Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

No you cannot, because this:
is a perfect example of a metaphysical assumption about what is 'good'. How did you conclude the inherent 'goodness' of said goal in the first place? And how do you objectify (or justify, for that matter) what constitutes a positive or negative effect, for what is in this case some kind of arbitrary goal? Did you maybe construe or buy into some kind of ideology and thereby expect to be free from the 'shackles of mere belief'?

Yes you can because I'm not utilizing the metaphysical as the measuring stick for what is "good". I'm using measurable, quantifiable metrics that are based in reality. You can measure life expectancy. You can measure infant mortality. You can measure health. You can measure happiness. You can measure poverty. You can measure suffering. You can then measure the effect that different actions have on all these metrics. You can then organize these sets of actions to maximize for those metrics you want (life, health, happiness) and minimize the ones you don't (death, suffering, poverty).

To me it seems that 'the relevant factors' of your thesis are relying the fact that if something feels right(good) and since that feeling (culture) changes throughout time, then there can be no reality of an actual right/goodness (you know, the most fundamental idea of any religion or god).

No feelings necessary. I've only given facts and solutions based on quantifiable goals.

Yet, then you claim that you can derive what is right/good by having some kind of beneficial goal as a society, and somehow skip the step where you assume what is good in the first place - a step that involves you (or society) entering a religious relationship with your ideas (as in, you believe your ideas and actions correlates with what is actually good). The concept of religion as organized belief fits like a glove as a critique to your thesis, wide as it may be.

I just showed you why that isn't the case. You are also invoking religion when it is irrelevant to the thesis. "Religion" as a set of organized beliefs is very broad. This is why I narrowed the scope to religions as it pertains to a divine being issuing moral proclamations, hence the title of the thread.

I challenge you to find me an example of a culture that is totally divorced from any religious assumption or behaviour.

Your challenge demonstrates how you're not debating within the parameters of the thread. "Totally divorced from any religious assumption or behavior" is not what this is about. The only relevant factor here is the necessity of the ingredient of "god" in the soup of morality.

 

[Rentahamster]

I don't really think we disagree all that much. The idea that you can take the good parts of religion with the foundation doesn't really hold up.

Why not? How do you explain Lutheranism? Calvinism? Protestantism? Mormonism? They all changed it as they saw fit, and most of us respect their right to do that.

I look at religion more as people of the centuries grappling with these huge questions. Searching for answers to problems greater than people can really come to terms with.

Okay. That doesn't necessarily conflict with anything I've said so far. That's your personal definition of religion.

The idea of God to me is that something exist greater than our understanding that answers those questions. I don't exactly subscribe to the idea that God is a dude in the sky or anything. But I do think good and evil exist outside the presence of subjective human experience. I think human morality is our searching to understand those things.

OK, that's fine. My argument is that there is another way that doesn't require anything beyond what we can observe in reality.

But its ok if people don't see it that way. I don't know that functionally it makes much difference.

It doesn't. I'm not advocating it's wrong if they do see it that way. Functionally, if you don't rape my girlfriend because you actually care about suffering and liberty, or if it's only because God told you so ( TrainedRage ), the end result (not raping my girlfriend) is the same. My points being that either set of reasoning is a path to "good" behavior, and the reasoning of the latter is not sound.

 

[TrainedRage]

Why not? How do you explain Lutheranism? Calvinism? Protestantism? Mormonism? They all changed it as they saw fit, and most of us respect their right to do that.


Okay. That doesn't necessarily conflict with anything I've said so far. That's your personal definition of religion.


OK, that's fine. My argument is that there is another way that doesn't require anything beyond what we can observe in reality.


It doesn't. I'm not advocating it's wrong if they do see it that way. Functionally, if you don't rape my girlfriend because you actually care about suffering and liberty, or if it's only because God told you so ( TrainedRage ), the end result (not raping my girlfriend) is the same. My points being that either set of reasoning is a path to "good" behavior, and the reasoning of the latter is not sound.

Would rape even be a thing without religion or would it just be a moral normality? Like we do need to have humans. And she is right there. Also I know you know but im just ribbing you. I like arguments like this and this is a pretty good topic. You are doing well.

 

[Tesseract]

wat

 

[TrainedRage]

wat

look man I just wanna propagate the species. and im a prime specimen. I will raise an army of ginger warriors that are nice god fearing folk.

 

[Rentahamster]

Would rape even be a thing without religion

Yes.

Rape in the Hebrew Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DeepBreath87]

Why not? How do you explain Lutheranism? Calvinism? Protestantism? Mormonism? They all changed it as they saw fit, and most of us respect their right to do that.


Okay. That doesn't necessarily conflict with anything I've said so far. That's your personal definition of religion.


OK, that's fine. My argument is that there is another way that doesn't require anything beyond what we can observe in reality.


