Religion, ethics, and morality

[Deleted member 2517]

You will not believe this- but nothing happened! It's almost like, because of everyone having a 4g video camera in their pocket at all times, that miracles and plagues and supernatural occurrences have completely dropped off. It's almost like... never-mind.

I think a lot of the conversation here has gone the way that many of these do; the evolution of the discussion has sort of led away from the initial question to be answered.

"Do you need faith in a higher power to act morally and with ethics?"

@Devildoc I outright reject your claim that atheist or non-faith based people are more likely to act immorally. Not only do I reject that claim on it's face, I would challenge you to find me more examples of non-faith based people acting on that "belief" than I could find faith based people acting solely ON their motivation of belief (allah told me to be a suicide bomber; god told me to bomb an abortion clinic). The crimes purported in the name of a god, any god, FAR outnumber any actions of individuals in the name of "I don't believe in a god". That's just the starter for religion (of any type) vs. morality.

@Box , "I don't believe you" isn't a faith. Science isn't a religion. If you don't "believe" science, don't go to the hospital, trash your phone and get off the internet. Sorry, it's part and parcel. You don't get to dismiss the single reason why America is the leading superpower in the world, and that's science and technological advancement. I've heard the argument, and this isn't a personal shot at you- but the argument is fucking trash.

So when you say, "Each side requires faith and each side practices their own form of religion", I feel that is a wild misunderstanding of all sides of the conversation. To further extrapolate the opposing side's philosophical understanding of good and evil or right or wrong solely off your misunderstanding- that is at best intellectually dishonest.

@DozerB , you're falling in to the same trap. To what standard, indeed. Don't you worry about allah's judgment on your eating swine? Don't you just lay at night, awake, worried about his judgment? To what standard are you living your life? (Pause for dramatic effect). I have a feeling you don't worry about allah's wrath because you don't feel that's a logical reason to worry. Now, what if I told you, that there are a whole group of people that feel the SAME way about your god (and cheating on your wife or whatever) that you feel about allah? How does that make you feel? By your own standard, if allah was right, and you were wrong, wouldn't you be the wrong one?

Here is the bottom line-

Anyone claiming an objective ("true") morality on the behalf of a god must first prove their god. "Your" morality isn't "everyone's" morality. Muslims think it's moral to have women covered and beaten for offenses. The Aztec's sacrificed virgins and ripped hearts out of their enemies on a pyramid for good weather. Surprise- they were as faith-based as they come.

Regardless of what "values and ethics" may be prevalent in the region (America has judeo-christian morals, middle east countries have other moral sets), the non-faith communities in those regions don't act in accordance with those values sets; they're just moral people. It would be far more logical to believe that all humans have have an inherent compass; an inherent object morality that guides them regardless of race, religion or upbringing than it would be to assume that religion brought that morality to the region and those that live there without the dominating religion just adopted their moral edicts cause that was the ONE thing they got right. It would be much more reasonable to think that religion was imposed as a majority opinion with the underpinnings of a morality that was already apparent.

Why?

Because despite mutually exclusive, violent, and wildly varying standards between religions of "what is right or moral", humans find a way to establish a pretty clear and present line across all humanity for what is acceptable, and that defies those pesky rules each religion possesses while proclaiming they're the "right one". When is it ok to kill? Keep slaves? Oppress women? Commit genocide to tribes not your own? Well, that's where real wiggle room lies. Do as you need, with the blessing of your god.

For me, without faith, the only person I can justify things to is myself. I can tell the difference between right and wrong. I don't need a book, and I certainly don't need one that advocates and outlines slavery (all three books) or rape and torture of enemies (all three books) or dietary restrictions (all three books) or... That's enough.

