Which is a Better Foundation for Morality, Nature or Belief in God?

[Enoughie]

after reading the article i concluded that it wasnt really stating anything new. So we cant walk through walls... and? That means we must assume that our morals (which is what the OP is talking about) can come from nature???

I cant see how the article applies. it makes a good point about 'freedom' being limited by nature, which i totally agree...but thats not really what the OP is asking.

You clearly missed the point of the article. The article demonstrates how the value of freedom is derived from Nature. Unless you can disprove the logic of the derivation, the assertion that the value of freedom can be derived from nature stands.

I demonstrate how the values of generosity, honesty, and equality can be derived from nature in other article on my site Natural Philosophy of Life.

You claimed that there is not much morality in nature, if at all. The articles clearly show how the values of generosity, honesty, equality, and freedom come from nature. This means that Nature is a solid foundation to morality. The same cannot be said about belief in God.


____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Orias]

Any time you have to reply with "obviously," you're already ignoring the fact that you're on the wrong track!

Not really, you said that nature provides only vague guidance, which means if you believe you possess a natural state of mind then the guidance could hardly be vague, since your perception (the five senses) invokes what you see and define as "natural" and "supernatural".

Which leads to the obvious implication that you do not see Man's origin of a natural One.

If you disagreed, you simply could of said so instead of making sloppy ad hominems.

Not to mention, you have NO IDEA what I do and don't believe as evinced by what followed the word.

What does this have to do with the argument at hand?

Do not be mistaken, this is not an attack at what you believe.

So having better things to do and since you STILL never refuted anything I'd said, I'll simply drop the conversation here.

I did though.

If you cannot stand the pressure of critisicm, then do not enter the heat of debate.

 

[THINKER]

so deep

 

[NemisisQ]

no, the difference here is that we can 'choose'... animals cant'.

Im very sad to tell u pegg, that humans in the past are probably the worst animal to be. During our stage of evolution, we are not better suited to our environment, and way of survival, from our low stage of adaption, we developed a proper way to learn, and thumbs to make what we want.

As for wild animals, they do not need these attributes, they in fact, are content with what they have adapted too. Polar bears have furs to survive in winter, dolphins have fins to swim and echoe projection to "see". It is becauze our species in the past are so incapable to compete with other animals, that we needed a coconut size cranium and a thumb. If dolphins were to have thumbs, then they can outsmart human in many ways. Most wild animals don't need a wide choices of morals becuz they don't need like we do. They can survive without it, as we, are always in a inner conflict with them. A sustantial balance for humans is hard to achieve.
So there is no point to compare animals to humans, or how superior we are to them.
BTW, watch some animal planet, males fight in a pack becuz one of the followers want to be the ruler.

there are so many examples i could give

animals are completely racist for a start. If you are not from their herd, they do not like you at all. See 'Meerkat Manor' for examples of how rival clans fight each other, steal each others houses & kill each others babies. Moral?

Animal has morals, their actions are predictable, and act in regard of their morals. Any pattern shown from them are guided by morals. Going as far as to say that they hold none is both a prejudice and a arrogant understatement.
Note: A impure world that carries different colors, mottle together to no avail. The deep, undefine meaning of light and dark that is forever shifting, one side to another, their roots is wide. The possibilities are to a hundreds, to a thousands, but cannot be contained in one. As to how it's number is infinite, the number of containers must also be infinite. ( describing moral)

[/quote]Or how about how male bears will kill the cubs of a female just so he can mate with her. While she has her cubs with her, she will not come into season. So male bears will stalk a female with its cubs and kill the cubs just so he can mate with her. Moral?[/quote]

Only what u define as moral??

a 'pecking order' exists among all animals

they have to fight each other to establish the pecking order...the most aggressive animals are at the top and the weaker at the bottom. When we act this way its called 'bullying' and it socially unacceptable.

You don't know what it means to survive in a world where u can die any day do u??? Plz, for considering urself as superior, atleast have empathy. Im not going to further explain this, ur whole entire way of perceiving animals are rubbish.
Im really having a hard time accepting what ur saying about animals. BTW, they actually have to risk their hide for what they will earn.

 

[Pegg]

You clearly missed the point of the article. The article demonstrates how the value of freedom is derived from Nature. Unless you can disprove the logic of the derivation, the assertion that the value of freedom can be derived from nature stands.

yes i got that point and agree with that point. Freedom is relative to nature. Nature sets the limits of our freedom. but why im confused is because this thread is about 'morality', not physical freedom.

 

[Enoughie]

yes i got that point and agree with that point. Freedom is relative to nature. Nature sets the limits of our freedom. but why im confused is because this thread is about 'morality', not physical freedom.