It doesn't. I'm not advocating it's wrong if they do see it that way. Functionally, if you don't rape my girlfriend because you actually care about suffering and liberty, or if it's only because God told you so ( TrainedRage ), the end result (not raping my girlfriend) is the same. My points being that either set of reasoning is a path to "good" behavior, and the reasoning of the latter is not sound.

Those denominations of religion didn't nix the idea of a god. They just came to a different conclusion about the nature of god. My feelings are god on that its readily apparent to me that the universe exists as it does, with its rules and systems due to the presence of some creator. I've always liked the metaphor of a watch. No one looks at a watch and thinks it just occurred by chance. They see it and think, that watch operates due to precise decisions made by its creator. I consider religion to be people looking at the world and attempt to understand its creator. I'm sure there's an argument that Sam Harris has about why my logic is flawed. That's ok with me.

 

[timeflais]

Jamiroquai warned you.

All religions corrupted, texts altered, parables taught incorrectly to perceive wrong. OP suggests that God is a separate entity from the self, yet you are the creator, observer and the self experiencing all at the same time.

 

[Rentahamster]

Those denominations of religion didn't nix the idea of a god.

That's not what I'm getting at. I'm talking about any alteration at all. Ironically, mortal alteration of a divine word.

My feelings are god on that its readily apparent to me that the universe exists as it does, with its rules and systems due to the presence of some creator.

Just because you don't have an explanation for something complex, doesn't mean the answer has to be "god". The logical answer for you would be "I dunno".

I've always liked the metaphor of a watch. No one looks at a watch and thinks it just occurred by chance.

That's because we have many examples of a watch in reality. They were all manufactured by a person or by a machine. We have no known examples of watches being created automatically without human intervention. That is why no one thinks it just occurred by chance. It doesn't jive with our reality.

They see it and think, that watch operates due to precise decisions made by its creator.

We know that to be true because we see it in action. We have the creators of watches show us how it's done and explain to us how it works. Very clearly. Without the need for prophets.

I consider religion to be people looking at the world and attempt to understand its creator.

That's fair. It doesn't mean that the conclusions they derive based on no evidence is correct, or even plausible.

I'm sure there's an argument that Sam Harris has about why my logic is flawed. That's ok with me.

Probably.

 

[MHubert]

Yes you can because I'm not utilizing the metaphysical as the measuring stick for what is "good". I'm using measurable, quantifiable metrics that are based in reality. You can measure life expectancy. You can measure infant mortality. You can measure health. You can measure happiness. You can measure poverty. You can measure suffering. You can then measure the effect that different actions have on all these metrics. You can then organize these sets of actions to maximize for those metrics you want (life, health, happiness) and minimize the ones you don't (death, suffering, poverty).


No feelings necessary. I've only given facts and solutions based on quantifiable goals.


I just showed you why that isn't the case. You are also invoking religion when it is irrelevant to the thesis. "Religion" as a set of organized beliefs is very broad. This is why I narrowed the scope to religions as it pertains to a divine being issuing moral proclamations, hence the title of the thread.


Your challenge demonstrates how you're not debating within the parameters of the thread. "Totally divorced from any religious assumption or behavior" is not what this is about. The only relevant factor here is the necessity of the ingredient of "god" in the soup of morality.

Metaphysics basically means 'the most fundamental components or attributes of reality which you/we are able to describe'.

Saying that the right utilization of observable and quantifiable metrics can lead to the potential 'maximum good' is one of the most blatant metaphysical assumptions if you ever saw one. Does 'good/right', according to you, equal absolute removal of discomfort and distress from the human experience? Does 'good' equal 'wellness'? If so, why? Because if it is, then that is definitely a product of feelings (time spirit).

If your core argument is that "the claim that there can exist no form of belief in morality without a god concept, is false" then of course I agree, but honestly that argument is inherently obvious, redundant and lingers on the edge of being a tautology. If your argument is more like "A right form of morality can exist without the concept of god" then you cannot escape the discussion about whether it being a religious statement or not (ie. you assume that what is fundementally 'right', is quantifiable). So far, it seems to me that 'wellness' is a core moral component of your 'religion'.
... Hence my religious inquiery.

 

[GloveSlap]

Morality stems from humans being a pack animal and having the capacity for empathy. Religion stems from ego and the fear of death resulting from humans higher state of consciousness and level of self awareness. Each distinct religion is modeled after at least part of the civilization that devised it based on existing values at the time, not the other way around. Saying religion came first is akin to saying an author was influenced by his own book before he even wrote it.

 

[timeflais]

Just because you don't have an explanation for something complex, doesn't mean the answer has to be "god". The logical answer for you would be "I dunno".

That's because we have many examples of a watch in reality. They were all manufactured by a person or by a machine. We have no known examples of watches being created automatically without human intervention. That is why no one thinks it just occurred by chance. It doesn't jive with our reality.

We know that to be true because we see it in action. We have the creators of watches show us how it's done and explain to us how it works. Very clearly. Without the need for prophets.

Are you familiar with the allegory of Plato's cave?

