do morals need a god?

[Dunemeister]

But when we try to understand reality then (i would presume) we do need a reasonable assumption on which to base the start of our search, wherever it may later lead.
And frankly i think God is reasonable.
If we were created in his image as some people say then it should be clear that we have our reason from him, thus he has even more of it.

Did you mean to say that God is reasonable or unreasonable?

Exactly. And here we have the problem that social science does NOT tell us what your interpretation of religion told you.
At least currently.

Well, it may be a problem but it's not much of one. Besides, I'm not sure that social science really has anything to say one way or another about whether morality is indeed independent of human opinion or whether it is of human manufacture. All social science can tell us is that different groups have different sets of morals, which is exactly what the Christian religion affirms. So as far as I can tell, social science backs up the Christian religion, it doesn't contradict it.

Remember, Christianity holds that humankind has a conscience and hence, a moral view of the world and access to moral truths. That access has been compromised by a general human desire not to submit to an authority higher than itself. This aboriginal hubris has compromised our fellowship with God and thus our perceptions of divine morality and our desire to comply with it have been compromised. This anthropology thus both affirms the existence of a divine (absolute, if you wlll) morality AND acknowldges the variety we see. Social science hasn't (and won't) do better than this.

No, actually i think it is the opposite.
Personally i think that those that reduce their God to an idiot who demands blind faith and decieves people by creating things in a way that looks as if he hasnt created them at all to be rather blasphemous.

Well I guess here we're in agreement.

In my view a God doesn't decieve people and thus his revelations are true. If they are true then they should at least partially be verifiable without blind faith in the scriptures he has given to the people.

Why should they be verifiable apart from faith? (I'm removing the word "blind" intentionally.) The "should" is presumptuous. It may be that by the nature of the case certain things simply require faith in order to be known.

After all religions themselves argue that God has given us REASON and nearly every book challenges people to verify its claims.
Note that supposedly religions are also an invitation of God.

Yes, but nowhere is reason given the place that modern humans have given it. The bible does call us to think through things, but its primary call is to faith. Perhaps its your misunderstanding of faith (implied by your constant use of the modifier "blind") that's the problem here.

If you follow the "nonpresumptuous" path then you would demand from people that have not been brought up in the christian faith to accept blindly what the bible states without even the possibility to reasonably verify things.

Why so?

And you think that your God made this on purpose. Do you really think this low of a supposedly loving and caring God who wishes nothing more than to have us live in love and harmony with him in the afterlife?

No.

 

[Sunstone]

at a recent debate i attended between a humanist and a christian the issue pf morality came up several times. the christian members of the audience couldn't wrap their minds around a set of morals that didnt involve a 'big brother' watching over them.

so my questions is does morals require a god to be a role model of what your morals should be, or should your 'heart' lead your moral code?

Morals can be based on anything. They need not necessarily be based on the will of a deity. And actually -- given the amount of hypocrisy and backsliding among those who profess their morals are merely based on the will of a deity -- it might be safe to say that morals are usually based on something besides the will of a deity -- otherwise there would be less hypocrisy and backsliding.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Did you mean to say that God is reasonable or unreasonable?

I meant to say that he would be reasonable.
It is the only assumption that would make sense.

Well, it may be a problem but it's not much of one. Besides, I'm not sure that social science really has anything to say one way or another about whether morality is indeed independent of human opinion or whether it is of human manufacture. All social science can tell us is that different groups have different sets of morals, which is exactly what the Christian religion affirms. So as far as I can tell, social science backs up the Christian religion, it doesn't contradict it.

Well i think if it is a problem, then it is a major one. As you stated science tells us how things ARE and not as they should be. So IF there is a discrepancy then it does constitute a problem. Generally when such problems occured in the past either the scientists were burned or religious interpretation changed. Of course (as in literal 6 day creationism) sometimes science is also simply ignored.

As for the science.... Well actually what science tells us is that there is a wide measure of agreement concerning morals, all over the globe and independent of religion. There are many studies where people are presented with moral dilemas and they mostly answer the same.
What differs are minor aspects. Which of course brings us to the question never asked but crucial for the discussion: "What do we mean by morals?"
If you mean the exact and complete morals that are in the bible then of course all nonchristians will have a different set of morals.
If however you mean a specific core (golden rule, rape is wrong, dont kill, dont steal etc.) then we are practically the same.

