn't mean we'll always get it right, but that's why morality should be viewed as a complex and ever changing (and improving) framework.

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

I didn't see this earlier. Sorry about that.

No worries.  I know you've been juggling multiple conversations.

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

This idea of things being moral because they were dictated to you by an authority figure, is in itself immoral.

By what standard?  Your own personal one?  Some philosopher's?

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

Moral edicts are not moral systems to live by. When a god supposedly says, "thou shalt not steal," that means nothing. It is a worthless dictate without understanding why.

Why?  I teach my kids right from wrong long before they're mature enough to understand the reasoning.

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

For example, if you take two children to a restaurant and they both go crazy, throwing water and screaming, etc., both need to learn not to do that. But if one child is sat down and given just the god-like carrot or stick (don't do that again or no dessert, or if you don't do that again you'll get dessert), and the other child is talked to and discussed why misbehaving like that was the wrong way to act and how it affected others, which child actually has a moral understanding of their actions? Both children may now behave at the restaurant. But the one with the understanding is more likely to behave because they understand why behaving in one way is better and how their actions affect others, while the other child is only going to behave as long as their parents are there so the reward or punishment is looming.

I don't know if you have kids or not, but that hasn't been my experience.  People (especially children with weak impulse control) don't magically become moral just because they understand the reasoning.  Having the understanding alone isn't enough.  One also has to desire to behave morally.  A kid can understand completely why it's wrong to act like a hellion in a restaurant but if they don't want to behave then they won't unless there's a consequence.

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

Human beings are social animals, and just like other social animals we have an innate sense of simple morality. I argued above that this secular morality was based on well-being. The well-being of individuals, the society, and the species. As time goes by, and our understanding of the world grows, we are able to expand and improve our morality through discussion, and debate. That is why secular morality has led us out of the days of slavery, and chips abuse, and other inhumane practices that we have learned to discard. And that's what makes secular morality a superior moral system, rather than mere moral edicts.

What you call secular morality is just rebranded Judeo-Christian values from centuries past.  The argument that somehow morality naturally evolves as a consequence of human social development is demonstrably untrue.  It's 2016 and we still have genocide happening today even after thousands of years for modern man to learn to get his act together.  If what you're saying here is true then violence, rape and war should be things that have trended downward as we look at the span of human history.  That has not been the case.  In today's secular "enlightened" culture we don't see things being better at all.

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

It may be comforting to think of morality as something simple, as "I just have to do what an authority figure tells me to do." But morality is not simple, and should not be treated so.

Morality isn't simple at all.  The source of it is.

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

As for any god who willingly burns children to death, endorses slavery, commits and commands genocide, who (like a mob boss) threatens me with eternal torture (whether the LDS version or the standard Christian hell) if I don't worship and praise him when he's provided no actual evidence he even exists? I would call that god a moral thug, and one unworthy of my praise because I'm more moral than he is. 

I'm not sure why you're still pushing this argument when it's already been debunked as being "My sense of morality is superior to God's."  You're literally saying that your sense of right and wrong is more highly developed than a being whose intellect, wisdom and experience is so vast as to be beyond human understanding.  Can't you see how absurd that is?

[EricE]

1 hour ago, UtahTexan said:

Different cultures have different moral standards

Very true. But that doesn't make every culture correct about morality. There are objective morals of well being that serve as the foundation of morality, and we grow from there.

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

Very true. But that doesn't make every culture correct about morality. There are objective morals of well being that serve as the foundation of morality, and we grow from there.

By whose standard?  Who decides what those objective morals are?

[EricE]

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

"good of the people" 

That's the problem.  Which people?  All people?  Just you? The Chosen People?  White people?  The unborn?

Morality is very dependent on what your end goals are, and they are different for virtually every individual, and every clan.  But if there is a god, and he has a plan for humans, then his morality will fit his goals, just as with anyone else.

How do you know god is the good one, and satan is the bad one?

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

Very true. But that doesn't make every culture correct about morality. There are objective morals of well being that serve as the foundation of morality, and we grow from there.

That is why I asked for morality to be defined.  And once you do that.....please tell me how you decide which culture is correct?

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

How do you know god is the good one, and satan is the bad one?

Actually, that's a very intelligent question (I honestly don't mean to sound condescending when I say that.)

The answer is that the result of God's plan is more desirable than Satan's.  Thus we call it the light side of the Force.

[EricE]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

By whose standard?  Who decides what those objective morals are?

Like virtually every other social species, the basic foundational (and objective) morals of well being have already developed. Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, etc. No one decided them, they are objectively moral. 

How we build upon those foundations is (of course) subjective. And sometimes we get it wrong. But that's why it's important to continue the discussion and debate over our current morality, because that's how we improve. That's how we got rid of slavery (which, by the by, was endorsed by the Christian god), that's how we overcame child abuse as a society, etc. Do we have it right yet? I don't think so. I think it will continue to evolve and improve as long as we exist.