 

[Rentahamster]

Metaphysics basically means 'the most fundamental components or attributes of reality which you/we are able to describe'.

It's more than just that. What I laid out is just physics. No meta required.

Saying that the right utilization of observable and quantifiable metrics can lead to the potential 'maximum good' is one of the most blatant metaphysical assumptions if you ever saw one.

It's not an assumption. It's testable. It has been tested in history.

Does 'good/right', according to you, equal absolute removal of discomfort and distress from the human experience?

Not necessarily. I didn't suggest that it did.

Does 'good' equal 'wellness'?

What is "good" is whatever society determines, via testable and verifiable trials, that maximizes those attributes that it values. I value human life, and devalue suffering, therefore throwing people into volcanoes is probably not good. Very easy.

Because if it is, then that is definitely a product of feelings (time spirit).

Death via volcano or not death via volcano is a very binary and measurable state of affairs.

If your core argument is that "the claim that there can exist no form of belief in morality without a god concept, is false" then of course I agree, but honestly that argument is inherently obvious, redundant and lingers on the edge of being a tautology. If your argument is more like "A right form of morality can exist without the concept of god" then you cannot escape the discussion about whether it being a religious statement or not (ie. you assume that what is fundementally 'right', is quantifiable). So far, it seems to me that 'wellness' is a core moral component of your 'religion'.
... Hence my religious inquiery.

My core argument is in the title and OP. How do you not yet understand what it is?

 

[Rentahamster]

Are you familiar with the allegory of Plato's cave?

Yes. I am also familiar with the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Yes. I am also familiar with the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise.

That’s a pretty flippant comparison, don’t you think?

 

[timeflais]

A moral compass doesnt teach you morality, it guides you to a destination to which you are unaware you are going. Darth Plagueis chose poorly. Everything else you already knew.

 

[Rentahamster]

That’s a pretty flippant comparison, don’t you think?

Just a prequelmeme joke, dude, no offense intended.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Just a prequelmeme joke, dude, no offense intended.

Sorry. It’s all good. High stress times you know. I’ll work on not being too sensitive to that kind of thing.

 

[Rentahamster]

Sorry. It’s all good. High stress times you know. I’ll work on not being too sensitive to that kind of thing.

No problem. In hindsight, perhaps a smiley would have helped, like how I inserted a smiley to let TrainedRage know that I actually don't think he is an actual crazed rapist.

Mostly because he can't even score with his boss after an invitation.

Spoiler

NO SMILEY THERE, MOTHERFUCKER YAAAAAAA!!!

Spoiler

 

[MHubert]

It's more than just that. What I laid out is just physics. No meta required.


It's not an assumption. It's testable. It has been tested in history.


Not necessarily. I didn't suggest that it did.


What is "good" is whatever society determines, via testable and verifiable trials, that maximizes those attributes that it values. I value human life, and devalue suffering, therefore throwing people into volcanoes is probably not good. Very easy.


Death via volcano or not death via volcano is a very binary and measurable state of affairs.



My core argument is in the title and OP. How do you not yet understand what it is?

I don't think you understood what i wrote. Removing the 'meta' from physics doesn't solve the fundamental problem in your argument in any way, which is:

What is "good" is whatever society determines, via testable and verifiable trials, that maximizes those attributes that it values. I value human life, and devalue suffering, therefore throwing people into volcanoes is probably not good. Very easy.

WHY is this good? What history tells us is that society can value all kinds of barbaric practices. Do you think what the Nazi regime did to the jews was morally good? Surely, they were prosecuted by society. In Iceland you have tons of stories about the prosecutions and trials of the local population in the Viking age. One of those stories is about a young guy being thrown into a Volcano for the crime of poaching on another mans land. The moral of that story (saga) was that he recieved the proper trial and punishment and that the young mans grieving father who sought justice at the high court of Iceland (The Alþingi) was making himself look like an idiot, so lol.

What does society determine as good right now, if I may ask?

Furthermore, I think I understand your argument pretty good, but I suspect you haven't thought out what your claims and your questions imply - You want to to derive a moralistic secularization by removing the question of god from morality, yet you seem to think that you can conveniently skip the questions regarding how god and morality relates to each other through a religious sub-structure. I know religion is a complex phenomenon that is sometimes best described through broad definitions, but in my world, if you say A then you have to say B.

 

[TrainedRage]

No problem. In hindsight, perhaps a smiley would have helped, like how I inserted a smiley to let TrainedRage know that I actually don't think he is an actual crazed rapist.

Mostly because he can't even score with his boss after an invitation.

Spoiler

NO SMILEY THERE, MOTHERFUCKER YAAAAAAA!!!

Spoiler

I fucking gave up on that shit. She is too concerned with COVID. I have moved on, but if anything does ever happen you can expect me to bump that thread. I guess my friends wife is trying to set me up with a nice black girl who is like 10 years younger than I am. Fingers crossed on that one.

