[Stealth3si]

Having recently read 'the book' by Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), I want to bring up a very interesting point he made.

All the 'philosophical stuff' aside (theism opposed to naturalism, what is truth, etc.), I've heard many arguments that atheism seems to provide no literal, universal moral standards, that everything is relative and that even the mass murder of Hitler can be justified. (hooray for Godwin's Law) but Dawkins seems to bring up an interesting point about this subject in his book: He says that if you would literally follow the moral code from the bible, you'd find lots of contradicting verses. Above all, you'd have to stone your children for being disobedient and decapitate anyone who commits adultery, to name some examples. Would you really have to follow those codes? Basically, the point Dawkins wants to make is that "Christians are the ones who decide which verses are right and which ones are cruel. Therefore, we are using a moral standard independent of the bible."

According to the book, it is the exact same moral standard as the one atheists follow. It appears to me that Dawkins not only believes "evolution is true and that it is in fact evolution which brought us a moral standard" by which we today detest both Hitler's practices and atrocities recorded in the bible but also believes that religion from an atheistic, sociological point of view provides a great way to enforce a moral code as it exploits the human tendency to believe in the supernatural. Morality did not come from religion, religion came from morality. This is simply my observations of his book's "thesis," not that I believe it.

In short, my point is that not only Dawkins is implying the following, but if I profess the claim:
1.) "that because the moral standards spawned a variety of religions, not the other way around, (which means that being an atheist does not mean that one automatically abandons all morality,)"
2.) "that since it is also probably, or supposedly, true that atheists have somewhat looser moral codes than religious people, (since they are not bound to the strict, 'clan-like' rules of a religious group,)" and
3.) "for the supposed reason that this however does not mean that an atheist will gladly approve Hitler's mass murdering,"

..that I should altogether disregard scripture's view of morality and take my cues from an evolutionist who is not a biblical scholar of any kind???

Seems to me a weak basis for any moral decision.

Have anyone any thoughts they'd like to share on this?

[JerryLove]

What's the difference between the laws in the Bible and the laws in state statute?

The ones in state statute don't declare "morality". But that's about it. Both say "this is OK and that is not".

And then, everyone has their own personal view on which of those is right and wrong. Why most Christians believe that they are excused from stoning idoloters, and why few people hate file-sharers.

The fact that morals come from our brains, and not from some text, doesn't make them any more or less real. The claim that personal morals cannoy be imposed on others is, hypocritically, a moral claim (and therefore not universal).

I abhore behavior I find abhorent.

[Stealth3si]

Have you read "God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist" by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong? I think it's an excellent topic on the subject of morality. Both sides, IMO, offer very convincing arguments.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

Have you read "God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist" by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong? I think it's an excellent topic on the subject of morality. Both sides, IMO, offer very convincing arguments.

No. I've read no books on the subject at all.

[danlong]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

Having recently read 'the book' by Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), I want to bring up a very interesting point he made.

All the 'philosophical stuff' aside (theism opposed to naturalism, what is truth, etc.), I've heard many arguments that atheism seems to provide no literal, universal moral standards, that everything is relative and that even the mass murder of Hitler can be justified. (hooray for Godwin's Law) but Dawkins seems to bring up an interesting point about this subject in his book: He says that if you would literally follow the moral code from the bible, you'd find lots of contradicting verses. Above all, you'd have to stone your children for being disobedient and decapitate anyone who commits adultery, to name some examples. Would you really have to follow those codes? Basically, the point Dawkins wants to make is that "Christians are the ones who decide which verses are right and which ones are cruel. Therefore, we are using a moral standard independent of the bible."

According to the book, it is the exact same moral standard as the one atheists follow. It appears to me that Dawkins not only believes "evolution is true and that it is in fact evolution which brought us a moral standard" by which we today detest both Hitler's practices and atrocities recorded in the bible but also believes that religion from an atheistic, sociological point of view provides a great way to enforce a moral code as it exploits the human tendency to believe in the supernatural. Morality did not come from religion, religion came from morality. This is simply my observations of his book's "thesis," not that I believe it.

