Does morality require a god?

[rpframe]

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

A purely self-serving individual is a detriment to the species, and therefore immoral.

A purely self-serving moral perspective does not necessarily even care about the survival of one's species.

[EricE]

7 hours ago, EricE said:

Here's the real issue. This idea of things being moral because they were dictated to you by an authority figure, is in itself immoral. Morality does not come from an edict. When a god supposedly says, "thou shalt not steal," that means nothing. It is a worthless dictate without understanding why.

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.

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.

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.

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 Mormon 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. 

@LeSellers No worries, there have been a lot of comments and I don't think I've seen them all myself. Here it is.

[EricE]

@Godless @rpframe Don't know if I agree with you two that a purely self-serving individual is immoral, in fact I think someone could act entirely morally for purely selfish reasons. When we act morally in a way that improves the world that we live in, since we also live in that world we necessarily benefit from that improvement. We morally choose to make sure that other peoples' children are educated - but the selfish person could come to the same decision by concluding that if other peoples' children are educated it will bring better and higher-paying jobs to the area and reduce crime and poverty. It would be hard to find a moral action that could not in some sense be looked at as self-serving (or self-benefiting).

So yes, I think someone can act morally purely from a self-serving stance. However, that does not to equate to acting in the most moral way. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by EricE

[rpframe]

20 minutes ago, EricE said:

@Godless @rpframe Don't know if I agree with you two that a purely self-serving individual is immoral, in fact I think someone could act entirely morally for purely selfish reasons. When we act morally in a way that improves the world that we live in, since we also live in that world we necessarily benefit from that improvement. We morally choose to make sure that other peoples' children are educated - but the selfish person could come to the same decision by concluding that if other peoples' children are educated it will bring better and higher-paying jobs to the area and reduce crime and poverty. It would be hard to find a moral action that could not in some sense be looked at as self-serving (or self-benefiting).

So yes, I think someone can act morally purely from a self-serving stance. However, that does not to equate to acting in the most moral way. 

Neither of us said that being self-serving is necessarily immoral. And all I said that the survival of one's species is not inherently self-serving. Once again it just depends on your moral basis.

But now reading @Godless 's post again, I realize that he was talking within a context in which socializing is important, so my comment seems out of place.

[EricE]

14 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Neither of us said that being self-serving is necessarily immoral. And all I said that the survival of one's species is not inherently self-serving. Once again it just depends on your moral basis.

But now reading @Godless 's post again, I realize that he was talking within a context in which socializing is important, so my comment seems out of place.

If I misunderstood, my bad. 

[rpframe]

Anyway... I won't speak for Godless, but, I agree with you that a self-serving individual can do many moral things.

But, only inasmuch as the things he does coincide with God's will, whether that's the reason he/she does it or not. (speaking from a God's will defines morality perspective).

[rpframe]

I'd also like to clarify that we aren't left completely in the dark regarding God's will.

We are all given the light of Christ that we may discern between good an evil.

" For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil "

" Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ. "

Plus the Holy Ghost (For those that are baptized).

[EricE]

10 minutes ago, rpframe said:

I'd also like to clarify that we aren't left completely in the dark regarding God's will.

We are all given the light of Christ that we may discern between good an evil.

" For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil "

" Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ. "

Plus the Holy Ghost (For those that are baptized).

What is the morality of god? From your perspective, why is god's condoning of slavery good?

[Guest Godless]

29 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Anyway... I won't speak for Godless, but, I agree with you that a self-serving individual can do many moral things.

But, only inasmuch as the things he does coincide with God's will, whether that's the reason he/she does it or not. (speaking from a God's will defines morality perspective).

Replace God's will with societal good and we are in agreement. An individual doesn't necessarily have to care about his fellow man to be moral, but being moral is certainly in his own self-interest.

As for God's will, that's a difficult thing to define objectively since God is an intangible concept, and so by definition, his will is also intangible. A lot of very immoral deeds have been commited by man in the name of God's will. 

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, EricE said:

@omegaseamaster75 "I fall into the camp where God allowed it to happen and provided rules to regulate it. I don't think that God ever encouraged it. In fact I challenge you to find a passage of scripture where God encouraged one of his followers to own slaves"

I have not claimed god encouraged slavery, I said that god condoned it (both old and new testaments).

So what is the explanation for why a moral god would condone slavery?

Because slavery was not practiced in the way that we think of it, slaves were not allowed to be bought or sold. Exodus 12:16  And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death

Because God judges all men equally.