Remember, Christianity holds that humankind has a conscience and hence, a moral view of the world and access to moral truths. That access has been compromised by a general human desire not to submit to an authority higher than itself. This aboriginal hubris has compromised our fellowship with God and thus our perceptions of divine morality and our desire to comply with it have been compromised. This anthropology thus both affirms the existence of a divine (absolute, if you wlll) morality AND acknowldges the variety we see. Social science hasn't (and won't) do better than this.

I politely disagree.

Perhaps i am missreading you, but i see no real conclusive chain of arguments. You make some leaps of faith.
Science also has it that we have a consciousness. What you however postulate concerning relationships, the invokation of an extra entity and your conclusions about compromising supposed desires to comply with God is not really standing on any verifiable grounds. Actually you seem to use circular reasoning when after your explanation you use the explanation to say that it would affirm the invoked creator as well as some absolute morality.
You invoke something to tell me that then the invoked is affirmed.

Again .. perhaps i misread what you said.

Why should they be verifiable apart from faith? (I'm removing the word "blind" intentionally.) The "should" is presumptuous. It may be that by the nature of the case certain things simply require faith in order to be known.

Note that I stated "should at least partially be verifiable". I already tried to take a step towards you so to speak.
I would first of all differ between "knowing", "believing" and "having faith".
Faith I equate with trust. And faith in my view is allways blind.
Believing I equate normally with assumptions which I base on a certain amount of evidence and reasoning for and against these assumptions.
Actually knowing is seldom to find but often claimed.

My postulation is simple.
If God wants us to believe in him and gave us reason to ponder things then it could and should be expected that his revelations contain verifiable truths. At least in those aspects that actually are within the realm of things we CAN understand.

A simple example to demonstrate this without talking about any specific religon.
Suppose in the holy "xyz" we find a passage that the universe is smaller than distance light travels in a week.

Now if that were from God and thus true I would expect it to be observable in the real world. Our science is advanced enough.
Science will tell us that we live in a universe which happens to be somewhat bigger than the sciptures claim.
Now EITHER the scripture is false, OR we made a mistake interpreting it.
I will not go further as that is another topic though.

Yes, but nowhere is reason given the place that modern humans have given it. The bible does call us to think through things, but its primary call is to faith. Perhaps its your misunderstanding of faith (implied by your constant use of the modifier "blind") that's the problem here.

Well i do not know what you understand by faith. For me it is trust and trust IS often blind. Faith requires that you believe in something. But in the case of many religions it is not only that you can't verify many thing but rather that actual verification yields different results. THAT is for me a problem.
Perhaps you should take a look at it from a different perspective.
Imagine yourself to be a "neutral" nonbelieving person standing on a spot when suddenly 20 people come along, all with their own scriptures.
Each one of those tells you that HIS version is true, that HIS God is real and that different beliefs will make you end in some hell.
What will you do?

As for me the most reasonable way seems to be to verify all books using my reasoning and stick to the one that makes sense (if there is one).

Why so?

If you dont judge a book by reason ... how then apart of by faith can you choose to see it as true?

No.

I accept (and like) your answer. I do not understand how you can come to that conclusion while at the same time emphasizing the faith aspect?
Do you not think that there is enough hard evidence?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

at a recent debate i attended between a humanist and a christian the issue pf morality came up several times. the christian members of the audience couldn't wrap their minds around a set of morals that didnt involve a 'big brother' watching over them.

so my questions is does morals require a god to be a role model of what your morals should be, or should your 'heart' lead your moral code?

Answer: No mythological 'role model' (who never actually shows up to lead by example) is required.
The only demonstrably existent 'role models' are family and friends who are willing and able to spend time and energy in raising a child to adhere to basic tenets of good behavior.

 

[Willamena]

Answer: No mythological 'role model' (who never actually shows up to lead by example) is required.
The only demonstrably existent 'role models' are family and friends who are willing and able to spend time and energy in raising a child to adhere to basic tenets of good behavior.

Myths do "show up," wherever they are needed.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Myths do "show up," wherever they are needed.

Care to cite examples of witnessed and/or photographed physical manifestations of divine childcare? Or even a single Sunday school class on morals being taught in 'person' by the All-Mighty?
(btw - By golly, if I had God as a teacher in school, you KNOW that I would have been paying strict attention! )

Or do you mean decent parents, etc... who say things like "By the grace of God, we were able to raise a good and moral kid in these hard times", etc...etc....?

 

[Dunemeister]

Well i think if it is a problem, then it is a major one.

What exactly is the conflict between Christianity and what social scientists tell us?

As for the science.... Well actually what science tells us is that there is a wide measure of agreement concerning morals, all over the globe and independent of religion. There are many studies where people are presented with moral dilemas and they mostly answer the same.
What differs are minor aspects.

