Does religion dictate morality...another perspective?

[Milton Platt]

Wrong. The only real reason to refrain from evil and live in a moral way is love, real love for God and others before self-centeredness.

A god is not needed for a moral framework.

Societies favoring a variety of gods beside the one you favor all have moral frameworks, and predominately secular countries have moral frameworks,

 

[InChrist]

A god is not needed for a moral framework.

Societies favoring a variety of gods beside the one you favor all have moral frameworks, and predominately secular countries have moral frameworks,

According to the biblical scriptures that is because God, the Creator, has written His laws on the conscience of every person, wherever they are, whatever their culture or country.

 

[MikeDwight]

A god is not needed for a moral framework.

Societies favoring a variety of gods beside the one you favor all have moral frameworks, and predominately secular countries have moral frameworks,

Hmmm predominately secular countries without gods have had moral frameworks, communists, Nazis, napoleon I guess. I liked his civil code.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Your whole comment here is just subjective opinion combined with false value judgement. Typical for people brainwashed by bronze age superstition.

Note you didn't refute my position at all with your words. I honestly smell fear.

Besides this, you are the one with false judgment. I'm an atheist through and through. Not sure what the hell "bronze age superstition" has to do with anything at all in this conversation.

 

[FooYang]

Note you didn't refute my position at all with your words. I honestly smell fear.

Besides this, you are the one with false judgment. I'm an atheist through and through. Not sure what the hell "bronze age superstition" has to do with anything at all in this conversation.

Then why hold onto morality? when it's entirely superstitious and subjective.

 

[MikeDwight]

Hmmm predominately secular countries without gods have had moral frameworks, communists, Nazis, napoleon I guess. I liked his civil code.

I mean honestly I want to move to France sometime. You sort of look around at the 100% unmarried women and 100% unmarried men and instantly pick some fight about something, the menage a trois word gets tossed around, inspector Clouseau shows up , trips over something. Somebody shoots at you they think you wanted their homosexual boyfriend a day. Then everybody pays respects at Napoleon's tombs and his wife's boyfriend meeting his girlfriend. C'est la vie.

 

[FooYang]

It's always an illegitimate authority figure telling you what is "legal" and "illegal", "Good" and "Evil", whether you take it from a religion or from the government, it's exactly the same thing. If someone has to enforce what is "right" and "wrong", then it clearly has no objectivity and it is a matter of submission to an illegitimate higher power that tells you what to do. None of it remains objective in any sense, it's all completely subjective. Even if they put you behind bars (aka, "hell") and sentence you for something, it's still not objective. You're still under their superstition that comes from nobody but their own illegitimate authority.

 

[MikeDwight]

Like most people, we study for 10 years about the role of the marriages of Royalty. What is the Christian role concerning the Togetherness and diplomatic Relation Of Church in concern of family's who swap Brides improving the racial and National respect between Nations? Auld Presbyterians, Lang Syne discovered true love! The Church is most together and are most Togetherness when they stick to their own flower positions!

 

[Milton Platt]

Then why hold onto morality? when it's entirely superstitious and subjective.

According to the biblical scriptures that is because God, the Creator, has written His laws on the conscience of every person, wherever they are, whatever their culture or country.

That is an unfalsifiable claim, and therefore doesn't hold any weight. In any case, you must first prove that your god exists before you can start listing things it has or will do. After over 2,000 years of apologetics, it still hasn't been done.

 

[FooYang]

That is an unfalsifiable claim, and therefore doesn't hold any weight.

It is indeed true that morality is an unfalsifiable claim when it is claimed that morality is something real or true, or objective. You can't prove morality in any way, only say that you take pleasure in some things and displeasure in others. These things have no objectivity to them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Doesn't that mean that they, themselves, have actually made the choice? Whose morals, and whose spiritual needs, are in fact in play here?