 

[Reptars Revenge]

Who is the God of Gaf

 

[MetalAlien]

Where do you guys get the energy to keep this up?

 

[Tesseract]

Where do you guys get the energy to keep this up?

god

 

[Rentahamster]

Where do you guys get the energy to keep this up?

 

[Tesseract]

you've been holding back

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Where do you guys get the energy to keep this up?

Food.

 

[MetalAlien]

Food.

I would have thought you'd say milk.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

I would have thought you'd say milk.

The custom title has nothing to do with the dairy product itself but the hopes and dreams of men.

RIP Chris Farley

 

[lock2k]

I've never been religious for all of my life and I have morals, sometimes stronger morals than some of my most religious friends. But I don't think society is ready for this. I realize the importance of religion, it's just not for me.

I kinda wish I could have or feel or experience faith, I think I was born broken in that department. I did try in the past but I never felt a connection.

 

[Azurro]

Would rape even be a thing without religion or would it just be a moral normality? Like we do need to have humans. And she is right there. Also I know you know but im just ribbing you. I like arguments like this and this is a pretty good topic. You are doing well.

Rape would still be frowned upon because not having people going around raping women has been determined by society to be beneficial to it, so it would still be classified as wrong. No need to bring God into it, as with everything.

 

[Thurible]

I kinda wish I could have or feel or experience faith, I think I was born broken in that department. I did try in the past but I never felt a connection.

You don't have to feel something to have faith. Lots of religious people don't feel some incredible emotional response from prayer or the like, and some of the most devout people have the occasional doubts. Besides, catharsis isn't the point of having faith, it's to get closer to God. Having faith is a choice, not something that is handed to you. So chin up, you aren't broken if you can't feel much of a connection.

 

[DeepBreath87]

You don't have to feel something to have faith. Lots of religious people don't feel some incredible emotional response from prayer or the like, and some of the most devout people have the occasional doubts. Besides, catharsis isn't the point of having faith, it's to get closer to God. Having faith is a choice, not something that is handed to you. So chin up, you aren't broken if you can't feel much of a connection.

Faith for me is more a trust than a feeling. Trusting in that the virtues and ideal god, as I attempt to understand it, has given me are “good” and that enacting these things will be a positive in my life. It’s not necessarily some magical, emotional feeling. And not a wishing machine that makes dreams come true.

Religion can be different things for different people. In my experience, God doesn’t come out of the heavens and pat you on the back directly. I’m not necessarily super religious, so my feeling is that it’s less supernatural and more a labor. Something I work at and understand better as time goes on.

For example, I see evidence of god in that when I make right choices, my life improves, even when things are not going the way I want them to go. Like COVID sucks. Things kind of suck in the country right now. But honestly, I’ve doing better emotionally and psychologically during all this because of things I’ve been working through. That’s a spiritual thing to me. I’ve spent a pretty good portion of my life doing wrong things. But it does make for a pretty sharp contrast when I do the “right” things, at least right as I understand them. That’s where my faith comes from.

 

[Tesseract]

actual footage of this conversation throughout history

 

[Bolivar687]

I think the secular European democracies have built societies that are fair and functional but I would not necessarily call them moral. An anthropocentric culture can intuit many good natural principals through reason, but morally, they can only go so far on their own. Bart Ehrman is an atheist biblical scholar but in his introduction to The Triumph of Christianity, he conceded that many things Western society takes for granted today, like the public hospital or the social safety net, or at least how we understand them today, did not exist in the ancient world before Christianity.

To answer a point in Rentahamster's OP, I would not say the dictates of God are static. Across the entire biblical narrative, you see God meeting humans at their level and laws either becoming more harsh in proportion to the people's own hard-heartedness or stiff-neckedness and later both more relaxed and more intensified as appropriate in the ministry of Jesus Christ. In the Acts of the Apostles, we see the way the law is adapted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the disciples carry out Christ's mandate to bring the God of Israel to the ends of the earth.

In the end, though, human beings are imperfect and flawed and religion is here to help us to struggle against that. Any failure to live up to that says much more about ourselves than it does about religion.

 

[Ornlu]

Rentahamster , maybe lay out what you do believe in/what your professed morality actually is? I tried to parse what you said in the moon thread, and what was said in your OP, but it reads to me like you want to be contrarian about religion. Are you asking about only the Abrahamic God? Or about religion in general? I.E.:

1. Is the Abrahamic God required for human morality?

or

2. Is belief in a higher power required for human morality?

Those seem like two very different questions.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Rentahamster , maybe lay out what you do believe in/what your professed morality actually is? I tried to parse what you said in the moon thread, and what was said in your OP, but it reads to me like you want to be contrarian about religion. Are you asking about only the Abrahamic God? Or about religion in general? I.E.:

1. Is the Abrahamic God required for human morality?

or

2. Is belief in a higher power required for human morality?

Those seem like two very different questions.

It does.