This adds further weight to my previous question.

Perhaps i am missreading you, but i see no real conclusive chain of arguments. You make some leaps of faith.

As do we all. But perhaps you could show me what chasms I'm attempting to cross without a reliable foot bridge, eh?

Science also has it that we have a consciousness. What you however postulate concerning relationships, the invokation of an extra entity and your conclusions about compromising supposed desires to comply with God is not really standing on any verifiable grounds. Actually you seem to use circular reasoning when after your explanation you use the explanation to say that it would affirm the invoked creator as well as some absolute morality.
You invoke something to tell me that then the invoked is affirmed.

Don't mistake theology for science. What I'm saying is that the deontological nature of moral statements (the fact that they proscribe behavior in terms of absolute obligation, permission, and prohibition) makes sense on the assumption that there is a being such as God. If there is no such being as God, the deontological nature of moral statements is quite problematic. So much so that most atheists deny that moral statements are deontological. Thus we get such theories as emotivism and utilitarianism or social contract theory.

I would first of all differ between "knowing", "believing" and "having faith".
Faith I equate with trust. And faith in my view is allways blind.

Then you've misunderstood what faith is. Why should trust be blind? I trust my wife, but I don't do so blindly. I have experience with her that vindicates my trust in her. Christians would say the same about God.

Similarly, if my wife tells me she wasn't home at a particular time because she was visiting a friend, I don't assume she's having an affair. I take her at her word. Christians (at their best) do the same with God. The Holy Spirit affirms the truth of the Christian proclamation, and the Christian believes it -- takes God at his word. This isn't blind, or at least it isn't obviously blind. If there is blindness here, I'd like to know how.

Believing I equate normally with assumptions which I base on a certain amount of evidence and reasoning for and against these assumptions.

Believing is a matter of taking a favorable attitude toward a proposition. If you believe a proposition, that means you think it's true. You can do this with or without evidence. Either way, it's a belief.

Actually knowing is seldom to find but often claimed.

Knowledge is a belief that has a certain privileged epistemological status because it was arrived at by a means that, objectively speaking, is likely to produce true beliefs.

My postulation is simple.

Perhaps too simple?

If God wants us to believe in him and gave us reason to ponder things then it could and should be expected that his revelations contain verifiable truths. At least in those aspects that actually are within the realm of things we CAN understand.

Again, this is presumptuous. God is under no obligation to approach us in our terms. That is, the fact that he gave us the ability to reason does not mean that, by pure reason (with or without the aid of other faculties), we should be able to arrive at belief in God.

A simple example to demonstrate this without talking about any specific religon.
Suppose in the holy "xyz" we find a passage that the universe is smaller than distance light travels in a week.

Now if that were from God and thus true I would expect it to be observable in the real world. Our science is advanced enough.
Science will tell us that we live in a universe which happens to be somewhat bigger than the sciptures claim.
Now EITHER the scripture is false, OR we made a mistake interpreting it.
I will not go further as that is another topic though.

Well, now you're shifting the discussion a bit (or I misunderstood it all along -- possible). Are we talking about whether morals require a god or whether it's possible to harmonize religious writings with science?

Well i do not know what you understand by faith. For me it is trust and trust IS often blind. Faith requires that you believe in something.

In general terms, I think I dealt with this earlier.

But in the case of many religions it is not only that you can't verify many thing but rather that actual verification yields different results. THAT is for me a problem.

Well, let's just stick with the point at issue in this thread. The question is whether morals require the existence of a god. If we focus our attention there, then we won't have to deal with issues such as YEC and other sidebar issues.

Perhaps you should take a look at it from a different perspective.
Imagine yourself to be a "neutral" nonbelieving person standing on a spot when suddenly 20 people come along, all with their own scriptures.
Each one of those tells you that HIS version is true, that HIS God is real and that different beliefs will make you end in some hell.
What will you do?

As for me the most reasonable way seems to be to verify all books using my reasoning and stick to the one that makes sense (if there is one).

If you dont judge a book by reason ... how then apart of by faith can you choose to see it as true?

Well again, you seem to be shifting the ground a bit. The OP asks whether morals need a god. That's a very high level philosophical question having to do with the nature of moral statements and their relationship, if any, to anything nonhuman. That is, we're not dealing with the question of which set of moral statements are the right ones (the ones in this book or that book or whatever). Rather, we're generalizing to "Take whatever moral statements you wish. Do moral statements, in order to count as really moral statements, require a god?"

The secondary question you are raising -- which morals are the right ones and how can we tell -- is important and interesting in its own right, but it's not the subject of this thread.