The society's morals are in play here. That is 'Dharma' in Hinduism - 'Fulfill your duties and engage in righteous action'. It does not matter what God/Gods/Goddesses one worships or does not, and what rituals one follows. 'Dharma' is beyond and above that. It is a must even for Gods and Goddesses.

 

[InChrist]

That is an unfalsifiable claim, and therefore doesn't hold any weight. In any case, you must first prove that your god exists before you can start listing things it has or will do. After over 2,000 years of apologetics, it still hasn't been done.

It's not a matter of proof. You do know that atheists cannot prove God does not exist either. I think there is ample evidence that has been presented by apologists over the years or which can be found when one sincerely researches the subject, which makes belief in God a reasonable conclusion. Yet, if a person is committed to rejecting God no amount of reason or evidence will matter.

 

[Howard Is]

It's always an illegitimate authority figure telling you what is "legal" and "illegal", "Good" and "Evil", whether you take it from a religion or from the government, it's exactly the same thing. If someone has to enforce what is "right" and "wrong", then it clearly has no objectivity and it is a matter of submission to an illegitimate higher power that tells you what to do. None of it remains objective in any sense, it's all completely subjective. Even if they put you behind bars (aka, "hell") and sentence you for something, it's still not objective. You're still under their superstition that comes from nobody but their own illegitimate authority.

It is indeed true that morality is an unfalsifiable claim when it is claimed that morality is something real or true, or objective. You can't prove morality in any way, only say that you take pleasure in some things and displeasure in others. These things have no objectivity to them.

You can call it subjective if that floats your boat.

If you are one of a group of 100 people, and your behaviour is unacceptable to 99 of them, then they will punish you. You can explain to them all you like that they are Bronze Age thinkers. It won’t help you. They don’t even need a church or government to slap you into line. Just watch toddlers at play.

If you do something that causes you to feel shame, even if only you know about it, that is an internally generated punishment, just as dopamine is an internally generated reward.

No government or church required.

Those processes were not invented and somehow inserted into your genes by church or state.

What I have been talking about is the action of your own conscience. Which is a neurobiological function.

I fully expect you to tell me that conscience is a cultural artefact of no significance. I may be wrong.

Call that subjective if you like, but that is a very superficial view for the reasons I have given earlier, and which you assiduously avoided answering. You simply maintained a mantra of “Bronze Age thinking and subjectivity”.

That doesn’t even touch the notion of the unconscious drives that inform your ‘subjectivity’.

You seem to think that the superficial level of cognition trumps the neurophysiological structure which is a product of millions of years of evolution.

Your wetware isn’t ‘subjective’. It is the objective bedrock of your experience.

 

[Howard Is]

Yet, if a person is committed to rejecting God no amount of reason or evidence will matter.

Surely you realise this is a pointless roundabout ?

I’ll flip it for you one more time...

“Yet, if a person is committed to believing in God no amount of reason or evidence will matter.“

OK ? That was the millionth time.
Want to make it a million and one ?
A million plus infinity ?


Blah blah blah
Maha blah
Paramaha blah
Svaha

 

[Howard Is]

The society's morals are in play here. That is 'Dharma' in Hinduism - 'Fulfill your duties and engage in righteous action'. It does not matter what God/Gods/Goddesses one worships and what rituals one follows. 'Dharma' is beyond and above that.

That is in accord with my point.

The local moral code is an epiphenomenon, its objective basis is ‘in the matrix’, and expresses genetically and neurobiologically.

@Aupmanyav Have I been drinking soma ?

 

[Howard Is]

It's always an illegitimate authority figure telling you what is "legal" and "illegal", "Good" and "Evil", whether you take it from a religion or from the government, it's exactly the same thing.

By all means keep repeating your assertion.

Some actual arguments, or even interesting remarks, might be a valuable contribution to the thread. As would answering the points others make.

“We’ve all been f***ed over by The Man” is not really cutting it.

May I ask, since you believe there is no meaningful basis for terms like good and evil...