 

[Rentahamster]

Rentahamster , maybe lay out what you do believe in/what your professed morality actually is? I tried to parse what you said in the moon thread, and what was said in your OP, but it reads to me like you want to be contrarian about religion. Are you asking about only the Abrahamic God? Or about religion in general? I.E.:

1. Is the Abrahamic God required for human morality?

or

2. Is belief in a higher power required for human morality?

Those seem like two very different questions.

It's in the thread title. I tried to make it as straightforward as possible. Let me try to rephrase it in a couple of different ways to try to be clearer.

"The existence of God, a god, or many gods, is not required in order for society to have a positive moral framework"

In other words, we can structure a society with a set of agreed upon behavior (enforced by laws, etc) that doesn't have to use "because god said so" as a justification for why something is good. The reason why something is "good" or "morally good" can be empirically derived. For example, if I consider life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be goals that my society wants to maximize, we can organize our society with mutually agreed upon rules and codes of conduct that will ensure those particular values are maximized.

We can then test this. If we survey our population and see that more people are living longer and healthier lives, then we know that we are maximizing the "life" value, and that the system is working as intended.

If we analyze our population and most aspects of people's lives are free from coercion, the system is working as intended. If we compare our results with other societies who have structured their society differently, and see that our population indeed has more freedoms than others, then we have additional evidence to support our system. If other societies are shown to have more liberty, we can reassess our model, and alter it accordingly.

If we survey our population, and most people respond that they are happy, then we have evidence that our organization/rules/laws/moral code is working as intended. If most people respond that they are not happy, then we have evidence to show that our system isn't working and isn't as "moral" as we need it to be.

Nowhere in this entire process did we need to ask god to figure out what's good. We didn't need it written on stone tablets for us. We can just as easily derive "moral" codes of conduct through our own "god-given" (lol) reasoning and intellect. Do you really need God to tell you that "thou shalt not kill"? A society that prioritizes life can figure it out on its own.

So, in order to prove my thesis right, I have to show that you can reason your way to a moral society without invoking god. I just did that. In order to prove my thesis wrong, you have to show me that this was impossible. Some people would argue that since God created everything, and our society is included in "everything", then it must follow that God created the morality to govern it too. Sure you can say that, but that doesn't make it true. First of all you have to prove that God did indeed, create everything, which is another conversation entirely. This is why I wrote in my OP that I didn't want to delve into the realm of "does god exist" because that just complicates things even more. I can prove my thesis without needing to resort to proving or disproving god. Both "god-based" and "not god-based" societies have space to coexist, in my framework. Just because you CAN structure a moral society without appealing to a god, doesn't necessarily mean that those who do are wrong, immoral, illegitimate, or otherwise. We just came to a similar conclusion with different reasoning.

I have given examples of societies that either

1) Don't have a religion that includes an all powerful god who strongly dictates morality (which means they aren't relying on their gods for their primary source of morality)
or
2) Have written laws or other such codes of morality/ethics/conduct that don't have the phrase "because God said so" or any such language with that same effect

These would be such societies as:

Ancient Norse society, Greece or (pre-Christianity) Rome. They have a pantheon of gods, but some of them are assholes, and are mainly there to make cool stories or explain how the world works. They don't necessarily dictate morality as a divine edict. Additionally, Greece and Rome are famous for their contributions to the foundations of Western Civilization, due to their concepts of democracy and liberty. These concepts were debated on by philosophers in a forum, not handed down by Zeus.

Japan. They do have gods in one of their religions (Shinto), but again, these aren't gods that dictate morality. They just hang around and make things spiritual. Their other main religion, Buddhism, doesn't even have gods. It has a very enlightened mortal as its main focus (detail may differ depending upon sect, of course). You could possibly argue the case of Amaterasu, since in Shinto that god sorta created the Sun and everything, but again, you don't see any "because Amaterasu said so" in the way the Japanese have historically written their laws or structured their society.

Ironically, the one time in history that Japan was considerably IMMORAL, was when they deified their emperor, so that he was a god and that his word was moral and final and the ultimate authority. They promptly turned into a shitty totalitarian nightmare, and got nuked for it.

5 Things to Know About Japan’s Emperor and Imperial Family (Published 2016)

The oldest continuous monarchy in the world, extending back to 600 B.C., has had an unbroken hereditary line of 125 emperors.

www.nytimes.com

Soon after the end of World War II, as part of Japan’s surrender, Hirohito renounced what he called the “the false conception that the emperor is divine.” Under Japan’s 1947 postwar Constitution, the emperor became “the symbol of the state and of the unity of the people,” a figurehead with no political authority.

The United States of America, and most other modern nations. The United States Constitution is a great document. It still holds up after all these years. It also has zero appeals to god contained within it that justify its codified laws. The only reference to any kind of religion is in the date. It also specifically and clearly delineates a separation between religion and government. References to God, a god, or the divine are more ubiquitous in the individual 50 state constitutions, but even then those are more like cultural markers and less like "do this because God said so".