Galations 3:28,  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus

Ephesians 6:8  Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

All are equal in the eyes of the Lord this is why treatment of slaves was outlined the way that it was.

Free or slave all are subject to the judgements of God.

[rpframe]

8 hours 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.

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 Mormon 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 do not know the mind of God. I do completely underhand why certain things are wrong and certain things are right.

I do believe that I have a personal relationship with God. I do believe that God is Moral. I do believe that God is infinitely more intelligent than me.

You are correct that morality is complicated. And I would like to cite that as evidence that we need someone smarter than us to help us sort through the complicatedness.

This is not to say that it is completely beyond my capacity to make moral decisions on my own. But it does mean that I need to accept the fact that the reason that I choose to do things may not be the same reason that God wants me to do them. But I can double check my logic and my final decision against the light of Christ (comparable to what we ofttimes call our "moral conscience") and determine if it is right, or if it is wrong. I can read and logically agree with "A Modest Proposal", but when I check with the light of Christ whether it is moral, I get a definitive no.

Is this because God is bossy and just likes to tell us what to do? No. It's because God is infinitely wiser than us.

As far as death and pain... As I said earlier, death is not the end. It is the beginning of the rest of eternity. I figure that Death itself is not immoral. Neither is pain itself immoral. Neither discomfort. Inflicting them on others usually is.. but, all 3 are a natural part of life. And there are things we are here to learn about all 3. The pain and death of Christ in the atonement is not immoral. In fact it was necessary. I'd venture to say that pain and death are a necessary part of all of our existences.

As far as slavery goes, I highly doubt that God actually condones that, but that's based mostly on my own sense of morality. If the scriptures say he does, I'd probably venture to guess that it is either a manipulation of scribes, or God knows something I don't.

As far as "Hell" goes... While more my personal opinion than doctrine, it is my personal understanding that the "torment of the afterlife" in Mormon doctrine is largely self inflicted. We knowing that we decided that we do not want to live with God. Knowing that we could be happier. But also knowing in our hearts that we would not have done anything differently. And this is not because we missed our opportunity. Not because we are locked out of heaven and happiness. But because eternal happiness is naturally contingent upon our own morality. God does not want us to be moral because he is a Thug. God wants us to be moral because morality brings happiness. There is no other way to be happy than to be moral. So by choosing to be immoral, we choose to limit our happiness.

Fear of Hell and damnation is one of the weakest reasons to be moral. And it does not make you a better person. It makes you a good robot. A slightly happier robot. But still a robot.

[rpframe]

26 minutes ago, Godless said:

As for God's will, that's a difficult thing to define objectively since God is an intangible concept, and so by definition, his will is also intangible. A lot of very immoral deeds have been committed by man in the name of God's will. 

Just because someone claims to do something for God's will, doesn't actually make it God's will.

I know you realize this but. As I said above, that's why conscience/light-of-christ is an important part of God's plan.

[EricE]

36 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Because slavery was not practiced in the way that we think of it, slaves were not allowed to be bought or sold. Exodus 12:16  And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death

Because God judges all men equally.

Galations 3:28,  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus

Ephesians 6:8  Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

All are equal in the eyes of the Lord this is why treatment of slaves was outlined the way that it was.

Free or slave all are subject to the judgements of God.

First, you're vastly misquoting what the bible says. 

First, Exodus 21:16 (not 12:16) does indeed say that you can't "steal a man" and then sell him. However, that does not apply to women, and also that does not apply to all other forms of what was deemed legitimate reasons to capture someone into slavery. 

Second, the 6 year term (and released on the 7th) only applied to Hebrew slaves. Slaves who were not Hebrew were the property of their masters for life and we're passed down to their master's children when he died. Also, the term limit only applied to male slaves. 

Second Exodus 21 lays out the rules for a slave owner to trick his male slaves into remaining slaves for life--namely by giving the male slave a wife so that when the male slave's time is up, he is given the impossible choice of remaining a slave forever, or leaving behind his wife and children. 

Exodus 21 also specifically grants men the right to sell their daughters onto slavery for money, permanently. 

God also says that you can beat your slaves severely, as long as they don't die and they can get back to their feet after a few days. 

I didn't compare god's endorsed version of slavery to any other kind. But we are still talking about the god of the bible and Book of Mormon saying it is moral for one human being to own another human being as property. If you want to defend and/or justify slavery, be my guest. I'll stick with saying it is immoral under any circumstance. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by EricE

[EricE]

17 minutes ago, rpframe said:

I do not know the mind of God. I do completely underhand why certain things are wrong and certain things are right.