Unless you stopped reading the article after the first paragraph you would have noticed that I defined freedom as "naturally limited to conflicting with/harming others, or ourselves, or conflicting with the natural world around us" and "avoid obstructing or restricting others," and I said that "we are naturally free to do everything else."

Not harming others is freedom in the moral sense - not just physical.


____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think that our morality is a mix of nature and nurture.

Some people have more intelligence and empathy than others. I think these are key to developing a sense of morality. Our life experiences give us realisations and wisdom. This also helps develop our sense or morality.

Religion helps to shape our sense of morality in a particular way but religion is not where morality comes from. Morality is a part of being human.

This is pretty accurate IMO Madhuri. Followed by karmic consequences upon which a moral perspective is shaped and formed.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

Just like for a house to be good (to serve its purpose well) it must have a solid foundation and a strong framework, for a man to be good (ie. moral) he must also have a solid foundation and a strong framework. Our framework is the values we live by. Our foundation is what these values are based on.

Too many people [wrongly] believe that without God there can be no objective moral standards. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the Natural Philosophy demonstrates, the values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom can very simply and elegantly be derived from Nature itself. Therefore, belief in God is entirely unnecessary if we want to be good.

But what about those who don't really want to be good? Wouldn't belief in God benefit those people, so at least they don't harm others or themselves? The truth is that belief in God is not necessary for such people either. Understanding nature and the Natural Values would be much more beneficial for them, because they would realize that being good, and acting in accord with the natural values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom is actually in their best interest.

So if we go back to the house analogy, the natural values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom provide a strong framework for a moral life, while Nature provides the solid foundation.

But how about belief in God? Wouldn't belief in God provide a foundation that is on par with - if not better than - nature? We can believe that God is watching us at every moment, so even if we have the desire to steal, or lie we know that we'll get punished for it in the end. Isn't that a much better foundation for a moral life? Doesn't the Bible or Quran provide a strong framework for a moral life?

Well, there are some very serious problems with such view. First, we have no evidence that either the Bible or Quran were indeed authored, or even inspired by God. These are mere assumptions believers must take on faith, without anything to support such claims. Second, scientific errors and historic inaccuracies in the Bible and Quran make it difficult to accept these books as the infallible word of God. Believers must live with these contradictions, which means that the framework they chose to live by is really not that strong after all. Third, even if we were to ignore the evident scientific and historic errors, but still fully accept these books for our moral guidance, we would have to embrace some values and precepts that are morally reprehensible. For example, the idea that men shall rule over women (Genesis 3:16), or that disobedient children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

But here is the most important reason why belief in God cannot provide a solid foundation for morality, and that is: doubt. If we base our morality on belief in God, the moment we start doubting the existence of God is the moment our entire value system begins to crumble. If we base our morality on belief in God, the moment we stop believing in God we can no longer hold on to our religious values. The problem is that we cannot not doubt. We are constantly presented with new evidence that challenge our beliefs. If we choose to ignore all evidence we become ignorant and blind to the world around us. Blind faith cannot be a good foundation for morality. And since there is no evidence to support or deny the existence of God, doubt is all we can really do. Basing our morality on the foundation of belief in God is like building a foundation on quicksand. The same cannot be said about Nature. Nature is a solid foundation for morality. This is because nature does not require our belief in it. It simply exists. It is real. And "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" (Philip K. Dick)

____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

this nature ,let say "the pure instinct for doing good deeds" is chnageable.

well, satan has a role in that.

ok, this nature is solid like an iron.
but even iron could be suppled.

remeber the story of Cain and Abel, I believe that Cain's nature was solid (like Iron)against killing, but he passed through many level of "tenderness" the matter which had changed his nature.

i think nature is something like chemistry , it can be changed through some interactions and factors.

 

[Enoughie]

this nature ,let say "the pure instinct for doing good deeds" is chnageable.

well, satan has a role in that.

ok, this nature is solid like an iron.
but even iron could be suppled.

remeber the story of Cain and Abel, I believe that Cain's nature was solid (like Iron)against killing, but he passed through many level of "tenderness" the matter which had changed his nature.

i think nature is something like chemistry , it can be changed through some interactions and factors.

The laws of nature (like laws of physics, chemistry, evolutionary biology, etc.) are not changeable. In fact, they are immutable.

There is no such thing as "human nature" that is independent or separate from the laws of nature. Our essence depends on nature. The Cain and Abel myth is simply not a good example.