I accept (and like) your answer. I do not understand how you can come to that conclusion while at the same time emphasizing the faith aspect?
Do you not think that there is enough hard evidence?

Perhaps I should have been less flippant with my answer. You originally said:

And you think that your God made this on purpose. Do you really think this low of a supposedly loving and caring God who wishes nothing more than to have us live in love and harmony with him in the afterlife?

I presume you meant "this world" by "this." If so, my answer is Yes, I think he did. I suppose I didn't really understand what you mean by "think this low". I don't think low of God, and I'm confused why you think I do. What really drew my "no" was the afterlife bit. I don't think God's primary concern is with our afterlife bliss.

 

[Willamena]

Care to cite examples of witnessed and/or photographed physical manifestations of divine childcare?

Ah, but then they wouldn't be myths. (Myths are stories.)

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Ah, but then they wouldn't be myths. (Myths are stories.)

'Supernatural' is only supernatural until it is studied and explained; then supernatural things become simply natural things.

 

[justify]

Wherever we look trough the human world it becomes apparent that we as humans are living by a set of moral standards that allows us to live in a harmonious society among each others,

you cannot deny that moral standards exist they are factual, if none of these moral standards existed everything would be permitted so to speak of. Now let’s take a look at the nature of facts, Il start with this short phrase, It is a fact that john has a blue sweater, it is a fact that Robert has eaten spaghetti for lunch, for most facts there are physical tangible objects that make these facts true, Now let us look at Moral facts and what they implied, Moral facts are the following I have listed that permit us to live in a harmonious society,

for instance if we say it is a fact that we should end the death penalty, or if we say that it is a fact that we should feed the helpless and give to the poor, now it is apparent that nothing in the physical world can prove a moral fact, nothing physical here in this world can do so. This is because these facts do not describe anything tangible they are prescriptive.

They assume the forms of commands, things we ought to do. Now no one would argue that commands necessarily imply a commander. Just like I said in one of my previous posts, cause needs something that caused this, and something that exists cannot exist without something pre-existent, such is the case of commands, you need a commander for commands to exist, just like in the army, you need a general to lead his men, or else the men would be completely lost. Now this brings me to something interesting, now that it has been dealt with that moral facts are in fact commands, who gave these commands? We make moral decisions very frequently in our lives, even a non believer is confronted to these decisions’, and Morality is undeniable. A moral code is universal, everywhere in the world, people know that it is wrong to kill, everywhere in the world it is wrong to Robb your neighbour, morality has a universal form, and It has full powers over our lives it has a somewhat lawful power.

So now that it has been found that morality has absolute power on all humans regardless if you decide to be a moral man or not since it transcends all of us and is the ultimate power in the world. This proves to us that there is also a being that is above us and rules the world, it proves the existence of the inventor of morality so to speak of, a being that has instigated laws both physical and moral laws.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Hi Dunemaster, sorry for the late reply. I didn't have time before and i think your post deserves some time (seldom enough to find a good discussion in this board)

You stated that i deviated a bit from the topic and i accept that point. Although i think what i said is connected given that you explicitly mentioned the role of science and your answers as being rather religious then scientific i would agree that it opens too wide a field if we started debating everything. Perhaps in another thread. I would be interested in that debate about being "presumptuous"

So i concentrate on two issues which i think are the important ones in the thread. If i missed something that you find important please do tell me.

Point 1: The difference between Christianity and (social) science concerning morals.
Point 2: The "deontological" claim you made and the question if moral statements require a god.

1)

What exactly is the conflict between Christianity and what social scientists tell us?

Well this question is nearly impossible to answer because I can't possibly know what "your" christianity says. Frankly i think that generally we do find a lot of individual christianities and not so much "the" christianity. Even if we generalized we find christianity differing from time to time.
So which christianity should i pick in order to tell you about differences? By the way i would not limit it to "social" science but include also behavioral science.
We even have trouble about the definition of morals. What exactly is morals?
Let me give you some example.
Science has it that we have a lot of urges and feelings hard wired. This explains for why amongst all humans things are nearly equal concerning some basic core behavioral patterns. Science also tells us that we differ between our own group and other groups. We do not see all humans alike.

Now i think I remember that you stated that God created us in his image and one of the things he gave us was some consicousness.
If that were so, then we would expect two things:
a) seeing all humans as equal
b) seeing only humans have specific behavioral patterns

Humans do not see all humans as equal though. Actually religion itself is a very good example for the ingroup/outgroup behavior. Generally it invites people to religion but also clearly distances and dehumanizes nonbelievers. And christianity in my view is no different in that.

