True or False


Anddenex
 Share

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine quoted the following statement given by Franz Kiekeben, "There's a simple argument that shows that morality doesn't originate in religion: If it did, we wouldn't find anything in religion to be morally problematic."

The quote is clearly problematic itself (is that ironic?). Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott

I'd say that the statement is true.  

Morality is a system of values and method of determining right and wrong.  Values determining right and wrong exist outside religion.

The only arguement I can think that might counter this is that if someone says that since God created man's way of thinking, then all morals come from God and thus are religious.  That is a really broad statement though, so I'd say the quote in your post is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

A friend of mine quoted the following statement given by Franz Kiekeben, "There's a simple argument that shows that morality doesn't originate in religion: If it did, we wouldn't find anything in religion to be morally problematic."

The quote is clearly problematic itself (is that ironic?). Thoughts?

I think it could be argued either way.

1.  If one is atheist, then the answer is obvious.  Morality of some sort was around far before religion was around, as religion would be a construct of men.  If religion is a construct of men, than the morals of it are also constructs of men.  Thus, it would mean when you look at a religion it is just a reflection of the culture that gave rise to it.  The morals it teaches are the morals that the society that created it felt were important.  This explains why different religions sometimes have different moralities.

2.  On the opposite side, if we feel that God created man and gave us laws, than morality DOES originate in religion.  If we take the idea that the natural man is an enemy to God, then it is up to us to suppress the natural man and to become the spiritual man.  The natural man would prefer things such as power, greed, lust, and all things that would lead to flagrant immorality, bloodshed, and taking advantage of others.  If we look to our entertainment today in the west it reflects many of these base and natural tendencies that drive the natural man.  We see it's influence on society at large.  Over 90% of our young people do not wait for marriage and have not lived chaste lives.  Their focus in life is the pursuit of money, riches and power.  We glory at blood and death on TV and in movies.  

On the otherhand, the SPIRITUAL man, that which we see as moral in the Church, does not strive for these things.  They seek to put the Lord first.  They do not love to see violence and bloodshed.  They wish to remain chaste.  They desire to be loyal to their spouse both before, during, and after temporal marriages in this life in that they keep the law of Chastity at all times.  The do not seek riches unless it is to preserve their own life, to help others, and to raise up the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.  They put the Lord and others before self.  They LOVE their families, their spouse, and their God. 

In this, the Spiritual man is given laws by God which establish the CORRECT morality.  Morality is not a reflection of culture, though culture COULD reflect morality if that culture lives the Laws of God. 

Today, we can see that culture in the West does NOT reflect the Laws of God.  It is NOT moral in the way I would call it moral.  In that, if we believe True religion and the Commandments truly come from God, than currently society does NOT reflect Moral living or good Morals.

In this, we could say we have two moralities.  That of a comparative morality (1) established by the culture it originates in and that of true morality (2) which is that established by the true gospel and the laws and commandments. 

We have heard the saying "My ways are not  your ways, and your ways are not my ways" which holds true today.  Comparative morality is in conflict with true morality and in many instances that of our Western Morality today (1) or Comparative Morality is in direct conflict with True Morality (2) or that given by the Lord in his laws and commandments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the classic Euthyphro argument. Our answer is that truth, God, and positive morality are indistinguishable. True religion is moral. False religion is immoral. There is no middle ground.

If therefore people have moral issues with true religion, then that's that's their problem, not ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

1.  If one is atheist, then the answer is obvious.  Morality of some sort was around far before religion was around, as religion would be a construct of men.  If religion is a construct of men, than the morals of it are also constructs of men. 

I would have to partially (but not completely) disagree with this.

Most atheists scientists/anthropoligist/psycologists that I am aware of and who have have spoken/written on the topic believe that religion, rituals, and morals are (usually at least) constucts of nature, survival, and evolution rather than a conscience constuct by men.

The need to believe in fiction or the imaginary is a human need that allows us to survive.  We are the only advanced species on the planet that can gather in huge numbers because of this.  It is theorized that we may have been the only species of human that had this ability, which might have been the reason why we are the only species of human that still exist today (though I'm probably not going to get into this conversation on this forum for obvious reasons).  