____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[NemisisQ]

i believe you are intelligent enough to know that the examples i have given show a vast difference between animal behavior and human morality

we live by laws that forbid us to hurt another of our kind, they do not. Morally, we consider violent aggressive acts to be socially unacceptable, they do not.

The difference in animal behavior and humans are the way the grew up. Morals, values, They flex on the way living beings grew up in, animal or human.

Morally, hurting others with laws or none is still considered morals. Violent acts to be socially unacceptable? Plz regard "we" in better terms, their are humans that do not see eye to eye with another.

BTW, laws are always active within the wilderness, they are passive and taught. For example: Tiger that have passively act on taking care on their offsprings, or how they share food to take care of them, especially how they protect their youngs to bloody death. These are laws that resides in humans, and are the purest form of it. Yet you claim animals are barbaric drunkards, even without a doubt in their ability to love and prosper with their kind.

The only difference between animal and humans are that they grew up in a different environment, where they actually have high chances of dying. As to some humans that grew up with peace and harmony. Sympathy isn't easy as most ppl think.

 

[Orias]

i believe you are intelligent enough to know that the examples i have given show a vast difference between animal behavior and human morality

Thats the issue here, you are focusing too much on what is "different", and how humans are so much "different" from other animals.

we live by laws that forbid us to hurt another of our kind, they do not. Morally, we consider violent aggressive acts to be socially unacceptable, they do not.

Actually, other animals do live by social codes as well. Because they do not voice it, or because there are a few people who view "animal behavior" as degrading, such consistencies will not be observed because of the bias towards this concept.

In a dog society, they do not hurt or harm each other, rather the alpha male dominates the others by showing he is capable of the particular status. Any contender will obviously be put down, kicked out, or killed.

Chimpanzees also have an established heirarchy, but they agressively and violently contend with each as well as go on hunts to battle other clans.

I could go on and ramble about the philosophy of Cesar Millan, or even Darwin along with a few other select scientists who study and observe the animal world.

Any person who has an ounce of understanding of the animal kingdom would know that your above statement truly lacks a structured and knowledgable foundation of the outside world.


We do not live by laws that forbid our kind from hurting others, maybe you live by these laws but the world around you is moving quickly and at an agressive pace.

Wars, mixed martial arts, martial arts, video games. You name it, these are all competitive and serious instances where harm must be done in order to achieve victory.

Sure diplomacy is always an option, but is not so easily obtainable by those who possess an "animalistic" and imposing drive.

Lets not forget the spread of a few major religions by sword and blood.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

The laws of nature (like laws of physics, chemistry, evolutionary biology, etc.) are not changeable. In fact, they are immutable.

There is no such thing as "human nature" that is independent or separate from the laws of nature. Our essence depends on nature. The Cain and Abel myth is simply not a good example.

____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

do you agree with me that satan role is just like media role today?

24/7 propaganda will produce a stereotype, instigation and hatred.


they make neutral people send their sons to the war against "terror" :devil:


it can cange our good nature , however, we still have self satisfaction.

 

[Pegg]

In a dog society, they do not hurt or harm each other, rather the alpha male dominates the others by showing he is capable of the particular status. Any contender will obviously be put down, kicked out, or killed.

heard of dog fights? Dogs will kill another dog on command...and not even on command but simply because another dog is walking down the street. Some dogs even turn on their owners for no apparent reason. We hear of numerous incidences of owners being mauled by their dogs, or their children being killed by the family dog.
Is that acceptable for a human to do? Im sure you know the answer to that. And we dont even accept it from dogs...those dogs will be euthanized rather quickly.

Chimpanzees also have an established heirarchy, but they agressively and violently contend with each as well as go on hunts to battle other clans.

I could go on and ramble about the philosophy of Cesar Millan, or even Darwin along with a few other select scientists who study and observe the animal world.

Any person who has an ounce of understanding of the animal kingdom would know that your above statement truly lacks a structured and knowledgable foundation of the outside world. We do not live by laws that forbid our kind from hurting others, maybe you live by these laws but the world around you is moving quickly and at an agressive pace.

Im getting a little confused now. I thought we were arguing whether nature provides us humans with the best form of morality???

If you think its perfectly acceptable for humans to establish such hierarchy, and aggressively contend with each other and battle their neighbors, then why do we have laws against such behavior? Why do we have a police force? Why do we put people in jail for violent acts?
Is it not because we know that sort of behavior as bad?

Wars, mixed martial arts, martial arts, video games. You name it, these are all competitive and serious instances where harm must be done in order to achieve victory.

Sure diplomacy is always an option, but is not so easily obtainable by those who possess an "animalistic" and imposing drive.