[bytebear]

You can't define morality.  You can define your own intended goals, and you can speculate on others (including God), but you can't define morality,at least not universally.  That is, unless there is a God, and that God has a specific plan.  Then there is one universal morality.

[bytebear]

I think the problem is this.  You assume there is a single universal morality for all of mankind in all of time.  And there may be, but is it what you currently believe?  And are you going in the right direction toward it?  Or are your decisions of morality actually doing harm.  An example is death penalty vs. abortion.  Both involve the intentional killing of human life.  But, people who consider themselves moral very often support one but oppose the other.  Clearly both can;t be right, and both may be wrong.  So, who's to say?  And again, if there is a God, and he does communicate through prophets, then shouldn't that be the moral compass we follow?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, EricE said:

I'm fine phrasing it however you would like. The root of my question is about what the underlying reasons of a belief is, and whether they be demonstrated to be true.

Well, that is the problem that many are having with your line of questioning, isn't it?  The question you intend is not the one you write down.  So, what is it that you really want to know?

You can call it fine phrasing.  But the fact is that those two question are vastly different.  Your failure to understand that difference is where your difficulty in understanding faith and/or God comes from.

From what I've seen, the fact is that you don't really seek an answer.  And you're happy with that.  If you're happy with it, then be happy with it.  Why did you start this thread?  What was your motivation?  You've changed topics several times completely leaving the previous thoughts behind.  

If I'm misreading you and you really do seek an answer, then go back and look at the answers that have already been given, because it looks like you've ignored (or missed in the chaos) a good deal of them.

Here is the difference between "how do you know" vs "what evidence do you have".

Quote

I go to a doctor to let him know I feel some pain.  He does some tests and analysis and says,"Sorry, but I don't see any signs of trauma.  No contusions, no lacerations, no broken bones, no inflammation... Are you sure you felt pain?"

"What kind of question is that?  Of course, I'm sure I felt some pain.  It hurt a LOT!"

"Well, I just don't see any evidence of it.  How do you know that you actually felt pain?"

"I know I felt pain, because I felt pain.  What are you talking about?  I've been having trouble walking all morning."

"The thing is that I don't see any evidence of anything that would cause pain.  What evidence do you have?"

"What evidence could there be for the fact I felt pain other than my experience and my telling you?"

"Well, that just isn't good enough.  That's not evidence.  It is probably all in your head.  I'm afraid I just can't prescribe anything for you."

I'm going to ask again: 

1) What is it you want to know about morality?
2) What is it that you want to know about God?
3) What is it that you really wish to know about what happened at Ammonihah?

The fact is that these questions have been answered very clearly.  But for some reason you've missed them and declared it all "tap-dancing".  It's like the guy who came in last place in the race declaring victory and standing on the winner's podium while all the onlookers are wondering what he's doing.

So, do you really want to know?  Or are you just here to show us how much you know that we don't?

Edited August 12, 2016 by Guest

[bytebear]

12 minutes ago, EricE said:

Like virtually every other social species, the basic foundational (and objective) morals of well being have already developed. Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, etc. No one decided them, they are objectively moral.

No they are subjective.  Life of who?  Life of our children at the expense of strangers?  The life of our race over the slavery of another race?  Totally subjective.  We just happen to live in a culture that has evolved to accept that all humans are worthy of life.  But that's certainly not a historical belief.  It's not even a biological reality.

Edited August 12, 2016 by bytebear

[EricE]

26 minutes ago, unixknight said:

No worries.  I know you've been juggling multiple conversations.

By what standard?  Your own personal one?  Some philosopher's?

Why?  I teach my kids right from wrong long before they're mature enough to understand the reasoning.

I don't know if you have kids or not, but that hasn't been my experience.  People (especially children with weak impulse control) don't magically become moral just because they understand the reasoning.  Having the understanding alone isn't enough.  One also has to desire to behave morally.  A kid can understand completely why it's wrong to act like a hellion in a restaurant but if they don't want to behave then they won't unless there's a consequence.

What you call secular morality is just rebranded Judeo-Christian values from centuries past.  The argument that somehow morality naturally evolves as a consequence of human social development is demonstrably untrue.  It's 2016 and we still have genocide happening today even after thousands of years for modern man to learn to get his act together.  If what you're saying here is true then violence, rape and war should be things that have trended downward as we look at the span of human history.  That has not been the case.  In today's secular "enlightened" culture we don't see things being better at all.

Morality isn't simple at all.  The source of it is.

I'm not sure why you're still pushing this argument when it's already been debunked as being "My sense of morality is superior to God's."  You're literally saying that your sense of right and wrong is more highly developed than a being whose intellect, wisdom and experience is so vast as to be beyond human understanding.  Can't you see how absurd that is?