Of note, the word "imanginary" in this context does not mean belief in things that don't exist, but belief in things that exist only in our minds.    They consider God to be one of them.

While we theists disagree with them on this point, they are onto something.  Humans do believe in a lot things that are purely imaginary or that exist only in our heads.

Take for example, Ford Motor Company.  Now a car does exist. We can touch it.  We can even use it and drive it.  But the company itself only exist in our minds and imaginations.  We can't hold it or touch it.  It only exist because in our minds and imaginations we believe that it does exist.

The same is true of the United States.  It exist only in our minds and imaginations.  

Our currency system is another example.   Other than what is in our minds and imaginations, there is no reason why a small stack of paper has the value of a car or piece of land.   We just collectively imagine and believe that it does.

The above and the reasoning behind it is a major difference between us and the animals.

You could teach a monkey or ape that they could trade a piece of paper (a $5  bill, for example) to get a bunch of bananas, but you get him or her to understand why.  The monkey or ape only knows that he or she will get some bananas.   The specific value of the money exist only in our minds and imaginations.

You could teach a monkey or ape what a car is, but you couldn't get him or her to understand what Ford Motor Company is.   The car exist physically while Ford Motor Company only exist in our collective imaginations.

So anyway, I'm rambling here.  I just thought I'd point out a few things concerning other beliefs on why religion exists.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is that this is an all or nothing argument (false dichotomy).  And it appears that many on this thread have fallen for it.

  • God has given the Light of Christ to all men regardless of religious instruction to have some innate sense of right and wrong.
  • Further Light and Knowledge can be found through right and true religion.

Just because we know some things as a child doesn't mean we don't learn more as we grow and mature.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just talking to my missionary son last Friday and he told me this (I can't remember all the facts he blurted out so I'm just paraphrasing some that I remember) from a devotional they had at the MTC:

- The Book of Mormon is a book that the more secular knowledge we receive about our history, the more true it becomes.  For example - even the character of Christopher Columbus who Joseph Smith wouldn't have known because Columbus' writings did not become public until over a century later.  The name Alma who, in the 1820's would have been recognized as a latin female name and not a semitic hebrew male name which historians now know.  The Book of Mormon prophesying that Jesus will be born in Jerusalem (Joseph Smith would have said Bethlehem) when it wasn't until after its publication that historians discovered Bethlehem to be referred to as being the "land of Jesusalem").   Recent Statistical analysis showing the Book of Mormon as written by multiple authors, etc. etc.

None of this proves that the Book of Mormon is true.  Only a firm testimony of its truth by the Holy Ghost can do that.

By the way, he told me this because he said he used to wonder if he should say "I know the Book of Mormon is true" instead of saying "I believe the Book of Mormon is true".  He said, that the speaker during the devotional said not to shy away from conveying the firmness of your testimony.  If the Spirit has testified to you that the Book of Mormon is true, then stand firm on that testimony and declare that you KNOW it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2020 at 10:35 PM, Scott said:

I'd say that the statement is true.  Morality is a system of values and method of determining right and wrong.  Values determining right and wrong exist outside religion.

The only arguement I can think that might counter this is that if someone says that since God created man's way of thinking, then all morals come from God and thus are religious.  That is a really broad statement though, so I'd say the quote in your post is true.

Overtly, I actually would say the quote is true (face value). My argument though wouldn't be for God creating man's way of thinking that and thus we are all religious. The quote doesn't accurately ascribe the difference between imperfect knowledge (which finds things problematic) and a perfect knowledge. I will clarify my thoughts in my post that isn't responding to others thoughts. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2020 at 11:02 PM, Vort said:

What a stupid argument. It literally makes no sense. Franz Kiekeben apparently was never formally introduced to Logic, or if he was, never bothered to deepen the acquaintance.

I would also agree. I think the quote is too simplistic, and creates a fallacy by itself. I will share further in my explanation providing my thoughts over this quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I think you and I will have some similar thoughts.