If you look around the world, the amount of countries that explicitly reference god in their constitutions isn't that many, and even the ones that do would hardly be called theocracies, with some exceptions.

Constitutional references to God - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is also why we refer to our system of government as a "democracy", and not a "theocracy". We are ruled by the people, not by a god, and we derive our code of laws accordingly.

 

[Rentahamster]

I don't think you understood what i wrote. Removing the 'meta' from physics doesn't solve the fundamental problem in your argument in any way, which is:

I think I did, and that's not a fundamental problem. It is for you because you're viewing it through a lens of metaphysics, whereas I am not.

WHY is this good?

It's right there, as I said. It's good because I start with the idea that I value life, and devalue suffering. Therefore, any action that contains those two qualities is probably more good than not. That is why.

What history tells us is that society can value all kinds of barbaric practices.

Sure. And via a moral framework that values life and devalues suffering, those barbaric practices are deemed "not good". Very simple.

You know what history also tells us? That societies that based their morality on their religion also have the capacity for barbaric practices.

You know what The Bible tells us? That even God Himself condones barbaric practices too. So much for divine morality.

Do you think what the Nazi regime did to the jews was morally good?

Nope. Why would I? I value life and devalue suffering.

Surely, they were prosecuted by society.

A society with immoral values (according to me). Ironically, it was also a religious society. Not that it matters a lot.

In Iceland you have tons of stories about the prosecutions and trials of the local population in the Viking age. One of those stories is about a young guy being thrown into a Volcano for the crime of poaching on another mans land. The moral of that story (saga) was that he recieved the proper trial and punishment and that the young mans grieving father who sought justice at the high court of Iceland (The Alþingi) was making himself look like an idiot, so lol.

OK, so what? What does that have to do with what I wrote? Does that disprove my reasoning at all? I don't think so.

What does society determine as good right now, if I may ask?

You'd have to refer to polls to really get into the fine details of that, but generally speaking and in my opinion, I feel that American society thinks that life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are all good. I don't think you'll find many Americans who would say that those aren't good things.

Furthermore, I think I understand your argument pretty good

You sure about that? The kinds of questions you are asking me tells me that you don't.

I suspect you haven't thought out what your claims and your questions imply

I suspect I have.

You want to to derive a moralistic secularization by removing the question of god from morality

It's not a matter of "want". It's a matter of determining "is this possible"

yet you seem to think that you can conveniently skip the questions regarding how god and morality relates to each other through a religious sub-structure.

I can skip that entirely (in terms of generating a "godless" morality), because that point is completely irrelevant to my thesis.

I know religion is a complex phenomenon that is sometimes best described through broad definitions, but in my world, if you say A then you have to say B.

Please elaborate within the context of how I am or am not doing that, as it pertains to my thesis.

 

[Rentahamster]

You know what The Bible tells us? That even God Himself condones barbaric practices too.

M MHubert please refer to the conversation I had a page or so back with mcz117chief for examples of this.

 

[Liljagare]

Duh.

 

[Rentahamster]

Duh.

For the believers though, god gave us FREE will.

So, either or, doesn't matter.

Re: free will vis a vis a creator

Thoughtful, sound, succinct.

O-N-E take notes!

 

[Liljagare]

Re: free will vis a vis a creator

Thoughtful, sound, succinct.

O-N-E take notes!

No, succulent. Please use the proper barbaric and pagan words, like a big boy

 

[Rentahamster]

No, succulent.

 

[The Incarnation]

I don't want to derail the moon thread, so let's have that conversation here.

I sometimes hear that morality is only possible from a belief in God and religion. While that might apply to some societies in human history, it does not apply to all of them. If God were absolutely requisite for a moral society, how can the existence of successful "godless" societies be explained? Does God just download His morality into these societies without them being aware? I find that unlikely.

A sense of right and wrong is something that most humans have even as toddlers, before any of them can even be capable of understanding what God is. Therefore, even a belief in a god or gods is not necessary for the foundation of morality. God's word is static and absolute, so why are there so many denominations of the same religion with their own takes on what is and isn't moral? Why is it that over time, our sense of morality has changed (e.g. slavery, women's rights, war, genocide, eating habits, animal husbandry, etc) whereas the instructions from God have not? That indicates to me that the main driver of what's moral is culture, not theology.

(Keep in mind this thread is not arguing about the existence of a god or gods. That's a different topic.)

For the most part, people worship their own thoughts about God as God itself anyway, thoughts given to them by others, hence all of the denominations.

Outside of that, people just assume God is like a genie that fulfils their wishes, a tool of sorts that bows to their prayers and commands. Looking at the world right now, God doesn't seem like a being that desires to force its will on anybody.

Personally, I prefer to see humanities morals like silver, that need to be refined in a furnace. It may take some time for the dross to be removed.

 

[Ornlu]

It's in the thread title. I tried to make it as straightforward as possible. Let me try to rephrase it in a couple of different ways to try to be clearer.