In short, my point is that not only Dawkins is implying the following, but if I profess the claim:
1.) "that because the moral standards spawned a variety of religions, not the other way around, (which means that being an atheist does not mean that one automatically abandons all morality,)"
2.) "that since it is also probably, or supposedly, true that atheists have somewhat looser moral codes than religious people, (since they are not bound to the strict, 'clan-like' rules of a religious group,)" and
3.) "for the supposed reason that this however does not mean that an atheist will gladly approve Hitler's mass murdering,"

..that I should altogether disregard scripture's view of morality and take my cues from an evolutionist who is not a biblical scholar of any kind???

Seems to me a weak basis for any moral decision.

Have anyone any thoughts they'd like to share on this?

Actually, Dawkins, along with the other Bible contradictions postulates, miss a basic understanding. The Bible is a testament or witness of two events, the first Judeao and the second Judeao/Christian.

The first with rules and regulations to set them apart, a unique people, from the surrounding cultures to more aptly focus on the strength, power and sovereignty of God, his mercy and the unsatisfying sacrifice of the lamb. It contains the history of that people and it's failure to comply with the Covenant until the coming of the Messiah, or the Lamb that fulfills the sacrifice.

The second is a witness of the coming of the Messiah, the final sacrifice, and the benevolence of God. The picking and choosing isn't there simply because the first Covenant, with it's rules and regulations, was satisfied and no longer legally binding. So there is no stoning of children ( though sometimes wishful thinking as teenagers come to mind) no chopping off of heads, no killing sheep.

Now, I protest your inclusion of #2. Atheism is a religion and they are a religious bunch, if you have any questions then come visit the freedom from religion foundation headquarters up here. They have regular religious meetings, religious songs, even religious icons and a godhead, if you will. The other poster may protest, but these are the appearances and facts. You can visit their website and find how religiously they pursue removing Christian faith tenets, or any appearance of such and so disqualify themselves as nothing more than one religion persecuting the faith tenets of others.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by danlong

Actually, Dawkins, along with the other Bible contradictions postulates, miss a basic understanding. The Bible is a testament or witness of two events, the first Judeao and the second Judeao/Christian.

Which would likely be explained by Dawkins by referencing back to his previous claim: that you choose which parts to apply and which to ratoinalize away.

Now, I protest your inclusion of #2. Atheism is a religion and they are a religious bunch, if you have any questions then come visit the freedom from religion foundation headquarters up here. They have regular religious meetings, religious songs, even religious icons and a godhead, if you will.

By that logic, the Mikey Mouse club is a religion.

The lack of a belief in a god is not a religion.

The other poster may protest, but these are the appearances and facts. You can visit their website and find how religiously they pursue removing Christian faith tenets, or any appearance of such and so disqualify themselves as nothing more than one religion persecuting the faith tenets of others.

It's an equivocation of "religion", that makes janitors who "religiously remove grime" a religion.

IOW, you can stick the adjitive "religiously" wherever you like. Putting a pig in a tux doesn't mean it's not a pig.

[danlong]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Which would likely be explained by Dawkins by referencing back to his previous claim: that you choose which parts to apply and which to ratoinalize(spell) away.

I've not accused you of higher intelligence so you're excused. Who's rationalizing what? I've just laid out in primer for you the answer to Dawkins. It's the error and empty argument you continue to use. Trying to use this "whole bound moral code" application is apples and oranges. Read Hebrews, it's an eye opener.

By that logic, the Mikey Mouse club is a religion.

Interesting, that's the exact reference I've been making about, you all.

IOW, you can stick the adjitive(spell) "religiously" wherever you like. Putting a pig in a tux doesn't mean it's not a pig.

That's right, it's a pig in a tux!

