Curious: Where do atheists get their moral code?

[KitNyx]

A couple of points...

Jenyar - you stated in the beginning of this thread that once man began to sin, God took notice and acted accordingly. Does that mean that God is not omnisceint? An omnisceint being would have known man wan going to sin before man existed. It is absurd...no it is contradictory to state that an omnisceint being could have any change of mind.

MRC_Hans - FYI - The other reasoning beings you referred to were not pre-hominids, they were actual hominids (I am assuming you were referring to Australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens).

Here is an interesting bit about the evolution of morality:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm

My problem with Biblical morality is that it contradicts itself.
...turn the other cheek...
...an eye for an eye...
...do not judge lest you be judged...
I've only listed three from the Bible, but they all state different ideas on how peoples actions should be viewed. If we begin to pick and choose what we want to believe and what is wrong in the Bible, how can we be certain any of it is true. In philosophy, all you need is one negating example to refute any give premise. In my opinion this should be the case in religion as well, but peoples faith tends to hold more sway than my opinion, so they'll believe what they will.

In my link above the author describes a scenario in which a moral instict can come to be...
"A way of envisioning the hypothetical earliest stages of moral evolution is provided by game theory, particularly the solutions to the famous Prisoner's Dilemma. Consider the following typical scenario of the dilemma. Two gang members have been arrested for murder and are being questioned separately. The evidence against them is strong but not irrefutable. The first gang member believes that if he turns state's witness, he will be granted immunity and his partner will be sentenced to life in prison. But he is also aware that his partner has the same option, and that if both of them exercise it, neither will be granted immunity. That is the dilemma. Will the two gang members independently defect, so that both take the hard fall? They will not, because they agreed in advance to remain silent if caught. By doing so, both hope to be convicted on a lesser charge or escape punishment altogether. Criminal gangs have turned this principle of calculation into an ethical precept: Never rat on another member; always be a stand-up guy. Honor does exist among thieves. The gang is a society of sorts; its code is the same as that of a captive soldier in wartime, obliged to give only name, rank, and serial number." - Edward O. Wilson

This is an example of how moral instincts can evolve, Pray provide me with evidence that our moral instincts were "created".

- KitNyx

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by KitNyx
Jenyar - you stated in the beginning of this thread that once man began to sin, God took notice and acted accordingly. Does that mean that God is not omnisceint? An omnisceint being would have known man wan going to sin before man existed. It is absurd...no it is contradictory to state that an omnisceint being could have any change of mind.

Maybe because you define omniscient as the Greek philosophers defined it, which is not how God revealed himself to be. It is probably more accurate to state that before something has happened, there is nothing to be known. "Sin" is probaly an overrated word in this context. God knew that some aspects necessary for creation would be destructive in the wrong hands (or more accurately, the wrong minds). The knowledge of evil was something that existed because God had it, but not something people were supposed to have. That was why God warned Adam&Eve about the dangers of it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking God predestined us to sin. Even a God who has unlimited knowledge is able to direct his actions to handle new situations. The nature of creation is of course not "new" to God, so His ability to handle whatever comes along cannot be suspect, but our reactionto and relationship with God is dependent on us, not Him.

The crucial mistake is to underestimate our autonomy and control over our own behaviour. When you lift your hand, it is you doing it, not God - likewise when you sin against Him. God knows your limits and your thoughts, so you can't act "outside" his knowledge - but that doesn't take away from your freedom in any way.

My problem with Biblical morality is that it contradicts itself.
...turn the other cheek...
...an eye for an eye...
...do not judge lest you be judged...

Could it be because you haven't tried to understand it? I'll paint a the picture for you: the law of the land was "an eye for an eye". You didn't need God or religion to understand such justice - it was formulated in the Hummurabi code. Like so many state laws today that have nothing to do with the Bible, people lived by it whether they believed in God or not.