"The existence of God, a god, or many gods, is not required in order for society to have a positive moral framework"

In other words, we can structure a society with a set of agreed upon behavior (enforced by laws, etc) that doesn't have to use "because god said so" as a justification for why something is good. The reason why something is "good" or "morally good" can be empirically derived. For example, if I consider life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be goals that my society wants to maximize, we can organize our society with mutually agreed upon rules and codes of conduct that will ensure those particular values are maximized.

We can then test this. If we survey our population and see that more people are living longer and healthier lives, then we know that we are maximizing the "life" value, and that the system is working as intended.

If we analyze our population and most aspects of people's lives are free from coercion, the system is working as intended. If we compare our results with other societies who have structured their society differently, and see that our population indeed has more freedoms than others, then we have additional evidence to support our system. If other societies are shown to have more liberty, we can reassess our model, and alter it accordingly.

If we survey our population, and most people respond that they are happy, then we have evidence that our organization/rules/laws/moral code is working as intended. If most people respond that they are not happy, then we have evidence to show that our system isn't working and isn't as "moral" as we need it to be.

Nowhere in this entire process did we need to ask god to figure out what's good. We didn't need it written on stone tablets for us. We can just as easily derive "moral" codes of conduct through our own "god-given" (lol) reasoning and intellect. Do you really need God to tell you that "thou shalt not kill"? A society that prioritizes life can figure it out on its own.

So, in order to prove my thesis right, I have to show that you can reason your way to a moral society without invoking god. I just did that. In order to prove my thesis wrong, you have to show me that this was impossible. Some people would argue that since God created everything, and our society is included in "everything", then it must follow that God created the morality to govern it too. Sure you can say that, but that doesn't make it true. First of all you have to prove that God did indeed, create everything, which is another conversation entirely. This is why I wrote in my OP that I didn't want to delve into the realm of "does god exist" because that just complicates things even more. I can prove my thesis without needing to resort to proving or disproving god. Both "god-based" and "not god-based" societies have space to coexist, in my framework. Just because you CAN structure a moral society without appealing to a god, doesn't necessarily mean that those who do are wrong, immoral, illegitimate, or otherwise. We just came to a similar conclusion with different reasoning.

I have given examples of societies that either

1) Don't have a religion that includes an all powerful god who strongly dictates morality (which means they aren't relying on their gods for their primary source of morality)
or
2) Have written laws or other such codes of morality/ethics/conduct that don't have the phrase "because God said so" or any such language with that same effect

These would be such societies as:

Ancient Norse society, Greece or (pre-Christianity) Rome. They have a pantheon of gods, but some of them are assholes, and are mainly there to make cool stories or explain how the world works. They don't necessarily dictate morality as a divine edict. Additionally, Greece and Rome are famous for their contributions to the foundations of Western Civilization, due to their concepts of democracy and liberty. These concepts were debated on by philosophers in a forum, not handed down by Zeus.

Japan. They do have gods in one of their religions (Shinto), but again, these aren't gods that dictate morality. They just hang around and make things spiritual. Their other main religion, Buddhism, doesn't even have gods. It has a very enlightened mortal as its main focus (detail may differ depending upon sect, of course). You could possibly argue the case of Amaterasu, since in Shinto that god sorta created the Sun and everything, but again, you don't see any "because Amaterasu said so" in the way the Japanese have historically written their laws or structured their society.

Ironically, the one time in history that Japan was considerably IMMORAL, was when they deified their emperor, so that he was a god and that his word was moral and final and the ultimate authority. They promptly turned into a shitty totalitarian nightmare, and got nuked for it.

5 Things to Know About Japan’s Emperor and Imperial Family (Published 2016)

The oldest continuous monarchy in the world, extending back to 600 B.C., has had an unbroken hereditary line of 125 emperors.

www.nytimes.com

The United States of America, and most other modern nations. The United States Constitution is a great document. It still holds up after all these years. It also has zero appeals to god contained within it that justify its codified laws. The only reference to any kind of religion is in the date. It also specifically and clearly delineates a separation between religion and government. References to God, a god, or the divine are more ubiquitous in the individual 50 state constitutions, but even then those are more like cultural markers and less like "do this because God said so".

If you look around the world, the amount of countries that explicitly reference god in their constitutions isn't that many, and even the ones that do would hardly be called theocracies, with some exceptions.

Constitutional references to God - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is also why we refer to our system of government as a "democracy", and not a "theocracy". We are ruled by the people, not by a god, and we derive our code of laws accordingly.

Thanks, that does clear it up. The reason I asked is that you've referenced religious societies as examples of non-religious morality. They still believe(d) in a power or powers higher than man, so I would have to disagree that their morality would be entirely based on public opinion, which is what you are advocating for. In all honesty, I think that if such a society were ever created, it would either become an inconsequential hermit kingdom, or things would not end well for the rest of the world. Mob rule (direct democracy) doesn't work well in the real world.

