Morality Without God

[Diogenes' Dog]

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/cohen.html

The above link was posted in another thread and provides an argument that values such as honesty, truthfulness and loyalty were not provided through divine intervention in the form of revelations from gods, but were in fact a result of social interactions amongst groups tribes and then nations.

Here is the opening paragraph:

"Christianity is what is called a "revealed" religion. That is, God himself revealed that religion to man. In other religions man sought God -- some god -- and eventually found him, or thought he did. In the case of Christianity God sought man and revealed himself to him. The revelation, judging by after events, was not very well done, for although a book made its appearance that was said to have been dictated or inspired by God so that man might know his will, yet ever since mankind has been in some doubt as to what God meant when he said it. Evidently God's way of making himself known by a revelation is not above criticism. There seems a want of sense in giving man a revelation he could not understand. It is like lecturing in Greek to an audience that understands nothing but Dutch."

I couldn't agree more and have probably stated that myself on many occassions. In fact, I submitted that a message from god would have to be not only crystal clear, but also revealed to all equally and unequivocally. That is certainly not the case as is attested in the multitudes of religion and their diametrically opposed messages.

I think the point missed by Mr Cohen is that the purpose of religion is not to make up or even enforce "the rules" but to grow and develop us as ethical beings. As far as Kohlberg's stages of moral development go, he seems to be at stage 4.

This appears to be the stickler with theists as they alude to the ideal that god had already instilled those traits of honesty and truthfulness, since after all, god created men. So, they question the authors claim that those traits WERE a result of agod, long before god had to write it all down.

If so, we are to wonder why rules were then invoked, in the bible and the commandments if those traits were already instilled?

We are also to wonder how animals exhibited similar traits without a bible and a set of commandments?

Rules were invoked in the Bible for the same reason we have a written law today - to maintain a stable society, and to protect the most vulnerable. This is a specifically human achievement. Neither is the case in animal societies, though they may have "similar traits" to us.

 

[cole grey]

But I suppose that without direct, logical, pedantry, as you call it, those being taught would most likely find a inexhaustible variety of interpretations from the mish-mash, how would that be useful?

Ah, this is life, how is life useful? Without these interpretations no real learning takes place, just rote memorization. The difference is between "recycled reverence" and a relationship to religious ideas which will deeply affect one's life.

Which 'lecture series' do you refer?

the metaphor about God's lecture being to people who speak a different language, but can learn if they wish.

Well, a crossword puzzle requires clear and concise answers to vague clues. If you get the wrong answers, nothing fits together.
If we transfer that concept to religions, then it would appear that only one religion may be right and all the others wrong..

Better to transfer the crossword puzzle concept to say - where the religious idea cannot coexist with other ideas it is eventually going to be dropped from the puzzle and a new "word" that fits will have to be used. If your interpretation of the bible, for example, leads you to take upon yourself the role of God and try to control and punish all humans into submission to your interpretation, it will eventually, hopefully, be unable to coexist with the idea of human rights, and die off.

 

[cole grey]

To answer the question about animals -
It isn't important how many animal activities we can anthropomorphize into human-like ethical behaviors. Some of these actions are probably "good" behavior, others merely, coincidence.
The point is - which animals are responsible for their behaviors, and in which way does man become more responsible than a wolf, for example.
A "good" wolf kills a farmer's livestock and eats what it must to survive without getting caught, a "bad" human does the same thing - that is our accepted philosophical construct.
The question is - how did we get that idea?
Can we say religious concepts led to this idea for sure? Not really. We can say that the concepts may have developed as a social order, without religion, just for the sake of human interaction. But as a philosophical idea we must separate ourselves from the animals to become "responsible", or make animals responsible too, humanity chose the former, and the former may or may not have developed from religious ideas about mankind, we don't know. Anyone who says they know is pulling your leg.

 

[(Q)]

I think the point missed by Mr Cohen is that the purpose of religion is not to make up or even enforce "the rules" but to grow and develop us as ethical beings.

It would have actually been a great achievement for mankind had those men who wrote the bible simply stated that they observed animals, they observed other people and came to an agreement both shared similar morality traits, hence they developed a code of conduct based on the positive reinforcements that help make societies prosper.

Instead, they wrote it was the word of a god. That is the crux of the biscuit.

Rules were invoked in the Bible for the same reason we have a written law today - to maintain a stable society, and to protect the most vulnerable. This is a specifically human achievement. Neither is the case in animal societies, though they may have "similar traits" to us.