It is also clearly visible that animals DO have ingroup/outgroup behavioral patterns and that they indeed have some "codes" for behaviour. The more "socially" advanced animals are the more "moral"-ruled their behaviour gets. These morals and genetically coded behaviours are often very similar to ours.
A higher animal wont simply kill his kid or rape it, actually there is some protection. Family building with each member supporting the group.
And of course also individualistic behaviour like in us humans.
Now if God created us according to his image and if animals were not while sharing genetically coded conduct... then the morals that according to you are implanted in us can't be the part where the bible speaks about image.

You also stated that

All social science can tell us is that different groups have different sets of morals, which is exactly what the Christian religion affirms.

Well indeed science tells us that we differ in DETAILS, but we do not differ in the core questions. We must ask the question what exactly constitutes morality here. In any case i see a problem with the following statement you also made:

Remember, Christianity holds that humankind has a conscience and hence, a moral view of the world and access to moral truths. That access has been compromised by a general human desire not to submit to an authority higher than itself.

Now aint it strange for you that it happens to be the case that all those people that have access to moral truths do not choose the christian morals but rather the morals of the society in which they happen to have grown up?
Do you actually think that you have adopted christian morals? I would be sceptical about that. If one takes into account the moral systems even within christianity throughout time it rather seems plausible to me that you adopted a modern moral stance and mixed it with what you read in your personalized version of your religion. (I do not mean this per se negatively).
Science would tell us that while we do have general hardcoded patterns and desires in us we do differ in details because the social surroundings differ.
Religion actually would tell us that there is one set of morals and (according to you) one could reach that set through ones consicousness. However the reality looks different. Now how does a theist solve that problem? Generally by declaring the nonbeliever to be either misinformed (for example nothaving access to the bible), indoctrinated or evil.

Science would tell you that many moral rules that are called evil are only evil when applied to members of your own group.
Religion (according to your understanding i would believe) says that there exist some rather absolut morals.
Looking at the scriptures and taking the historic data into account however i would claim that the scientific view is expressed therein, while your religious view is not to be seen.
One must remember that "raping" for example is NOT considered evil in christianity, neither is murder. It only is considered so when done to specific people. It was not evil to kill the midianites, the boys and the nonvirgin women. It was not evil to take 32000 virgin gilrs as captives. It was not evil to sacrifice ones own son for God on an altar. Slavery was not evil. And on it goes.
You might now say that it is and that your view on christianity is different. But we end in the discussion I hinted at at the beginning. What christianity are we talking about ?

Point 2)

That is, we're not dealing with the question of which set of moral statements are the right ones (the ones in this book or that book or whatever). Rather, we're generalizing to "Take whatever moral statements you wish. Do moral statements, in order to count as really moral statements, require a god?"

Well we do have several moral systems with a common core.
So we could first of all establish that there are several more or less differing moral systems.
We can also establish that there is some common grounds for all moral systems.
Now you pose the question if we could say that something "really counts" as moral statement without a God.
I do not know because i do not know what you mean by "really counts"?
Obviously all moral systems count for their respective followers and obviously all of them think that their morals really count.
If it were not so then they wouldnt believe in them would they?

So what do you want to say by "really count"? You seem to suggest that there are morals beyond humanity and that these might be "absolute" or "objective" values (the terms are not identical).
How would you determine this to be so ?

Don't mistake theology for science. What I'm saying is that the deontological nature of moral statements (the fact that they proscribe behavior in terms of absolute obligation, permission, and prohibition) makes sense on the assumption that there is a being such as God. If there is no such being as God, the deontological nature of moral statements is quite problematic. So much so that most atheists deny that moral statements are deontological. Thus we get such theories as emotivism and utilitarianism or social contract theory.

I do not really understand this.
Deontological normally means rule based. An action is judged by itself instead of anything else like its consequences or the surrounding situation or even intentions.

I am not sure if this is also what you mean above. If it is then i do not understand your point. We can have a deonotological ethics based on any authority. The question is only whom we could accept as one. Global consensus might be one. But on the other hand we might also ponder the question why at all morals need to be deontological instead of for example having a virtue based moral system or a consequentionalistic one. Let us for a second assume that morals were not deontological. So what ?