---

If you're advocating for morality based on opinion polling or general perceived "happiness", would not North Korea be a good modern example? Their level of brainwashing would probably lead to a good chunk of their people thinking things are going quite well. Their society isn't "religious", either.

North Korean cult of personality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know you aren't advocating for that; I realize it's a cheeky example...but who watches the watchmen? How would such a society be run in a way that it would be 'free of coercion'? I don't think such a thing has ever existed. If the morality of a society is determined solely by a political process (opinion polling), is there not then every incentive for individuals within a society to spend resources (lobbying) toward warping the opinion of the public?

My personal belief is that we humans need something higher than ourselves to strive toward. I mean this both in terms of humans as individuals, and as a group or groups. Having "something" beyond/above ourselves to bind us together seems necessary to create a functioning state. It could be religion, nationalism, race, language, or cultural practice. You need "something" to belong to. A state based on ever-shifting 'morality' would by design not be unifying, as a good percentage of people within the state are never going to agree with w/e the 'morality' of the day is determined to be (as we humans never agree about anything).

 

[Blade2.0]

Look, all I know is that when I think of the biggest assholes on the planet, more often than not, they are religious.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

If one needs "scientific" proof to determine that there is intrinsic value for human life, I'd say that borders on sociopathy.

You can say that because you live in a post-WWII society where human life has been recognized as something of the highest value, after a time in history where it was treated as the most expendable thing.

70 years after that, do you not see the growing effort to consider pre-birth life not human and therefore, worthless and expendable?
Do you not see hundreds of thousands of human lives that could come into the richest, healthiest world there's ever been, with the highest life expectancy humanity has ever achieved, being aborted like their potential - the highest ever in human history, because of the conditions of the world they could be born into - is nothing?

Human life wasn't always considered sacred and valued throughout history. Ancient people would kill and get killed over nothing. War was a constant. Abortion wasn't needed to clean a mother's conscience, because you could literally throw an unwanted newborn off a cliff or into the trash. It was customary to abuse and exploit children; poor people were at the mercy of the rich and strong. Most people wouldn't be considered entitled to life just because they were born, and seeing them killed was business as usual.

Even for Christianity, the absolute sacredness of human life regardless of origin and social condition is something relatively recent. What Popes have been preaching in the last 150-200 years isn't what Popes used to preach and practice before.

You're right: we shouldn't need scientific proof of the value of human life. But that wasn't the point, was it? The point is, we need a set of moral values to establish something like the value of human life - because scientifically speaking, we are just matter destined to expire and decay. The "value" of our cells isn't greater than the value of plant or animal cells by some intrinsic property. It's we as humans that need to declare that our life has value. And we couldn't do it on the basis of science. We need to base such a declaration on something else. Now, what was that something for millennia? Where did our moral code come from? In most cases, it was religion - and a very specific, very modern interpretation of religion. Older versions of current religions considered some - if not most - categories of human beings worthless, and expendable for the greater good.

What you call sociopathy was just the norm, not that long ago. We call it sociopathy today because we have changed the way we look at humanity after witnessing the most catastrophic wars in history. And those wars were the product of unprecedented scientific advancements, among other things. To establish that human life is the supreme value we had to see millions of lives obliterated with technical marvels produced by a science that had - and never will have - no consideration for the value of life.

 

[psorcerer]

I don't want to derail the moon thread, so let's have that conversation here.

I sometimes hear that morality is only possible from a belief in God and religion. While that might apply to some societies in human history, it does not apply to all of them. If God were absolutely requisite for a moral society, how can the existence of successful "godless" societies be explained? Does God just download His morality into these societies without them being aware? I find that unlikely.

A sense of right and wrong is something that most humans have even as toddlers, before any of them can even be capable of understanding what God is. Therefore, even a belief in a god or gods is not necessary for the foundation of morality. God's word is static and absolute, so why are there so many denominations of the same religion with their own takes on what is and isn't moral? Why is it that over time, our sense of morality has changed (e.g. slavery, women's rights, war, genocide, eating habits, animal husbandry, etc) whereas the instructions from God have not? That indicates to me that the main driver of what's moral is culture, not theology.

(Keep in mind this thread is not arguing about the existence of a god or gods. That's a different topic.)

I'm not sure what your stance is OP...
Every society has some form of ideology to keep it together. I.e. every society has a de facto God. Some claim that The Law is God, some others - CCP is God and so on.
There is no other example.

 

[Dontero]

At the beginning there were tribes that believed in god and those who did not. Somehow after millions of years only those who believed in god survived. Those who believe in evolution kind of forget what it means because it applies to everything not just biology.

Regardless if someone believes in god or not he must behave in manner that would show that he believes in god. Those who do not do that, are destined to die sooner or later or be replaced with those who believe in god. (i don't mean singular person but groups of people)

As for morality. Morality comes from god regardless if he is real or not. God is embodiment of moralities people use daily.

Ideas like "do not kill" aren't so obvious if you step out of your modern society. People killed other people just for fun or that they had that power for as long as people existed.