Similar thoughts? Fine. 

Similar posts? Please dude, we don't need another one here who writes 5000 words in one post. 

(just playing guys) 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2020 at 8:16 AM, Moonbeast32 said:

This is the classic Euthyphro argument. Our answer is that truth, God, and positive morality are indistinguishable. True religion is moral. False religion is immoral. There is no middle ground.

If therefore people have moral issues with true religion, then that's that's their problem, not ours.

Thank you. I would agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2020 at 11:33 AM, mordorbund said:

There's a simple argument that shows that Franz Kiekeben doesn't speak truth: If he did, we wouldn't think anything in his statements were questionable or untrue.

Love it. I think this is a crux of this simplistic quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The problem here is that this is an all or nothing argument (false dichotomy).  And it appears that many on this thread have fallen for it.

  • God has given the Light of Christ to all men regardless of religious instruction to have some innate sense of right and wrong.
  • Further Light and Knowledge can be found through right and true religion.

Just because we know some things as a child doesn't mean we don't learn more as we grow and mature.

Thank you. That is a good point. I did not see the dichotomy either until you mentioned it. I am used to options provided with a false dichotomy. Your thoughts are apart why I think the quote isn't fully accurate -- to simplistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have often wondered the sanity of those that argue logic based in data that cannot be demonstrated to be true.  There is no logic when there is no empirical evidence - what we have instead is speculation.

 

The Traveler

That is a valid point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

by Franz Kiekeben, "There's a simple argument that shows that morality doesn't originate in religion: If it did, we wouldn't find anything in religion to be morally problematic."

My initial thought, when I first read this, was exactly what @Vort and others have mentioned because the quote is overly simplistic regarding something that isn't simplistic -- morality -- as it tries to portray that if a person or thing originates anything it can not be problematic to anyone. The verses denies the overall truth, "Some call good evil and evil good." (which may be why this friend also tried to disprove this verse of scripture)

As I read the quote and pondered it a bit, I found the simplicity of the quote to be accurate and logical; however, this is due to the light of Christ within me and the knowledge I have of God's plan. God is the author of religion, not man. There isn't anything problematic with Him. Any problems assigned to God, or his religion is the fault of man, not God nor morality. So I find the quote to be as @Scott said to be true. At its core, this is correct. As there is nothing problematic with God who is morally perfect. Sadly the evidence to that is after death for many. There will be many who cursed God, many who belittled God, who will after death bend their knee to worship and praise Him and exclaim thy ways are just (moral)! They will finally see things as they really are.

The response to this quote from atheists is typically "Morality is the result of human evolution as we grew into societies..." There is even a problem with this, ironic maybe, because the quote negates morality as a result of human evolution into societies. Let's change the quote a tad, "There's a simple argument that shows that morality doesn't originate [with human evolution into societies]: If it did, we wouldn't find anything [with human societies] to be morally problematic." Viola!

Here are items that are missed in the simplicity of the quote ( @Carborendum pointed out a major flaw):

1 > "Just because we know some things as a child doesn't mean we don't learn more as we grow and mature." The quote disregards human fallibility and our limited knowledge. If a person with limited knowledge sees something as problematic does this mean what is professing to originate morals is now false? No. As we obtain more knowledge and understanding, what we previously saw as problematic may no longer be problematic (or as scripture specifies we begin to see things "as they really are).

2 > Human fallibility. If the original Church, religion, taught things as they really are and people disregarded the teachings and created their own religion, does this falsify the original? No. To judge all religion, all truth, by counterfeits is also irrational and illogical. This coincides with #1 human knowledge and how our knowledge is continually increasing. This is pretty much what @Moonbeast32 said. True religion is moral. False religion will incorporate false principles and truth thus making it immoral.

3 > EDIT > Yes, what Carb mentioned, a false dichotomy, all or nothing from humans with limited knowledge and understanding of things as they really are.

Thanks for the thoughts. I wanted to hear how others would respond to this type of quote.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share