Just to add to an already great post- after reading “On Killing” and “Tribe” and following those up with hours of late night Google “rabbit hole” research, I’ve really become a proponent of the theory that humans essentially evolved to be decent. Not good, it takes the right “nurture” during development to do that, but decent in a one-on- one sense of interaction. Most humans are averse to harming one another- it takes a pack/mob mentality to override that. Even in the DOD for example- most of us combat arms types couldn’t have pulled a trigger or beat the shit out of some dude in a house in a random afghan village without conditioning, peer pressure and a culture that says “killing is good.” I’m on the phone now so I can’t pull up the links but the research on altruism also points to humans having a general programming to be good. We evolved to enjoy and seek out opportunities to help one another. We wouldn’t have made it off the planes of Africa and onto 6/7 continents and our own moon if we weren’t hardwired to sacrifice for one another. We had 40,000 years of that behavior before we created set religions in the last 8,000-10,000 years.

 

[Devildoc]

Just to add to an already great post- after reading “On Killing” and “Tribe” and following those up with hours of late night Google “rabbit hole” research, I’ve really become a proponent of the theory that humans essentially evolved to be decent. Not good, it takes the right “nurture” during development to do that, but decent in a one-on- one sense of interaction. Most humans are averse to harming one another- it takes a pack/mob mentality to override that. Even in the DOD for example- most of us combat arms types couldn’t have pulled a trigger or beat the shit out of some dude in a house in a random afghan village without conditioning, peer pressure and a culture that says “killing is good.” I’m on the phone now so I can’t pull up the links but the research on altruism also points to humans having a general programming to be good. We evolved to enjoy and seek out opportunities to help one another. We wouldn’t have made it off the planes of Africa and onto 6/7 continents and our own moon if we weren’t hardwired to sacrifice for one another. We had 40,000 years of that behavior before we created set religions in the last 8,000-10,000 years.

That's an interesting theory, but it kinda flies in the face of science: nature is entropic ...always goes from order to disorder if left alone. The natural state is disorder. My litmus test is simple: speeding. How many people don't speed because of a posted speed limit? (my hand is up...).

 

[Devildoc]

You will not believe this- but nothing happened! It's almost like, because of everyone having a 4g video camera in their pocket at all times, that miracles and plagues and supernatural occurrences have completely dropped off. It's almost like... never-mind.

I think a lot of the conversation here has gone the way that many of these do; the evolution of the discussion has sort of led away from the initial question to be answered.

"Do you need faith in a higher power to act morally and with ethics?"

@Devildoc I outright reject your claim that atheist or non-faith based people are more likely to act immorally. Not only do I reject that claim on it's face, I would challenge you to find me more examples of non-faith based people acting on that "belief" than I could find faith based people acting solely ON their motivation of belief (allah told me to be a suicide bomber; god told me to bomb an abortion clinic). The crimes purported in the name of a god, any god, FAR outnumber any actions of individuals in the name of "I don't believe in a god". That's just the starter for religion (of any type) vs. morality.

@Box , "I don't believe you" isn't a faith. Science isn't a religion. If you don't "believe" science, don't go to the hospital, trash your phone and get off the internet. Sorry, it's part and parcel. You don't get to dismiss the single reason why America is the leading superpower in the world, and that's science and technological advancement. I've heard the argument, and this isn't a personal shot at you- but the argument is fucking trash.

So when you say, "Each side requires faith and each side practices their own form of religion", I feel that is a wild misunderstanding of all sides of the conversation. To further extrapolate the opposing side's philosophical understanding of good and evil or right or wrong solely off your misunderstanding- that is at best intellectually dishonest.

@DozerB , you're falling in to the same trap. To what standard, indeed. Don't you worry about allah's judgment on your eating swine? Don't you just lay at night, awake, worried about his judgment? To what standard are you living your life? (Pause for dramatic effect). I have a feeling you don't worry about allah's wrath because you don't feel that's a logical reason to worry. Now, what if I told you, that there are a whole group of people that feel the SAME way about your god (and cheating on your wife or whatever) that you feel about allah? How does that make you feel? By your own standard, if allah was right, and you were wrong, wouldn't you be the wrong one?