You seem to make it sound as if the mere fact (which one could dispute) that deontological moral would not be there without god is a proof for the need of God for "a" moral system that we could adhere to?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Wherever we look trough the human world it becomes apparent that we as humans are living by a set of moral standards that allows us to live in a harmonious society among each others,

you cannot deny that moral standards exist they are factual, if none of these moral standards existed everything would be permitted so to speak of. Now let’s take a look at the nature of facts, Il start with this short phrase, It is a fact that john has a blue sweater, it is a fact that Robert has eaten spaghetti for lunch, for most facts there are physical tangible objects that make these facts true, Now let us look at Moral facts and what they implied, Moral facts are the following I have listed that permit us to live in a harmonious society,

for instance if we say it is a fact that we should end the death penalty, or if we say that it is a fact that we should feed the helpless and give to the poor, now it is apparent that nothing in the physical world can prove a moral fact, nothing physical here in this world can do so. This is because these facts do not describe anything tangible they are prescriptive.

They assume the forms of commands, things we ought to do. Now no one would argue that commands necessarily imply a commander. Just like I said in one of my previous posts, cause needs something that caused this, and something that exists cannot exist without something pre-existent, such is the case of commands, you need a commander for commands to exist, just like in the army, you need a general to lead his men, or else the men would be completely lost. Now this brings me to something interesting, now that it has been dealt with that moral facts are in fact commands, who gave these commands? We make moral decisions very frequently in our lives, even a non believer is confronted to these decisions’, and Morality is undeniable. A moral code is universal, everywhere in the world, people know that it is wrong to kill, everywhere in the world it is wrong to Robb your neighbour, morality has a universal form, and It has full powers over our lives it has a somewhat lawful power.

So now that it has been found that morality has absolute power on all humans regardless if you decide to be a moral man or not since it transcends all of us and is the ultimate power in the world. This proves to us that there is also a being that is above us and rules the world, it proves the existence of the inventor of morality so to speak of, a being that has instigated laws both physical and moral laws.

Another variation of the cosmological argument. Now applied to morals.
Of course one could rebut that for hours but a mere question might perhaps give you a hint.
"It proves the existence of the inventor..." according to your logic demands that there was something pre-existing. So what caused the God that you think created the morals?

Another small point as anecdote: An group does NOT need a commander to work.
Perhaps you want to have a look at fish swarms

 

[Dunemeister]

Hi Dunemaster, sorry for the late reply. I didn't have time before and i think your post deserves some time (seldom enough to find a good discussion in this board)

No worries and I agree.

Point 1: The difference between Christianity and (social) science concerning morals.
Point 2: The "deontological" claim you made and the question if moral statements require a god.

Fair enough.

1) <snip>Now i think I remember that you stated that God created us in his image and one of the things he gave us was some consicousness.
If that were so, then we would expect two things:
a) seeing all humans as equal
b) seeing only humans have specific behavioral patterns

Although I can agree with b) -- with qualifications -- I don't see why a) follows. Part of the Christian story involves our fall from grace. Thus, although we are created in the image of God, we don't do what we were designed to do -- act as God's stewards in bringing his loving rule to all creation. Thus it's not surprising that we don't act very loving nor are we very good at implementing justice even when we know what the right thing to do is.

Now aint it strange for you that it happens to be the case that all those people that have access to moral truths do not choose the christian morals but rather the morals of the society in which they happen to have grown up?

Not at all. This is exactly what we should expect if the Christian story is true. The aboriginal sin of Adam and Eve was seeking after the knowledge of good and evil (a merism meaning "everything" but which of course includes moral knowledge) independently, distrustfully of God, and without reference to his authority. Thus human cultures tend to create norms that deviate from God's.

Science would tell us that while we do have general hardcoded patterns and desires in us we do differ in details because the social surroundings differ.

Christianity agrees, although we don't accept that this is all there is to it.

Religion actually would tell us that there is one set of morals and (according to you) one could reach that set through ones consicousness.

Not consciousness (the capacity or reality of having experiences) but conscience (the capacity to detect and respond to moral truths).

However the reality looks different. Now how does a theist solve that problem? Generally by declaring the nonbeliever to be either misinformed (for example nothaving access to the bible), indoctrinated or evil.

Well, the moral psychology implied by Christianity is a bit more complex than you characterize it. Humankind as a whole has the capacity to know God and do what is required of them -- do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. We fail to do so for a variety of reasons, but essentially it goes back to our fallenness. Humankind is subject to a sort of madness of the will which inclines them to resist God's authority (let alone whatever requirements he might impose). We prefer to be our own master. This preference is aided and abetted by our cultures, so yes there is some indoctrination going on here. And yes, there is some misinformation, but a Christian analysis would suggest that we all have the information, but we resent it and resist it. We thus tell ourselves stories to subvert what otherwise would be obvious to us.