Then why say it is the word of a god?

 

[(Q)]

Ah, this is life, how is life useful? Without these interpretations no real learning takes place, just rote memorization. The difference is between "recycled reverence" and a relationship to religious ideas which will deeply affect one's life.

But it doesn't answer any questions about our environment. We learn nothing about the world around us without asking hard questions and doing the rigor to get the answers.

It might be great to sit around and chat about over a coffee, perhaps.

the metaphor about God's lecture being to people who speak a different language, but can learn if they wish.

Ah yes, thanks. I was actually wondering when that was going to rear its head. And it still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that I can grasp. I wish somebody would explain it to me.

Better to transfer the crossword puzzle concept to say - where the religious idea cannot coexist with other ideas it is eventually going to be dropped from the puzzle and a new "word" that fits will have to be used. If your interpretation of the bible, for example, leads you to take upon yourself the role of God and try to control and punish all humans into submission to your interpretation, it will eventually, hopefully, be unable to coexist with the idea of human rights, and die off.

Isn't that the problem in the first place? Interpretation?

The primary objective of a single religion, beit a god to rule over all mankind, is the need for clarity and understanding, equally and unequivocally to all mankind, a message instilled within us all, along with the free will to decide ones destiny.

Such a religion does not exist.

 

[cole grey]

But it doesn't answer any questions about our environment. We learn nothing about the world around us without asking hard questions and doing the rigor to get the answers.

How can you figure out whether humans learned our (sometimes) ethical behavior from animals? You can't. It is called conjecture, and it will be good "coffee table" talk, and nothing more, if we are going to hold it to standards of evidence.

The primary objective of a single religion, beit a god to rule over all mankind, is the need for clarity and understanding, equally and unequivocally to all mankind, a message instilled within us all, along with the free will to decide ones destiny.
Such a religion does not exist.

One ruling religion shouldn't exist until it is clear that God is doing the ruling, which is going to take a big enough series of the largest scale miracles, visions and revelations, that it would make all other revelations combined look as authoritative as the time old uncle Louie saw jesus in his yogurt.
Perhaps we should take a clue from the fact that God didn't want one ruling religion right now, or God would have made it clearer to us, and we can all just stop trying to have one. And athiests should stop trying to turn their personal ideas into a hegemony too, hello.

 

[davewhite04]

Then, before we move on, please explain what exactly is the use of the bible, if not to pass on gods word, which should include codes of conduct?

The Bible ultimately is a book. However it's argubly a miracle in itself as to how it evolved through time. It has over forty authors and was written over 1200+ years, yet if you read it, it almost sounds as if it's only one person that's doing the writing.

The Bible illustrates in a very simple fashion(not to be mistaken as dumb) how God created the universe. It contains laws that are still used as the guidepost in society today. It contains stories of mans struggle with God and life in ancient times. Prophecies are written in certain books of the Bible also. Geneologies are also written throughout the Bible, they act as a kind of spine to the book. Towards the end of the Bible(The New Testament) four gospels are written about the promised Messiah(that had been prophecised thousands of years earlier), His name was Jesus of Nazareth. He caused all sorts of problems with the religious leaders of the time, mainly because He didn't play by their corrupted rules. He came to spread a message of peace between God and man, He came to be heard, and is still heard all across the world today. almost 2000 years later.

The Bible is a religious text to some, but a Holy text to others. It is also a free gift from God to you.

 

[KennyJC]

Towards the end of the Bible(The New Testament) four gospels are written about the promised Messiah(that had been prophecised thousands of years earlier), His name was Jesus of Nazareth

How is this a prophecy? Is it because this man who claimed (or was thought by others) to be the son of God simply gained more followers than all the others who claimed the same thing?

 

[Sarkus]

The Bible ultimately is a book. However it's argubly a miracle in itself as to how it evolved through time.

LOL! How quick the religious are to spot a "miracle"!

Man has evolved over the past millions of years! It's a miracle!!!

It has over forty authors and was written over 1200+ years, yet if you read it, it almost sounds as if it's only one person that's doing the writing.

Get serious! It sounds as if it's only one person because you are reading A repeatedly EDITED AND TRANSLATED VERSION! Time has removed the differences you seek. Go back to the original texts and see if they are similar! Oh, that's right, different languages!!

It contains laws that are still used as the guidepost in society today.