I do believe that I have a personal relationship with God. I do believe that God is Moral. I do believe that God is infinitely more intelligent than me.

You are correct that morality is complicated. And I would like to cite that as evidence that we need someone smarter than us to help us sort through the complicatedness.

This is not to say that it is completely beyond my capacity to make moral decisions on my own. But it does mean that I need to accept the fact that the reason that I choose to do things may not be the same reason that God wants me to do them. But I can double check my logic and my final decision against the light of Christ (comparable to what we ofttimes call our "moral conscience") and determine if it is right, or if it is wrong. I can read and logically agree with "A Modest Proposal", but when I check with the light of Christ whether it is moral, I get a definitive no.

Is this because God is bossy and just likes to tell us what to do? No. It's because God is infinitely wiser than us.

As far as death and pain... As I said earlier, death is not the end. It is the beginning of the rest of eternity. I figure that Death itself is not immoral. Neither is pain itself immoral. Neither discomfort. Inflicting them on others usually is.. but, all 3 are a natural part of life. And there are things we are here to learn about all 3. The pain and death of Christ in the atonement is not immoral. In fact it was necessary. I'd venture to say that pain and death are a necessary part of all of our existences.

As far as slavery goes, I highly doubt that God actually condones that, but that's based mostly on my own sense of morality. If the scriptures say he does, I'd probably venture to guess that it is either a manipulation of scribes, or God knows something I don't.

As far as "Hell" goes... While more my personal opinion than doctrine, it is my personal understanding that the "torment of the afterlife" in Mormon doctrine is largely self inflicted. We knowing that we decided that we do not want to live with God. Knowing that we could be happier. But also knowing in our hearts that we would not have done anything differently. And this is not because we missed our opportunity. Not because we are locked out of heaven and happiness. But because eternal happiness is naturally contingent upon our own morality. God does not want us to be moral because he is a Thug. God wants us to be moral because morality brings happiness. There is no other way to be happy than to be moral. So by choosing to be immoral, we choose to limit our happiness.

Fear of Hell and damnation is one of the weakest reasons to be moral. And it does not make you a better person. It makes you a good robot. A slightly happier robot. But still a robot.

I recognize this is taking things down a different path, so if you don't want to go down this road that's fine. But what evidence do you have that god is moral?

God endorses slavery many times in the bible. Exodus 21 is the easiest to look up, where god actually lays out the rules for Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves, including the rules for how much you can beat them. This account is not altered in the JS translation.

[rpframe]

4 minutes ago, EricE said:

I recognize this is taking things down a different path, so if you don't want to go down this road that's fine. But what evidence do you have that god is moral?

God endorses slavery many times in the bible. Exodus 21 is the easiest to look up, where god actually lays out the rules for Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves, including the rules for how much you can beat them. This account is not altered in the JS translation.

I take a lot of things in the old testament with a bucket of salt. I also don't consider the JS translation to be all encompassing.. just a weak band-aid for hundreds of years of alterations. 

And as I said, maybe God knows something I don't know. Limiting how long a beating lasts sounds at least like an improvement (slightly less immoral). I don't know why polygamy was moral for a while either but I know God is smarter than me.

[EricE]

6 minutes ago, rpframe said:

I don't know why polygamy was moral for a while either but I know God is smarter than me.

What evidence do you have that this is the case?

[rpframe]

I can provide as much evidence as to the morality of God as I can for you or I. Which is none.

Morality must have a basis. My basis of assumption is that God is moral. This assumption is based on my personal relationship and communication with him on a daily basis through prayer and the light of Chris.

I believe in God. I trust God. I believe that his "all knowing"ness makes it so that he knows whats moral, and I also believe that he is perfectly moral, and that I am here on earth to learn to be moral with his help.

You must obtain your own evidence by developing your own relationship with him. Other than that I have no other evidence for you.

As I said earlier... God IS my moral basis. If you reject that basis, then you reject my morality.

[EricE]

7 minutes ago, rpframe said:

I can provide as much evidence as to the morality of God as I can for you or I. Which is none.

Morality must have a basis. My basis of assumption is that God is moral. This assumption is based on my personal relationship and communication with him on a daily basis through prayer and the light of Chris.

I believe in God. I trust God. I believe that his "all knowing"ness makes it so that he knows whats moral, and I also believe that he is perfectly moral, and that I am here on earth to learn to be moral with his help.

You must obtain your own evidence by developing your own relationship with him. Other than that I have no other evidence for you.

 

Fair enough. And I appreciate the honest answer. 