Lets not forget the spread of a few major religions by sword and blood.

mankind is at its worst when we allow animalistic behavior to dominate our actions. Of course we CAN, and many do, behave like animals, killing and pillaging and raping and stealing what doesnt belong to us etc etc etc... but we know that sort of behavior is morally wrong on so many levels.

I certainly dont want to live in a world where its every man for himself and violence is the rule of thumb.

 

[Amill]

If you think its perfectly acceptable for humans to establish such hierarchy, and aggressively contend with each other and battle their neighbors, then why do we have laws against such behavior? Why do we have a police force? Why do we put people in jail for violent acts?

Depends on who we classify as neighbors. Countries and groups of people have been at war for quite a long time without laws against their actions(least till the relatively recent UN stuff). It's not any different than neighbors within a society fighting each other, the only reason their are laws is to protect the success and future of that society, not because it's "wrong". Laws aren't based upon an agreed upon standard of right and wrong, they're based on people's opinions, which can vary greatly, even on topics of morality.

Most people naturally do not like to be harmed and do not like seeing people they care about harmed, so even if there weren't laws, weren't a police force, people would band together and protect each other. It's just as societies grew, methods of protecting the society as a whole evolved to be more efficient. If we still lived in old groups and societies where there wasn't a jail or any laws, there would still be natural consequences for actions that harmed another. And they'd probably be more harsh than prison sentences.

 

[McBell]

do you agree with me that satan role is just like media role today?

24/7 propaganda will produce a stereotype, instigation and hatred.


they make neutral people send their sons to the war against "terror" :devil:


it can cange our good nature , however, we still have self satisfaction.

Do you agree it is a double edged sword?

 

[McBell]

I certainly dont want to live in a world where its every man for himself and violence is the rule of thumb.

Ah, so you not arguing morality or ethics, your are arguing civility?

 

[Nisou Kitsune]

heard of dog fights? Dogs will kill another dog on command...and not even on command but simply because another dog is walking down the street. Some dogs even turn on their owners for no apparent reason. We hear of numerous incidences of owners being mauled by their dogs, or their children being killed by the family dog.

Is that acceptable for a human to do? Im sure you know the answer to that. And we dont even accept it from dogs...those dogs will be euthanized rather quickly.

Dog fights are man made things. Dogs fight because they were trained to, or they were severely abused. I bet every single one of those attacks you hear about are provoked by the humans. If you take any animal, including humans, and condition them to fight, they will. And the violent dogs are only euthanized when they are caught.

Also, we accept war. We accept the complete and utter debasement of humans and their lives, and we accept torture. We have laws against it, but that didnt stop the Bush administration from brutally torturing people, and once they were found out, there were people who thought those actions were justified. Our soldiers still torture people, only they wised up and dont let that kind of thing into the light. Do you hear us doing that kind of thing anymore? Yeah, me either.

Im getting a little confused now. I thought we were arguing whether nature provides us humans with the best form of morality???

If you think its perfectly acceptable for humans to establish such hierarchy, and aggressively contend with each other and battle their neighbors, then why do we have laws against such behavior? Why do we have a police force? Why do we put people in jail for violent acts? Is it not because we know that sort of behavior as bad?

We already have a hierarchy that is based on race, status, money, education, and geography. Whether or not those laws work for or against you depends on these factors. You say stealing is morally "bad". Well, look at Linsey Lohan. She stole a $2.5k necklace that she could have paid for a hundred times over and her sentience was reduced to a misdemeanor and she got community service. Any lesser human would have gotten slapped with a huge fine and thrown in prison for 3-5 years.

Or, if you want violence, lets talk about Roman Polanski. He sexually assaulted a 13 year old girl, and then basically fled the country to avoid the charges. He was also the husband of the Manson Family victim, Sharon Tate. Quite a few people speculate that he was involved, either directly or indirectly, in her murder. This man is not in prison, and he has made many, many movies and has received Oscars. When he was arrested in Switzerland, there was such a loud public outcry to release this "brilliant, genius" that he was let free. So much for us "knowing better".

We have laws against a lot of things, that doesnt mean anything. The majority of rapists never face jail time, in fact most will never be reported. Quite a lot of murders go unsolved, and almost all thieves are never caught, esp if they are petty thefts.

mankind is at its worst when we allow animalistic behavior to dominate our actions. Of course we CAN, and many do, behave like animals, killing and pillaging and raping and stealing what doesnt belong to us etc etc etc... but we know that sort of behavior is morally wrong on so many levels.

I certainly dont want to live in a world where its every man for himself and violence is the rule of thumb.