No - it detailed laws that were ALREADY in place at the time, laws that are, on the whole, based on COMMON SENSE for those that want to live in a peaceful society. It is certainly not the origin of those laws.

It contains stories of mans struggle with God and life in ancient times.

Just as many other works of fiction do. Lord of the Rings even describes a realm that has, through a miracle, vanished off the face of our history books!! Go figure.

Prophecies are written in certain books of the Bible also.

Are these prophecies that have been fulfilled? If so - please point them out.
If they are merely prophecies of future events then they are currently no more than guesswork - any more than if I was to now say: "At the end of time, the world will get hot, and twenty-seven people of diminutive height will rise from the ground and bake a cake!"

Geneologies are also written throughout the Bible, they act as a kind of spine to the book.

As there are in many other fictional books.

The Bible is a religious text to some, but a Holy text to others.

And a work of fiction to others.

It is also a free gift from God to you.

It cost me £17.99!!

 

[davewhite04]

How is this a prophecy? Is it because this man who claimed (or was thought by others) to be the son of God simply gained more followers than all the others who claimed the same thing?

Let us compare someone else to Jesus, who did you have in mind?

 

[davewhite04]

Man has evolved over the past millions of years! It's a miracle!!!

Evidence please.

No - it detailed laws that were ALREADY in place at the time, laws that are, on the whole, based on COMMON SENSE for those that want to live in a peaceful society. It is certainly not the origin of those laws.

And I suppose common sense just appears out of thin air? Evidence please.

Just as many other works of fiction do. Lord of the Rings even describes a realm that has, through a miracle, vanished off the face of our history books!! Go figure.

Is there one place in the Lord of the Rings that actually exists outside of your imagination? Provide some evidence.

Are these prophecies that have been fulfilled? If so - please point them out.
If they are merely prophecies of future events then they are currently no more than guesswork - any more than if I was to now say: "At the end of time, the world will get hot, and twenty-seven people of diminutive height will rise from the ground and bake a cake!"

That's your understanding of them, doesn't make your statement true however.

As there are in many other fictional books.

Such as? Evidence please.

It cost me £17.99!!

Get a refund, as I imagine it's probably still in new condition.

Bah, just seen your description "Seeker of Evidence" does this mean you don't have any?

 

[Sarkus]

Evidence please.

Start here, if you want.

And I suppose common sense just appears out of thin air? Evidence please.

No - you need to provide evidence that what you are claiming is true - that the Bible created those laws - that those laws were not already in place. You are the one making the (IMO, ludicrous) claim - and thus you need to support it.

Is there one place in the Lord of the Rings that actually exists outside of your imagination? Provide some evidence.

I already said - there was a miracle that wiped it from the face of our history. No evidence exists except in the one collection of books. But I still believe Gandalf existed. Based on no actual evidence, though.
Sound familiar?

That's your understanding of them, doesn't make your statement true however.

I do believe you're beginning to learn something!

Such as? Evidence please.

Silmarillion.

Get a refund, as I imagine it's probably still in new condition.

It's a useful reference book - like the "STAR WARS EPISODE ONE" INCREDIBLE CROSS-SECTIONS reference book next to it.

Bah, just seen your description "Seeker of Evidence" does this mean you don't have any?

No - it means I don't yet have it all.

 

[davewhite04]

Start here, if you want.

I was half expecting that. I'll discuss that issue again, another time though.

No - you need to provide evidence that what you are claiming is true - that the Bible created those laws - that those laws were not already in place. You are the one making the (IMO, ludicrous) claim - and thus you need to support it.

You're the one making the claim that another source founded them laws, correct?

Just to cut out the possibility of confusion:

I said:


It contains laws that are still used as the guidepost in society today.


You said:

It is certainly not the origin of those laws.

I already said - there was a miracle that wiped it from the face of our history. No evidence exists except in the one collection of books. But I still believe Gandalf existed. Based on no actual evidence, though.
Sound familiar?

Not really, for a start there's no bearded, white horse riding wizards in the Bible.

I do believe you're beginning to learn something!

Thanks.

Silmarillion.

That book is based on an imaginary world of J.R.R Tolkien, the Bible is based on this world. Can you understand the difference?

It's a useful reference book - like the "STAR WARS EPISODE ONE" INCREDIBLE CROSS-SECTIONS reference book next to it.

Useful for what in your mind?

No - it means I don't yet have it all.

Keep searching.

 

[KennyJC]

Let us compare someone else to Jesus, who did you have in mind?