This is my first time on these forums, so I don't know how to do that nifty trick of breaking up the other person's response into chunks to reply to. So hopefully you can just tell which I'm replying to here.

Because carrot & stick morality isn't morality, it's doing what you're told under threat of punishment or reward. Morality implies understand, empathy, judgement. Surrendering your humanity to follow instructions isn't moral.

I do have kids, yes. And I think the metaphor is a good one. When a child learns how to empathize, how to think through the consequences of their actions (and I'm not equating consequences in this instance to punishment), their morality improves. I would be willing to bet these are things you are trying to teach your own kids. There are of course times when we just say "don't do that," but that isn't the end of the discussion. We don't just hand our kids written commands saying "stealing is bad" and consider our job as parents over. That's not morality, that's robotic.

Since secular morality has existed since long before Christianity, I don't think you can just claim it as judeo-christian. As for the idea that it is debunked because there are immoral people in the world, that argument seems a little on the absurd side. Just because we are constantly improving as a society, doesn't mean that everyone will always follow the day's morality, one can't just jump to the extreme of the example and call that reflective of the whole. I could mention that more people have been killed over a god than any other, but that wouldn't exactly be reflective of all religious people.

I don't see how you can say things in our secular society haven't improved. We have abolished slavery, we have established universal education, we try not to let people die in poverty, etc. There is (and will always be) huge room for improvement, but the institution that typically seems to be holding us back from the next moral advancement is religion, not secularism.

No, my points about god's morality have not been debunked. Just because someone else claims that the god is moral, doesn't make it so. I have never condoned slavery, I have never watched a child being raped and ignored it even though I have the power to stop it. I don't allow thousands of people to die from starvation every single day. Yes, both you and I are far morally superior than the god of the bible and the Book of Mormon (and that's not even being arrogant, it's not hard to do).

Edited August 12, 2016 by EricE

[EricE]

9 minutes ago, bytebear said:

No they are subjective.  Life of who?  Life of our children at the expense of strangers?  The life of our race over the slavery of another race?  Totally subjective.  We just happen to live in a culture that has evolved to accept that all humans are worthy of life.  But that's certainly not a historical belief.  It's not even a biological reality.

Speaking as a biologist, it most certainly is. Have you ever observed any other social species? They all have moral systems (more primitive, of course).

Life is preferable to death. I don't know how much more clear I can make that. An individual's well being is better served by being alive than to die. That is a moral absolute.

Now, are there situations where the more moral thing might be to let a person die, even though it damages their well being? Yes. And that's why I described the difference between our objective moral foundations, and our subjective moral system we build on it. Morality is incredibly nuanced, and it feels like you're trying to boil it down into something overly simplistic.

[EricE]

35 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Actually, that's a very intelligent question (I honestly don't mean to sound condescending when I say that.)

The answer is that the result of God's plan is more desirable than Satan's.  Thus we call it the light side of the Force.

As I understand my LDS theology, the results of the two plans were the same: returning to heaven, no? But in one plan, everyone just does the right thing, and in the other they choose. So I imagine you meant the process of god's plan is preferable, not the result, right?

Edited August 12, 2016 by EricE

[bytebear]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

Speaking as a biologist, it most certainly is. Have you ever observed any other social species? They all have moral systems (more primitive, of course).

Life is preferable to death. I don't know how much more clear I can make that. An individual's well being is better served by being alive than to die. That is a moral absolute.

Now, are there situations where the more moral thing might be to let a person die, even though it damages their well being? Yes. And that's why I described the difference between our objective moral foundations, and our subjective moral system we build on it. Morality is incredibly nuanced, and it feels like you're trying to boil it down into something overly simplistic.

I am thinking of situations like where a Lion will kill the cubs of a competitor.  Or hierarchical systems where you literally have to kill off all the other alphas to become king.   Those are hardly moral choices.  But they are beneficial if you want to preserve your genetic lineage.

[Guest]

On 8/12/2016 at 5:38 PM, EricE said:

As I understand my LDS theology, the results of the two plans were the same: returning to heaven, no?

Edited August 15, 2016 by Guest

[NeedleinA]

41 minutes ago, zil said:

Ah, Alma 30:48. I love seeing the scriptures come to life.

I agree Zil. Korihor the poor free thinking martyr. Just going about his business obeying the law...

Alma 30:7, 11. “No Law against a Man’s Belief”

If there was “no law against a man’s belief,” some people might ask why Korihor was arrested. King Mosiah had issued a proclamation declaring that it was against Nephite law for any “unbeliever [to] persecute any of those who belonged to the church of God” (Mosiah 27:2).