But God demanded a higher morality, because His law extends to love. Justice without love does not reflect God's attitude towards his people, and He wanted them to understand that. One way was to let them know that He alone had the authority to judge fairly. "Do not judge lest you be judged by the same law" makes you think twice whether you should be the one to "cast the first stone" - are you so sure you are "right" and someone else is "wrong"? So God puts a brake one the accepted "eye for an eye" morality of the day. As the Romans took power, and the justice system (which we still use today) became more complex, Jesus goes further:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt.5)

Following the law didn't make you more humane, at best it made you guilty - a higher morality was required: a law with heart. God wants us to exercise free will responsibly, not just inhibit it because we are afraid of what other might do with it. Laws can only simulate responsibility, but can't ensure it. What kind of mentality could ensure that it is effective?:

32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. (Luke 6)

The law isn't strong enough to ensure justice, it can only try and protect it. The real emphasis is on our relationship with God, because it is He who will ultimately judge. This is a law that nobody would mind to be judged by, because it shows your character is one of peace, not only your actions because you were obliged. This reinforces that you have a moral responsibility towards others that extends past imposed laws, but also gives a justification:

35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

I've only listed three from the Bible, but they all state different ideas on how peoples actions should be viewed. If we begin to pick and choose what we want to believe and what is wrong in the Bible, how can we be certain any of it is true. In philosophy, all you need is one negating example to refute any give premise. In my opinion this should be the case in religion as well, but peoples faith tends to hold more sway than my opinion, so they'll believe what they will.

The problem is that you can't just pick and choose - different things are applicable under different situations. The purpose of the Bible is not to be "just" internally consistent - but consistent, full stop. It presents a consistent way of thinking - in a consistent relationship with God. If your anchor is in the right place, you can swing around quite a bit before you start running into trouble - but you still won't get anywhere without climbing. Philosophy is more conserned with where axactly you are, than where you are going. But refuting something now that might be valid in the future serves no purpose.

"...Criminal gangs have turned this principle of calculation into an ethical precept: Never rat on another member; always be a stand-up guy. Honor does exist among thieves. The gang is a society of sorts; its code is the same as that of a captive soldier in wartime, obliged to give only name, rank, and serial number." - Edward O. Wilson

What about not becoming criminals in the first place? You see why I said that the law is only there to be bent, if "morality" means nothing more than regulation for personal benefit. The Bible's position is that such a morality is not good enough, because it doesn't accomplish what the law is trying to accomplish: self-regulation and moral responsibility. Otherwise the laws will only have to increase to close up the loopholes, and no progress will be possible. What this example illustrates is that unselfishness ("honour") is a way forward, but it's powerless if you only apply it to other people.

This is an example of how moral instincts can evolve, Pray provide me with evidence that our moral instincts were "created".

This kind of calculation isn't natural "evolution" - it is just "reasoning for benefit". If moral instincts truly evolved, there would be no possibility of "backsliding", and no need to compensate for their ineffectiveness by making laws, would there?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jenyar tiptoes through the tulips