You all, and you in particular continue to push your religion down the throats of those of Christian tenet faiths, continually using flawed science and conclusions As I point out in other posts. Fancy gadgets and technology does not make science. I'm a dials, gages and blinking lights guy from way back, but that doesn't make measurements more authoritative. Perhaps we need a topic "measurements Lab 101" . In the same token, taking and changing the context of the above brings no relevance to Dawkin's claim, unless of course you're arrested for stoning your wife and her lover and make that claim...........Come to think of it, I believe Henry VIII did that, but then, again, his WAS a religion of convenience.....

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No. I've read no books on the subject at all.

So you agree with Dawkin's "morality lecture?"

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

So you agree with Dawkin's "morality lecture?"

I don't know. I may have heard it paraphrased.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

All the 'philosophical stuff' aside (theism opposed to naturalism, what is truth, etc.), I've heard many arguments that atheism seems to provide no literal, universal moral standards, that everything is relative and that even the mass murder of Hitler can be justified.

I'd run pretty far from this claim. Nietzsche, for instance, offered a very well-developed atheistic ethic. (The modern philosophers were all trying to do it but they needed some sort of deism to get where they wanted to go.) What is true is that you can't replicate a Christian "ethics" on non-Christian foundations, and when most people talk about "morals" they're thinking of it in terms ultimately built on Christianity. But of course this is only really a problem for a certain brand of humanism.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

He says that if you would literally follow the moral code from the bible, you'd find lots of contradicting verses. Above all, you'd have to stone your children for being disobedient and decapitate anyone who commits adultery, to name some examples. Would you really have to follow those codes?

He's right that his opponents don't take the Bible particularly seriously. But if he's attacking the core of the Christian theological tradition (which he's not; he's just bullying on Joel Osteen and Jerry Falwell) then he's just showing that he's never bothered to learn anything about Christian theology (which he not only admits but counts as a point of pride). He's reading the Bible as if it's composed of timeless moral imperatives, but while that's certainly a common Anglo-American way of looking at the Bible it has more to do with Kant or Thomas Jefferson than Moses or Jesus.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

In short, my point is that not only Dawkins is implying the following, but if I profess the claim:
1.) "that because the moral standards spawned a variety of religions, not the other way around, (which means that being an atheist does not mean that one automatically abandons all morality,)"

This is certainly a way he would likely read things but it doesn't follow the history of religions or ethics. This is built on the Enlightenment view that religion is really just morality, but morality as a discrete sphere of human existence is an Enlightenment construction, so obviously it can't have been the pre-existent sociological material that religions (another Enlightenment construct) were then composed of.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

]The fact that morals come from our brains, and not from some text, doesn't make them any more or less real.

Neither of these characterizations is particularly accurate. Dawkins's morals don't come "from his brain," as if he deduced morality through a couple of axioms and four syllogisms. Similarly, the Bible is not at all a list of dos and don'ts, basically a laundry list that we take to be "morality."

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The claim that personal morals cannoy be imposed on others is, hypocritically, a moral claim (and therefore not universal).

It's more that without some sort of transcendent reference point you lose the "ought"-ness behind any moral judgment. Yes, you still have preferences and pleasures (so may you've got an "ought" of prudence -- if you want to be or feel nice, do this) but there's no "ought" there.

[PartTimeLurker]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

It's more that without some sort of transcendent reference point you lose the "ought"-ness behind any moral judgment. Yes, you still have preferences and pleasures (so may you've got an "ought" of prudence -- if you want to be or feel nice, do this) but there's no "ought" there.

But there is still an "ought"-ness, though! I have yet to meet somebody - anybody - who does not have a sense of moral imperative. A sense of justice or a "fair go". An intrinsic compassion for someone in pain. A desire to make those they care about happy. You know what I mean.

It may be often be skewed, and it may sometimes be horribly imbalanced, but outside of real physical conditions (eg: sociopathy, etc.), no one feels nothing morally. It is when you try to philosophise and theologise this experience that causes trouble.