Clearly, Korihor was entitled to his beliefs, but when he sought to destroy the Church, he broke King Mosiah’s proclamation. It is interesting to note that whereas many in Zarahemla embraced Korihor and his teachings, the people of Ammon, who had lived most of their lives following Korihor-like beliefs, “caused that he should be carried out of the land” (Alma 30:21; see also verses 18–20). They understood the danger of Korihor’s teachings.

[bytebear]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

"If only the plan could be such that everyone was saved.  God has the power, why doesn't he save everyone?"

[EricE]

5 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I agree Zil. Korihor the poor free thinking martyr. Just going about his business obeying the law...

Alma 30:7, 11. “No Law against a Man’s Belief”

If there was “no law against a man’s belief,” some people might ask why Korihor was arrested. King Mosiah had issued a proclamation declaring that it was against Nephite law for any “unbeliever [to] persecute any of those who belonged to the church of God” (Mosiah 27:2).

Clearly, Korihor was entitled to his beliefs, but when he sought to destroy the Church, he broke King Mosiah’s proclamation. It is interesting to note that whereas many in Zarahemla embraced Korihor and his teachings, the people of Ammon, who had lived most of their lives following Korihor-like beliefs, “caused that he should be carried out of the land” (Alma 30:21; see also verses 18–20). They understood the danger of Korihor’s teachings.

He sought to destroy the church? Like, physically? Or is that the Book of Mormon's description of someone who was swaying believers to think something else. That doesn't sound like persecution to me, I don't see any verses describing the beating of believers or of Korihor saying believers should be punished. So why was he arrested just because he believed something else and was open about speaking about it?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I agree Zil. Korihor the poor free thinking martyr. Just going about his business obeying the law...

Alma 30:7, 11. “No Law against a Man’s Belief”

If there was “no law against a man’s belief,” some people might ask why Korihor was arrested. King Mosiah had issued a proclamation declaring that it was against Nephite law for any “unbeliever [to] persecute any of those who belonged to the church of God” (Mosiah 27:2).

Clearly, Korihor was entitled to his beliefs, but when he sought to destroy the Church, he broke King Mosiah’s proclamation. It is interesting to note that whereas many in Zarahemla embraced Korihor and his teachings, the people of Ammon, who had lived most of their lives following Korihor-like beliefs, “caused that he should be carried out of the land” (Alma 30:21; see also verses 18–20). They understood the danger of Korihor’s teachings.

Yeah, "martyr".  That makes a lot of sense. Such would imply that Korihor was purposefully killed because of his beliefs.  He was killed in a traffic accident.

It is too often that former Saints show just how little they knew about the faith to begin with.  No wonder they left the faith they never took the time to understand anyway.

[EricE]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yeah, "martyr".  That makes a lot of sense. Such would imply that Korihor was purposefully killed because of his beliefs.  He was killed in a traffic accident.

It is too often that former Saints show just how little they knew about the faith to begin with.  No wonder they left the faith they never took the time to understand anyway.

Ah. The "no true Scotsman fallacy." Nice!

Korihor died after he was rendered incapable of performing his occupation and was forced to become a begger, which led to his death. Was he burned at the stake? No. But I still call that martyrdom. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, EricE said:

Ah. The "no true Scotsman fallacy." Nice!

Korihor died after he was rendered incapable of performing his occupation and was forced to become a begger, which led to his death. Was he burned at the stake? No. But I still call that martyrdom. 

I never said you weren't a "real Mormon" or anything like unto it.  I said that you apparently didn't grasp very basic ideas of the faith.  You've accused others of putting words into your mouth.  Don't do that to me, or it will be very apt to call you a hypocrite.

Not a fallacy in this case.  I made a statement of fact.  You've shown multiple times here that you didn't grasp very basic concepts of the faith.  Would you like me to make a list?  I've got over 11 pages of material to pull from.

And your justification to call Korihor a martyr is stretching at best.  A martyr is one who defends one's faith, not tears down the faith of another.  And that is why he was taken and bound by the people of Ammon.  And it was not man who made him mute.  It was God.  Thus no earthly law was broken by making him mute and unable to "perform his occupation". 

But you have judged God instead of judging Korihor or yourself.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is too often that former Saints show just how little they knew about the faith to begin with.

When I lived in Moscow, I had a Mormon friend who (with her husband) had gone very, very inactive.  They had both been life-long members and had been sealed in the temple, and then something (I don't know what) happened and they drifted away and then some.  (They were never "anti", just not living their covenants.)  Anywho, one day she and I were having a conversation about church stuff, and in the middle of the conversation I came to realize that she had forgotten a great deal - more, I think, that would be accounted for by normal memory loss.  I didn't say anything to her, but this concept was what came to mind:

Doctrine and Covenants 1:33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

For some people, not being able to (correctly) recall the truth may simply be loss of the Spirit; for others, it seems to clearly to be something else.  Meanwhile, I'm happy to report my friend and her husband came back with a bang and before I left, she was the RS President of our branch.