Originally posted by Jenyar
----------
Maybe because you define omniscient as the Greek philosophers defined it, which is not how God revealed himself to be. It is probably more accurate to state that before something has happened, there is nothing to be known.
----------
(Jenyar, you're dancing again!)
----------
"Sin" is probaly an overrated word in this context.
----------
(Well, how convenient, Jenyar!)
----------
God knew that some aspects necessary for creation would be destructive in the wrong hands (or more accurately, the wrong minds). The knowledge of evil was something that existed because God had it, but not something people were supposed to have. That was why God warned Adam&Eve about the dangers of it.
----------
(I thought God created Eden a paradise? Did God make a mistake? The Bible clearly says Eden was a paradise. Then you say "some aspects necessary for creation would be destructive in the wrong hands (or more accurately, the wrong minds)." If God created a paradise, why would God (if he was the creator and loving God), want to add some evil (destructive aspects) in his creation? Doesn't make any sense! God created A&E in paradise but "warned them about the dangers of it." How could paradise have dangers? This God is evil. The Serpent told them the truth. Where does your God come from? He sounds like a mad scientist, or worse, like Igor. Since there were multiple gods at the time, which God is this that would do such a thing?)
----------
Don't make the mistake of thinking God predestined us to sin. Even a God who has unlimited knowledge is able to direct his actions to handle new situations. The nature of creation is of course not "new" to God, so His ability to handle whatever comes along cannot be suspect, but our reactionto and relationship with God is dependent on us, not Him.
----------
(An all-knowing, all-loving creator God did not create paradise with pitfalls.)
----------
The crucial mistake is to underestimate our autonomy and control over our own behaviour. When you lift your hand, it is you doing it, not God - likewise when you sin against Him. God knows your limits and your thoughts, so you can't act "outside" his knowledge - but that doesn't take away from your freedom in any way.
----------
(You are right on this point: We should never underestimate our autonomy and control over our own behavior. After all, God created A&E like gods, but then he selfishly took their godship away!)
----------
But God demanded a higher morality, because His law extends to love.
----------
(God had total control over A&E and their actions. He was a jealous God--jealous of his own Creation!)
The problem is that you can't just pick and choose - different things are applicable under different situations.
----------
(This shouldn't be. If God is omniscient, all actions should have comparable reactions regardless of the situation.)
----------
The purpose of the Bible is not to be "just" internally consistent - but consistent, full stop. It presents a consistent way of thinking - in a consistent relationship with God.
----------
(You contradict yourself. If the Bible was true and without error, it would be consistent throughout, but it does not.)
----------
If your anchor is in the right place, you can swing around quite a bit before you start running into trouble - but you still won't get anywhere without climbing. Philosophy is more conserned with where axactly you are, than where you are going. But refuting something now that might be valid in the future serves no purpose.
----------
(Dancing, again.)
----------
What about not becoming criminals in the first place? You see why I said that the law is only there to be bent, if "morality" means nothing more than regulation for personal benefit. The Bible's position is that such a morality is not good enough, because it doesn't accomplish what the law is trying to accomplish: self-regulation and moral responsibility. Otherwise the laws will only have to increase to close up the loopholes, and no progress will be possible. What this example illustrates is that unselfishness ("honour") is a way forward, but it's powerless if you only apply it to other people.
----------
(If the omniscient God created paradise, there should be no problems, disobeying, sins, etc. God created Adam a perfect being. Why would he allow his perfect being to be seduced, sin, and hide from his creator? God's creation (human race) should not need rules and regulations if it was the One True God, the positive force of energy (let's talk physics, here, not religion), then the human race would STILL be a perfect creation. Perhaps we abused our free will.)
----------
This kind of calculation isn't natural "evolution" - it is just "reasoning for benefit". If moral instincts truly evolved, there would be no possibility of "backsliding", and no need to compensate for their ineffectiveness by making laws, would there?
----------
(So, what do you think happened during our natural evolution that caused this "backsliding" you mentioned? Man-made religion, man-made laws, man-made hell.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

A typical reply, when inconsistencies in the Bible are pointed out is "You can't just pick and choose, you must see the Bible in its full context."

There are two problems with this:

1) The very same people are quite happy to pick and choose between scientific findings when they want to argue against abiogenesis and natural evolution.

2) All flavors of Cristianity (even fundies) do just that: Pick and choose in the Bible, using only the parts that fit their dogmas and cultural environment. Simple example: The Bible specifically prescribes stoning as punishment for certain trespasses, yet even rabiate bible-thumbers rarely advocate stoning these days.

Hans

 

[Jenyar]

Science grows from resolving conflicting theories. So does knowledge from the Bible. Simply pointing out "contradictions" is short-sighted for theists and non-theists alike. In both cases, one is advised to hold on to the truth and let go of the rest. Theory and interpretation must remain provisional. The problem is while science only covers observable natural phenomena, the Bible covers human experience in all its manifestations. You can't apply empirical science to any kind of history or experience and expect to come up with an equation that "explains it". The "truth" in an experiential context is much more dependent on wisdom, than undeniable facts in a scientific environment.

The laws were there for a reason, to enforce a strict justice. The Jews made over six hundred laws derived from scripture, and thought they would be justified if they lived that way. But that's missing the point. The law was supposed to point out "right" and "wrong" and prescribe suitable punishment. Stoning was suitable then, but it isn't anymore. The law is there for the benefit of society, not the other way around.

The law is provisional with the intention that it accomplishes something. If laws don't instill a morality of responsibility they are useless. You can follow them until kingdom come and they will never achieve what they are supposed to unless people become law-abiding. Jesus always preached thinking further than the law. "Let the person who is innocent cast the first stone". The OT wasn't "made redundant" as some accuse Christians of doing; it was given meaning.

"Stoning" is just a euphemism (sarcasm intended) for the death penalty.