Are you trying to say Jesus is the only person who claimed to be... or has been labelled the son of God?

 

[Sarkus]

Not really, for a start there's no bearded, white horse riding wizards in the Bible.

Just a bearded bloke doing magic... oh, sorry, "miracles".

And how do you know Jesus didn't ride a white horse?

That book is based on an imaginary world of J.R.R Tolkien, the Bible is based on this world. Can you understand the difference?

Who says its the "imaginary" world - who's to say that it isn't divine intervention that guided his hand to proclaim the Truth to those that are prepared to listen? And that "Elvish" is actually the tongue of the Angels.

But if you want me to start using another example? Okay - what about "Le Morte D'Arthur" - Thomas Malory.
Very much based on this world.
Very much fictional.
Very much unprovable - like the Bible.
Place names are real (e.g. Tintagil) but this lends no credence to the subject matter.
Or do you think it does?

Useful for what in your mind?

Reference. That's what a "reference" book is often used for.

Keep searching.

I will, thanks, as I don't think I'll take the "God did it" option.

 

[davewhite04]

Are you trying to say Jesus is the only person who claimed to be... or has been labelled the son of God?

No, I asked you a question.

 

[davewhite04]

Just a bearded bloke doing magic... oh, sorry, "miracles".

And how do you know Jesus didn't ride a white horse?

I do recall the Bible mentioning Him riding a donkey but not a horse. Did Gandalf ride a donkey?

Who says its the "imaginary" world - who's to say that it isn't divine intervention that guided his hand to proclaim the Truth to those that are prepared to listen? And that "Elvish" is actually the tongue of the Angels.

But if you want me to start using another example? Okay - what about "Le Morte D'Arthur" - Thomas Malory.
Very much based on this world.
Very much fictional.
Very much unprovable - like the Bible.
Place names are real (e.g. Tintagil) but this lends no credence to the subject matter.
Or do you think it does?

If you want to believe in the Lord of the Rings world, fair enough.

As for your other, perhaps better examples, do any of them talk about a unknown place that was discovered after the book was written?

Reference. That's what a "reference" book is often used for.

Reference for what?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

It would have actually been a great achievement for mankind had those men who wrote the bible simply stated that they observed animals, they observed other people and came to an agreement both shared similar morality traits, hence they developed a code of conduct based on the positive reinforcements that help make societies prosper.

Instead, they wrote it was the word of a god. That is the crux of the biscuit.

Well, I'm not sure that's the business of the Bible - more of behavioural zoologists and anthropologists. The Bible is really only an ancient map to point the way towards God. After that it is the work of "grace" to encourage our development as ethical beings (as in Kohlberg). That is not to say that atheists cannot also have a highly developed ethical sense.

Then why say it is the word of a god?

God was the central authority and protector of the Isrealites so it made the Law special. Perhaps YHWH was also the inspiration for the idea. Certainly he was if you believe there is some historical basis for the Moses receiving the 10 commandments story.

Today we in the West are more skeptical, so we have to appeal to "Democracy" & "Justice" & even "Patriotism" to make our law "Holy". People still get executed to uphold the Law, so it's got to be valued.

 

[KennyJC]

No, I asked you a question.

Fair enough. I am the son of God.

There, that's one. There's Hercules, Haile Selassie, Gilgamesh, Aeneas, Hong Xiuquan.

Well that's the result of a quick Google search. I am sure there are many millions more that weren't quite so successful in finding followers/believers.

It's a bit like prophets actually. Someone is only called a prophet when they find enough believers/followers, it has nothing to do with them being an actual prophet by its literal definition.

How many "prophets" have existed? Many more than what you are aware of. What about Mohammed? What makes you so sure Mohammed isn't the true prophet? It's all very subjective, and fools like you simply follow the one you were indoctrinated with first with no regard for rationality.

 

[MarcAC]

Unless you can show me where you asked me a question, my statement stands.

Wow...

I'm more enjoying not showing it to you simply because of the obvious fact that it is there for all to see (except you of course).

But yes, the statement shall stand in your head.

Sorry you feel that way.

Feel...

My dear friend, it is more a lack of feeling. You know, like atheism? Lack of belief?

It's been a nice humorous run though... clearly your only interest is to waste people's time.

If I were you I'd get serious... the Dropcash thing is climbing rather slowly... you might be "out of a job" soon.

I've wasted enough time on this thread... have fun dave, cole and the rest... are you all on vacation?