That's the situation for all humankind. Making matters more complicated is that Christianity holds that the believer is fallen, just like unbelievers. We affirm only that God, by his grace and for reasons that elude us, effects a repair to his image in some people, and in so doing calls them to communion with him and community with each other. The repair is not total (nor is the communion or community) but it is sufficient for us to be able to know and follow God and to live harmoniously. Our fallenness hampers our efforts but the Holy Spirit has been provided for our comfort (when we fail) and empowerment (so we need not fail).

In other words, the moral psychological picture painted by Christianity is not a simple or naive one.

Science would tell you that many moral rules that are called evil are only evil when applied to members of your own group.

Science doesn't tell me this; my own experience does.

Religion (according to your understanding i would believe) says that there exist some rather absolut morals.

Religion doesn't tell me this; my own conscience does. It did so even before I was religious. Many atheists agree that there are absolute morals. So it's not a particularly "religious" conviction.

Looking at the scriptures and taking the historic data into account however i would claim that the scientific view is expressed therein, while your religious view is not to be seen.

As I've already shown, the so-called dispute between science and religion exists only in some people's minds. It's more apparent than real.

One must remember that "raping" for example is NOT considered evil in christianity, neither is murder. It only is considered so when done to specific people. It was not evil to kill the midianites, the boys and the nonvirgin women. It was not evil to take 32000 virgin gilrs as captives. It was not evil to sacrifice ones own son for God on an altar. Slavery was not evil. And on it goes.

What? You're insane!

You might now say that it is and that your view on christianity is different. But we end in the discussion I hinted at at the beginning. What christianity are we talking about ?

Any Christianity you'd care to mention. I know of no Christian sect -- certainly nothing mainstream -- that gives permission to the sort of activities you speak of. If you like, we can confine the term "Christianity" to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Presbyterianism. We could even throw in mainline evangelicalism and fundamentalism if you like. There are others, of course, but these are by far the most numerous of the Christian expressions and may be considered mainstream.

Point 2)<snip>Now you pose the question if we could say that something "really counts" as moral statement without a God.
I do not know because i do not know what you mean by "really counts"?

Allow me to clarify. A statement is moral if and only if it is normative and objective. By "normative" I mean it imposes a standard of behavior. That standard is more than prudential. It doesn't merely say what is advisable to do in this or that situation given what your goals are (if you really want to have a good retirement, you ought to save as much as possible during your working life). Rather, the standard is deontological, carring the force of "must", "have to", "must not", "don't have to", and "may." So "You must not murder" is such a statement, for example.

By "objective" I mean that the authority of the standard is independent of culture or individual opinion. I really musn't murder even if in my society murder is considered okay under certain circumstances. Even if I'm not inclined to conform to the standard, the standard applies. And even if I have my doubts about whether the standard applies to me (I'm above this whole "good" and "evil" thing), it applies to me.

What I claim is that a statement that is not both normative and objective is not a moral statement. If you think that no statements properly have these qualities, you believe (in effect) that there are no moral statements. If so, you're probably left with emotivism (which retains normativity without objectivity) or utilitarianism (which retains objectivity but loses normativity).

by "really count"? You seem to suggest that there are morals beyond humanity and that these might be "absolute" or "objective" values (the terms are not identical).
How would you determine this to be so ?

You're right about what I mean about "really count". By "count" I mean "qualify as". I determine this by my conscience and that of most of humanity for most of its history.

Deontological normally means rule based. An action is judged by itself instead of anything else like its consequences or the surrounding situation or even intentions.

An action is judged based on its conformity to the rule. This does not preclude judging it based on its consequences as well. Considering the consequences may, at times, help us think about what the rules might in fact be. Indeed, as a Christian, I believe that the rules are imposed for the flourishing of human communities. We should find some connection then between consequences and deontology.

If it is then i do not understand your point. We can have a deonotological ethics based on any authority. The question is only whom we could accept as one. Global consensus might be one.

Then you do understand my point.

But on the other hand we might also ponder the question why at all morals need to be deontological instead of for example having a virtue based moral system or a consequentionalistic one. Let us for a second assume that morals were not deontological. So what ?

Well, if morals were not deontological, most of our moral discourse for most of human history would be incoherent. We have good-faith debates about what the right thing to do is. We debate as though there is an answer, and we are generally not satisified with "consensus." The German consensus was that the Final Solution was morally obligatory or at least permitted.

Does it make sense to say that there are no objective moral standards? Were the Nazis right at Nuremburg when they claimed that the Allies had no right to impose non-German (non-Nazi) standards?