Here is the bottom line-

Anyone claiming an objective ("true") morality on the behalf of a god must first prove their god. "Your" morality isn't "everyone's" morality. Muslims think it's moral to have women covered and beaten for offenses. The Aztec's sacrificed virgins and ripped hearts out of their enemies on a pyramid for good weather. Surprise- they were as faith-based as they come.

Regardless of what "values and ethics" may be prevalent in the region (America has judeo-christian morals, middle east countries have other moral sets), the non-faith communities in those regions don't act in accordance with those values sets; they're just moral people. It would be far more logical to believe that all humans have have an inherent compass; an inherent object morality that guides them regardless of race, religion or upbringing than it would be to assume that religion brought that morality to the region and those that live there without the dominating religion just adopted their moral edicts cause that was the ONE thing they got right. It would be much more reasonable to think that religion was imposed as a majority opinion with the underpinnings of a morality that was already apparent.

Why?

Because despite mutually exclusive, violent, and wildly varying standards between religions of "what is right or moral", humans find a way to establish a pretty clear and present line across all humanity for what is acceptable, and that defies those pesky rules each religion possesses while proclaiming they're the "right one". When is it ok to kill? Keep slaves? Oppress women? Commit genocide to tribes not your own? Well, that's where real wiggle room lies. Do as you need, with the blessing of your god.

For me, without faith, the only person I can justify things to is myself. I can tell the difference between right and wrong. I don't need a book, and I certainly don't need one that advocates and outlines slavery (all three books) or rape and torture of enemies (all three books) or dietary restrictions (all three books) or... That's enough.

The bolded is the sticky part. Faith requires a leap of logic. If you have to make the world fit in by logic, you cannot have faith.

Also, regarding my previous point which you discuss above: Reject away. I don't take it personally. Any dislike I have of you specifically lies with overuse of hair products. My point is, people who do not believe in a faith of some sort has no guardrails to in which to base their own set of any standards. The goal line can move. You can claim that X has been done in the name of God/Allah/whomever, but holy texts make it clear those people are acting outside of the faith.

 

[amlove21]

The bolded is the sticky part. Faith requires a leap of logic. If you have to make the world fit in by logic, you cannot have faith.

Also, regarding my previous point which you discuss above: Reject away. I don't take it personally. Any dislike I have of you specifically lies with overuse of hair products. My point is, people who do not believe in a faith of some sort has no guardrails to in which to base their own set of any standards. The goal line can move. You can claim that X has been done in the name of God/Allah/whomever, but holy texts make it clear those people are acting outside of the faith.

I would rather be upset by an uncomfortable truth than comforted by a convienient lie, my friend. If I need to suspend logic in order to make something work in my life- much less guide and order my life- I don’t think I want it in my life.

As for your point about guardrails and holy texts- that sort of opens the door to a huge philosophical debate that I am not sure belongs here. There was a religion thread on the board a while ago that lays a lot of it out.

I’ll paraphrase Christopher Hitchens- ‘sure, there is evil in the world. But for true evil- slavery, murder of children, torture, the worst of humanity- well for that, you’ll need religion.’

I can do all things morally, ethically, with compassion and care and be a good human. So can you, you just do it with religion, I do it because I feel that’s what humanity deserves and I don’t expect a reward for it. That doesn’t make me better than you or vice verse.

I will say that the basis of the argument- “atheists or those that are a-religious can’t be good people (or AS good) because my very specific religion has the market cornered on morality”- is a pretty fucked up thing to try and justify.

As a christian, anyway.

Follow on question- douyou believe that Christianity is the ‘one true religion’? Meaning, can Muslims be utterly moral by following the Koran? How about Jews?

 

[Devildoc]

I would rather be upset by an uncomfortable truth than comforted by a convienient lie, my friend. If I need to suspend logic in order to make something work in my life- much less guide and order my life- I don’t think I want it in my life.

As for your point about guardrails and holy texts- that sort of opens the door to a huge philosophical debate that I am not sure belongs here. There was a religion thread on the board a while ago that lays a lot of it out.