So let me pose another next natural question. If you have no evidence for something, how can you determine if it is true? There must be a mechanism for making that determination reliably. 

I understand personal prayer (aka pertained revelation). I spent many decades in the church, and was a High Priest. However, no matter what god or religion you believe in, more people have and do believe in something else. And all of those people have their own personal revelations that what they believe is true. So is personal revelation really a reliable mechanism for determining truth? I don't in any way doubt your sincerity that you believe in what you think you've experienced, but how can we determine if what you believe to have experienced is actually true?

 

[rpframe]

4 minutes ago, EricE said:

Fair enough. And I appreciate the honest answer. 

So let me pose another next natural question. If you have no evidence for something, how can you determine if it is true? There must be a mechanism for making that determination reliably. 

I understand personal prayer (aka pertained revelation). I spent many decades in the church, and was a High Priest. However, no matter what god or religion you believe in, more people have and do believe in something else. And all of those people have their own personal revelations that what they believe is true. So is personal revelation really a reliable mechanism for determining truth? I don't in any way doubt your sincerity that you believe in what you think you've experienced, but how can we determine if what you believe to have experienced is actually true?

I can't. I can no more prove that my personal experiences determine truth than I can prove that I am not dreaming (think.. The Matrix). But my personal experience is all I have to go on.

Its like... if you had never seen an Aurora Borealis, and cameras don't exist. I cannot prove to you that Aurora Borealis exists. I can tell you all about it... What it looked like. Maybe even where when and how I saw it. But unless you go and see it for yourself, you have just my word to go on. Maybe I made it up. Maybe its just a figment of my imagination. But I can invite you to go and see. Maybe you go and don't see. Maybe you didn't see it when you looked. Maybe you did see it... but maybe you think its a figment of your own imagination. Maybe you see it differently than me.

None of this changes the fact that I have seen. And I can invite you to go and see. And that is all I can do.

Just because I cannot prove it exists, does not therefore mean it does not exist, or that I have not experienced it for myself.

And this goes for more things than God. Our entire perception of life is this way. Does this mean nothing is real? Not necessarily.

But I have felt God's touch in my life. And as I have done as I believe he asks, I have become happier. I have increased in my trust of him. Is it a figment of my imagination? Maybe. But it makes me happy, and I believe God to be a solid basis for my morality. So thus I trek onward in my belief. And I one day hope to join God in heaven, and one day fully understand absolute truth and morality.

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, EricE said:

What is the morality of god? From your perspective, why is god's condoning of slavery good?

This is not the topic of this conversation.

You continue to inject this into a discussion you started about an entirely different thing.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, EricE said:

If you have no evidence for something, how can you determine if it is true?

You continue to assume that there is no evidence. The fact that you reject it does not mean the evidence is not there.

Until recently, no one knew there were atoms, nor their structure. That did not make atoms imaginary, nor did discovering them (such as we have) make them suddenly pop into existence.

The only-what-I-see crowd has been wrong thousands of times before. Why should this time be any different?

Lehi

 

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, rpframe said:

We morally choose to make sure that other peoples' children are educated - but the selfish person could come to the same decision by concluding that if other peoples' children are educated it will bring better and higher-paying jobs to the area and reduce crime and poverty.

This assumes, against all evidence, that government-run, tax-funded welfare schools provide "education" as opposed to "indoctrination".

There are other ways, more just, more economical, and far more moral, to educate children, but we do not "morally choose" to do it the way we are doing it. In fact, grtf-welfare schools are among the most immoral means of achieving that end conceivable. Not only immoral, but wholly ineffective.

Lehi

[Guest]

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, EricE said:

2 hours ago, rpframe said:

I don't know why polygamy was moral for a while either but I know God is smarter than me.

What evidence do you have that this is the case?

It seems you are implying that polygyny is immoral. How did you reach that conclusion, because that flies in the face of reality.

You claim that your morality is based on survival of the species. Polygyny is vastly more likely to result in a continuation of humanity than monogyny. The best men (richest, best looking, strongest, most powerful in any way) will get the best women. The next best men will get the next best women until the least desirable men will have none at all. These men, unable to pass along their genes, become genetic dead ends, and the best men, having many more children than they could under monogamy, pass along superior genes, enhancing the species and insuring its survival.

Lehi

[EricE]

4 hours ago, LeSellers said:

This is not the topic of this conversation.

You continue to inject this into a discussion you started about an entirely different thing.

Lehi

Typically when people are having a conversation, the conversation evolves as people introduce no thoughts and ideas. If you are not comfortable discussing the issues, you're under no obligation to continue engaging.