Murdering, pillaging, stealing, even raping are only considered wrong at certain times. For instance, during war, we murder, rape and pillage our enemies and no one bats an eyelash at it. We do it here as well, with our own citizens. Did you hear about the 11-year-old girl who was gang raped in an abandoned trailer house by 18 men, up to as many as 28? There are people, and newspapers, who are saying this girl "got what was coming to her" because she "dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s." How disgusting is that? She was in the 6th grade, and she had to leave the city because she was getting death threats. ELEVEN years old! How is that morally right?

We are already in a world where its dog eat dog. Violence is already the rule of thumb. "If I want something, and I cant get it by civil means, I will just take it" is the mentality humans have all across the world. In fact, civility is only a very thin layer that we have. Once something happens, our "civility" is wiped away. Think of Hurricane Katrina. Once the storm hit, law went out the window and human survival instincts kicked in.

 

[Nisou Kitsune]

As for the OP, I find that humans are detrimental to themselves. Humans are much more violent than any other animal on our planet. Humans slaughter themselves, cause starvation, operate on greed and self interest, and commit crimes that are unheard of in other animal societies. "Religion", in the Big Three sense, has killed, maimed, or caused the complete annihilation of a particular race of humans more than any other single cause. It has been the source of fear and anguish, destruction and detriment for many eons.

To me, nature is the better foundation. Humans would do well to learn the lessons from animals, for they are more civil than we are.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

Do you agree it is a double edged sword?

a sord which is held by greedy capitalisim hand.

 

[Orias]

heard of dog fights? Dogs will kill another dog on command...and not even on command but simply because another dog is walking down the street. Some dogs even turn on their owners for no apparent reason. We hear of numerous incidences of owners being mauled by their dogs, or their children being killed by the family dog.

I was speaking of the wild pack animals and how they interact within their own society or clan.

While your argument does sport some value, we've heard far more stories of rapists and kidnappers pursuing their new fancy.

Some dogs even turn on their owners for no apparent reason

This is a statement also lacks a structured understanding of psychology. Not to mention the impact of human stress compounds far more stress on an animal that can only learn by association.

I'm sure you've heard of Pavlov's dog.

A dog acts with violence when the only thing he knows is violence, but people think that they can treat domestic animals like humans or how they would treat other humans.

Which puts all of the blame on the animal, when the instigation always starts with what the animal knows, how it reacts to certain scenarios, and how it feels towards "greater" (us) beings.

Is that acceptable for a human to do? Im sure you know the answer to that. And we dont even accept it from dogs...those dogs will be euthanized rather quickly.

It is sad that those dogs will be euthanized, its like killing a child for killing someone when they were never told whats "right" and "wrong" in the first place. That tends to be a side effect of expectations though, and fear.

But your right, its far more acceptable for a human to manipulate corporate industry and government, kill and die a martyr and be given 72 virgins in Heaven, march to a fellow brothers door step and tell him what to believe with gun pointed at head, and to condemn fellow man and animal alike without even possessing a fundamental understanding of how they operate.

The essential conclusion is that people who make their mind up about something before knowing the origin, cause, and effect it has on people around them are fools.

Im getting a little confused now. I thought we were arguing whether nature provides us humans with the best form of morality???

We are.

Perhaps this will clarify...

My position is this...nature does provide us with the best form of "morality" because we see what we do to each other, what other animals do to each other. Ergo allowing us to conceive of something greater than us, which allows the means of "right" and "wrong" to exist, because obviously an authorative figure speaks for itself.

Its called delusion.

If you think its perfectly acceptable for humans to establish such hierarchy, and aggressively contend with each other and battle their neighbors, then why do we have laws against such behavior? Why do we have a police force? Why do we put people in jail for violent acts?
Is it not because we know that sort of behavior as bad?

No, its because the authority knows that if people discovered thats how it got its power then they would revolt.

The early Church is a perfect example of this, the only people who knew how to read and write were those members of the church, for they feared the common public's ability to over throw them by mere literate ability.

The saying kind of stands for itself, death clutch. Once the fingers grap the desired item of power, it will never let go unless it is pried from the cold dead grasp.

mankind is at its worst when we allow animalistic behavior to dominate our actions. Of course we CAN, and many do, behave like animals, killing and pillaging and raping and stealing what doesnt belong to us etc etc etc... but we know that sort of behavior is morally wrong on so many levels.

Sigh...you forget that these same animals also bring fruition to our own being.

An animal like an ape that learns sign language? A loyal puppy that licks tears dry?

Your right, those damn animals.

I certainly dont want to live in a world where its every man for himself and violence is the rule of thumb.

Then I wonder what type of world you're living in.