Sarkus said:
Repeatable direct observation is evidence.
Yes – of things that can be validated by repeatable direct observation. Try to prove any historical event this way. Something like God’s love, for instance,
has been corroborated by direct observation and experience, but because it’s not natural, and because it’s not human, it cannot be repeated at will by nature or by people. They experience it, remember it, record it, and those accounts can be believed or disbelieved.
Our morals define what is right and wrong to us.
This is inescapably influenced by the society in which we live.
Society is inescapably influenced by religion.
Hence our morals are inescapably influenced by religion.
It is purely a matter of brainwashing - and is now in a perfectly perpetual cycle that will never be broken.
“Our morals”
do nothing. What you are saying is that people influence each other, and all you are doing is calling this influence “religion” and “society” interchangeably.
We call our definitions of right and wrong “morality”. That “we” is society, so let’s start with your definition of society:
Homo sapiens is not a pack animal in the way dogs are, to my knowledge, but they are also not an animal who prefers isolation. There has been a sense of community throughout our evolutionary development, much as we see in other forms of life.
On the whole it is defined by the majority - whether that is based on morals, ethics, or personal opinion.
So your logic is: morals are defined by majority consensus (i.e. what most
individuals agree to be right or wrong). But here you must clarify, because if it is only
consensus that makes something right or wrong, then the Nazi consensus was perfectly moral. Slavery was perfectly moral. Racism was perfectly moral. Everybody did agree on that, after all. They agreed that the minority who disagreed were wrong. And in cultures where authority isn’t so democratic, the ruler’s personal morality was law. But oh, what a sense of community Atilla the Hun and Osama bin Laden instilled in their people!
Or do you mean global consensus? The “society” of “homo sapiens”? Your “perpetual cycle” is a closed system, and religion is as much part of this as atheism. If you now isolate religion, you are making a moral judgement outside your proposed system. Aren’t we human? Hasn’t homo sapiens been spiritually motivated for the majority of its existence? Historically, evolutionary morality is in the minority. What happens to your definition now? Add up everybody in the world’s personal thoughts and divide by the total? You might as well divide by zero.
I start from the position that God doesn't exist. You start from the point of view that he does. It is meaningless to me and to all others to say that we have forsaken God.
If a person's own ethical and moral code is that different such that he rejects all forms of justice, then yes, he can declare himself innocent.
He will still be judged by the society in which he lives.
And if the society he lives in judges him right, if his personal interest is also their interest, is he right?
And I'm guessing you'll counter and say that those who turn from God will still be judged by God in the same way?
Just on the off-chance that you want to, the difference is that there is direct observable and repeatable evidence of the society, and the laws etc, with which the person will be judged - whereas with God there isn't.
So the analogy is flawed.
Will it even help to repeatedly and directly observe Caligula, Nero, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tsetung, and Pol Pot’s morality? Does it make them morally justified? They weren’t even very religious. What about communism and socialism? If a sense of community is the raison d’etre of morality, then they were moral societies by a large majority. If the Tutsi’s manage the complete genocide of the Hutus, and
end up being the majority, will they have
become right? And I guess prostitution and pornography are moral as well, judging by their popularity. We are, after all, just animals that happen to feel a sense of community.
The laws by which we will be judged by God are just as clear: they all derive from the concepts of unselfish love and perfect holiness. Love God with all your mind, body and soul, and love your fellow man as yourself. Many people, all too often minorities, judge people’s actions by the standard of love. Its benefits are obvious without even having to be directly and repeatedly observe it. Yet no
society judges itself by its standard, because love is not enforceable by us. It’s those who suffer under injustice and hatred who appreciate God’s authority over who is right. In a culture where accepted behaviour was rape, murder, and adultery, Noah still wasn't immoral and Lot wasn't immoral. The majority does not decide morality; God does. But people who live in power and luxury usually see no need for God other than as a political puppet or moral straw man.
You live in a country where the majority of laws happen to come from a Christian-Roman (Western) background. A few hundred years ago you might have used the word “civilization” to describe your particular moral culture. But try to apply your definitions in animistic, non-Christian, or hedonistic cultures. Cultures where America isn’t interested in enforcing its moral highground. Cultures where you‘re only a criminal if you get caught, for instance. Or where justice measures a person’s guilt in dollars. You’ll come out on the other side morally bankrupt, or more likely: dead.
Why wait until you suffer from someone's morality before you admit it's
not relative. Muslim terrorists are either morally justified simply because they believe they are, or they're not.
And so it is, as ever, a matter of faith on your part