 

[Kenect2]

You can think of it on analogy with sight. My sight puts me in touch with the external world of objects. Analogously, my conscience puts me in touch with the world of moral "objects" or truths. I'm making an epistemological claim. Our conscience is what allows us to know what is morally permissable, prohibited, obligatory, and so on. This conscience can be fostered or hindered depending on education and culture, but it is a capacity we all are born with.

It sounds like our conscience is more than something to get us "in touch" with morality. The way you put it, it seems like our conscience is the source of morality.

 

[justify]

edit: post replica

 

[Falvlun]

now on the necessity of god...
Wherever we look trough the human world it becomes apparent that we as humans are living by a set of moral standards that allows us to live in a harmonious society among each others,

Well, except when we don't live in harmony with each other...

you cannot deny that moral standards exist they are factual, if none of these moral standards existed everything would be permitted so to speak of.

Exist in an objective, "this is truth" sort of way, or a subjective "this is what a particular culture at a particular time says is right" sort of way? The former is certainly not apparent, while the latter seems to have a lot of evidence in favor.

Also, in regards to the "everything would be permitted" assertion, have you never heard of laws? Laws are not necessarily morals; they are simply rules that are enforced to allow society to run smoothly.

They assume the forms of commands, things we ought to do. Now no one would argue that commands necessarily imply a commander. , cause needs something that caused this, and something that exists cannot exist without something pre-existent, such is the case of commands, you need a commander for commands to exist, just like in the army, you need a general to lead his men, or else the men would be completely lost.

Circular reasoning: you want to introduce a commander, so you call them commands, thereby necessitating a commander.

Also a problem, is that since morality is not tangible, as you noted, it is impossible to know which, if any, are "true" morals.

Now this brings me to something interesting, now that it has been dealt with that moral facts are in fact commands, who gave these commands?

Um... human beings. It is likely that evolution favored humans living in groups, and as such, certain societal norms were enforced so that people could live together in groups.

A moral code is universal, everywhere in the world, people know that it is wrong to kill, everywhere in the world it is wrong to Robb your neighbour, morality has a universal form, and It has full powers over our lives it has a somewhat lawful power.

Morality is hardly universal. It changes from era to era, even decade to decade, and between different cultures. I agree that murder, stealing, and perhaps raping, are nearly universally frowned upon, but the definitions of each change substantially with different cultures and time periods. A mere 200 years ago, slavery was considered morally acceptable.

So now that it has been found that morality has absolute power on all humans regardless if you decide to be a moral man or not since it transcends all of us and is the ultimate power in the world. This proves to us that there is also a being that is above us and rules the world, it proves the existence of the inventor of morality so to speak of, a being that has instigated laws both physical and moral laws

To recap:
1. You have not shown morality to be universal or absolute.
2. You have not shown God to be the necessary originator. Humans themselves actually seem to have more evidence in favor.

 

[justify]

I will trow this in:

According to Aristotle existing things are said to exist in act and in potency (power) This means that their essence is not made of exactly what they are at some point, but what they have in them to become, they also have the potential to become something entirely different, for example, gold has the potential to become a statue it also has the potential to become lingots therefore becoming something different in act, this is what potency is.

potency of beings also includes the possibility of not-being, because all things that exists have potency and the attributes of potency there must necessarily have been a time when nothing existed, In the time when nothing existed it s impossible to derive existence from non existence, even a thousand nothings cannot make the smallest something, this being said something must exist that is necessary in itself and thereby causes in all other things the necessity. as the god concept does not hold any internal contradictions.
And this all men know as God:yes:

 

[Falvlun]

potency of beings also includes the possibility of not-being, because all things that exists have potency and the attributes of potency there must necessarily have been a time when nothing existed, In the time when nothing existed it s impossible to derive existence from non existence, even a thousand nothings cannot make the smallest something, this being said something must exist that is necessary in itself and thereby causes in all other things the necessity. as the god concept does not hold any internal contradictions.
And this all men know as God:yes:

Ok. So who made God?

And if noone made God, then why is he a special exception?

 

[justify]

Ok. So who made God?

And if noone made God, then why is he a special exception?

God by definition need not a creator he is above everything need not be constrained by the laws of logic or reason or anything He is transcendental. because He created them He must necessarly be greater than these laws, since nothing can create something greater than itself.

 

[McBell]

God by definition need not a creator he is above everything need not be constrained by the laws of logic or reason or anything He is transcendental. because He created them He must necessarly be greater than these laws, since nothing can create something greater than itself.

and yet you do not see how making god an exception invalidates your whole argument?