I suppose that people can (and do) point to that as a perfect example of Romans 1's "the law is written on their hearts" concept. But personally, I think it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary and sociological point of view - how else could we survive as a species, and evolve any kind of society, without an "in-built" mechanism that binds us together.

Maybe a comparison will help. A wolf for, example, lives in a pack society that is governed by a set of societal codes. The biggest and meanest is the boss; you don't sleep higher in elevation that the alpha; the alpha does what he wants with the wimmenz; you don't generally eat the pups - that kind of stuff. It really is quite rigid, and it's been that way, seemingly, for as long as we can tell.

Do they need the concept of a transcendant, law-giving being to justify those impulses?
Is there any way we could tell if they did?
Why are we any different?

-- Nathan

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by PartTimeLurker

But personally, I think it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary and sociological point of view - how else could we survive as a species, and evolve any kind of society, without an "in-built" mechanism that binds us together.

Sorry for barging in here...just a question to clarify:

Are you talking about some sort of determinism based on biology? And is this the same thing as an "ought?"

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by PartTimeLurker

But there is still an "ought"-ness, though! I have yet to meet somebody - anybody - who does not have a sense of moral imperative. A sense of justice or a "fair go". An intrinsic compassion for someone in pain. A desire to make those they care about happy. You know what I mean.

I'm going to go into more detail in this below but wanted to give you a quick introductory answer here. I'm not saying that nobody experiences this compulsion. I'm not saying that Jerry doesn't experience this compulsion. I'm saying that on Jerry's view there's no compulsion for that compulsion -- or, more lightly, that the existence of that compulsion seems to be entirely arbitrary, an odd fact of fate.

Originally Posted by PartTimeLurker

It may be often be skewed, and it may sometimes be horribly imbalanced, but outside of real physical conditions (eg: sociopathy, etc.), no one feels nothing morally. It is when you try to philosophise and theologise this experience that causes trouble.

I suppose that people can (and do) point to that as a perfect example of Romans 1's "the law is written on their hearts" concept. But personally, I think it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary and sociological point of view - how else could we survive as a species, and evolve any kind of society, without an "in-built" mechanism that binds us together.

Maybe a comparison will help. A wolf for, example, lives in a pack society that is governed by a set of societal codes. The biggest and meanest is the boss; you don't sleep higher in elevation that the alpha; the alpha does what he wants with the wimmenz; you don't generally eat the pups - that kind of stuff. It really is quite rigid, and it's been that way, seemingly, for as long as we can tell.

Do they need the concept of a transcendant, law-giving being to justify those impulses?
Is there any way we could tell if they did?
Why are we any different?

I'm not saying that they need that concept. There is a difference between something being true about you, or knowing or doing something, and being able to articulate and explain it well. The wolves don't really understand and can't really explain this very well. But there is something that transcends the individual will among these wolves, and that something could be called communal cohesion for survival. That reality is true of them even though they can't articulate or explain it. There is "ought"-ness there because what they are driven to you has not only the individual actor as a reference point but also constraints from the world and the social community.

Again, I'm only critiquing Jerry's view. I'm not saying that there aren't any secular ethicists out there who can't get a decent semblance of moral compulsion -- there are plenty. I'm just saying that there's a reason they don't see things as he does.

[PartTimeLurker]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Sorry for barging in here...

That's alright - that's how I got here too

Originally Posted by slap_j

just a question to clarify: Are you talking about some sort of determinism based on biology?

I suppose I am. I don't pretend to know all the in's and out's, though. Biological hardwiring ("nature"), learned behavour ("nurture"), some combination of the two (most likely) or maybe osmosis... Maybe it's genetic memory a la earthworms

Originally Posted by slap_j

And is this the same thing as an "ought?"

It's the closest thing to an "ought" that I can justify on non-theistic grounds.

What do you think, though - is it possible that something "ought" to be without it being demanded by a deity?

Nice talkin' to ya,

-- Nathan