Do you engage in any activity that would be classed by your society as ‘evil’ ?

Are there any behaviours you consider abhorrent ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I have been talking about is the action of your own conscience. Which is a neurobiological function.

It is not a neurobiological function. It is all learnt. The family/society instills that in you. 'Do this .. don't do that'.

@Aupmanyav Have I been drinking soma ?

Oh no. Had you been drinking 'Soma', you would have talked in a very different way. .. But you are in 'Dharma'.

"Aha! this spacious earth will I deposit either here or there.
In one short moment will I smite the earth in fury here or there.
One of my flanks is in the sky, I let the other trail below.
I, greatest of the Mighty Ones, am lifted to the firmament."

कुवित्सोमस्यापामिति || (Kuvit somasya apām iti, Have I not drunk of Soma juice? - Indra)
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXIX. Indra.

 

[Moz]

Observance of customs and laws can very easily be a cloak for a lie so subtle that our fellow human beings are unable to detect it. It may help us to escape all criticism, we may even be able to deceive ourselves in the belief of our obvious righteousness. But deep down, below the surface of the average man's conscience, he hears a voice whispering, 'There is something not right,' no matter how much his rightness is supported by public opinion or by the moral code.
Carl Jung
Peace

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would I NOT want to ?

Assuming you aren't someone healthy without a diagnosible thing like psychopathy or alike, likely you don't want to because things like a consiounce, empathy etc and likely also grew up in a culture that places importance on certain values like security, freedom, rights for women, etc.

All those combined will usually make sure you don't want to.

The answer is NOT logical. It is about empathy, feeling, emotion.

What is not logical about empathy?

I don’t want to because it is a horrible thing to do to someone, and everyone who cares about them. Also a horrible thing to do to myself.

Exactly.... Which is a logical thing to say / conclude, after using reason and logic to analyse the impact / consequence of rape.

I guess a person could say “Aha ! That’s your logic !”
If they really wanted to miss my point.

No points are being missed. That IS your logic. And it is both reasonable as well as sufficient.

The gut reaction, the feeling, is what determines that choice.

Which is the premise: you favour well-being over suffering. You value fairness. Because you are a human with empathy.

In simple uncomplicated English, it would be a horrible, subhuman, evil thing to do. And I don’t need to consult logic for one moment to know that.

Except that you do. Without logic, you would be unable to make this value judgement because you wouldn't even properly realise what the impact / consequence of your actions would be.

You require logic and reason to find that out.

In fact, if a person did need to consider logic to decide whether or not to rape and murder, I think that person is already 9/10ths degenerate.

I'll prove you wrong with a simple and even somewhat stupid question:

Do you think engaging in goodlyboezolly is good or evil?


I predict that you'll be unable to answer. First, you'll have to ask me what "goodlyboezolly" is exactly. And after I tell you, you'll necessarily have to invoke logic and reason to analyse that action and see what the consequences are. Only then will you be able to make a moral judgement about it.

Sounds like you absolutely need to consider logic to decide wether or not to engage in goodlyboezolly

 

[Howard Is]

It is not a neurobiological function. It is all learnt. The family/society instills that in you. 'Do this .. don't do that'.

I don’t agree. All species have their dharma.
Humans are born with a lot more capacity for nurture, but it is our nature to instil dharma.
Otherwise you have an n-1 regression...when did humans begin teaching a moral code ? Why ? Who taught them that ? Manu ?

Oh no. Had you been drinking 'Soma', you would have talked in a very different way. .. But you are in 'Dharma'.

Yeah, today

"Aha! this spacious earth will I deposit either here or there.
In one short moment will I smite the earth in fury here or there.
One of my flanks is in the sky, I let the other trail below.
I, greatest of the Mighty Ones, am lifted to the firmament."

कुवित्सोमस्यापामिति || (Kuvit somasya apām iti, Have I not drunk of Soma juice? - Indra)
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXIX. Indra.

That was last Thursday