I’ll paraphrase Christopher Hitchens- ‘sure, there is evil in the world. But for true evil- slavery, murder of children, torture, the worst of humanity- well for that, you’ll need religion.’

I can do all things morally, ethically, with compassion and care and be a good human. So can you, you just do it with religion, I do it because I feel that’s what humanity deserves and I don’t expect a reward for it. That doesn’t make me better than you or vice verse.

I will say that the basis of the argument- “atheists or those that are a-religious can’t be good people (or AS good) because my very specific religion has the market cornered on morality”- is a pretty fucked up thing to try and justify.

As a christian, anyway.

Follow on question- douyou believe that Christianity is the ‘one true religion’? Meaning, can Muslims be utterly moral by following the Koran? How about Jews?

Faith is funny that way. But that is the definition: belief in something unseen and unprovable. I am sure you have it too: I am sure YOU have faith that the theories of astronomy work, you have faith that the driver next to you isn't going to ram you changing lanes. But I am not asking you to have faith in any religion or religious faith; that's not my bag.

I have already established that atheists/areligious people can be good people; I think we've beaten that dead horse.

For the follow-on question. Do I believe that Christianity is the one true religion? Of course I do. Why would I be a Christian if I didn't? As we've established it does not negate that anyone else cannot be moral (or ethical or just). But here's the thing: I would hope that anyone following their faith would believe the same thing. The way I figure it, we're all gonna find out one way or the other at some time. Do I tell people to "turn or burn," or "you're going to hell?" Of course not. Again, not my bag. I am a live-and-let-live, figuring life is hard enough to be a religious asshole.

 

[DozerB]

I don't mind having my mind changed my friend. It was a meme reference and not an actual challenge.

@DozerB , you're falling in to the same trap. To what standard, indeed. Don't you worry about allah's judgment on your eating swine? Don't you just lay at night, awake, worried about his judgment? To what standard are you living your life? (Pause for dramatic effect). I have a feeling you don't worry about allah's wrath because you don't feel that's a logical reason to worry. Now, what if I told you, that there are a whole group of people that feel the SAME way about your god (and cheating on your wife or whatever) that you feel about allah? How does that make you feel? By your own standard, if allah was right, and you were wrong, wouldn't you be the wrong one?

For me, without faith, the only person I can justify things to is myself. I can tell the difference between right and wrong. I don't need a book, and I certainly don't need one that advocates and outlines slavery (all three books) or rape and torture of enemies (all three books) or dietary restrictions (all three books) or... That's enough.

EDIT: It seems I've gotten a bit into apologetics, which was never my intention, I simply aim to lay the foundation of why I think religion (and God) is absolutely necessary if we are going to expect that other people act in accordance with a certain framework of morality. I know this is not a religion thread, so bear with me.

First of all, this is a great thread. Thinking deeply is an oft-neglected discipline in our distracted internet age. Whoever thought of this topic; well done. Preface: I'm not trying to convert anyone. But I feel there are some points about religion that must be made in order to present a fair argument regarding morality so that the same, consistently debunked catch phrases do not persist. It's important that we look at facts as they are, not as we wish them to be, and that we account for our presuppositions of "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong." Once we've done that, if you decide that you still do not agree, then more power to you.

In response to @amlove21 above, if Allah was right, and I was wrong, then yes, I would absolutely be the wrong one!

But you are presupposing that all religions and belief systems are equally valid and rational. They aren't. Almost every world religion besides Christianity relies on a private revelation to a single person who then documented their experiences. Christianity is a collection of historically reliable eyewitness testimonies about a historical event witnessed by hundreds of real human beings who were then persecuted, beaten, and then murdered for simply documenting what they witnessed because they refused to recant. Could it possibly be that there is more to it than simply "not eating pork" and writing down "dietary restrictions?" (insert vegan/Crossfit joke about martyr who refused to eat pork)

To say that all religions have equal views of dietary restrictions and rape and torture and slavery is simply false. This argument has been debunked time and time again by people who have spent decades studying the Scriptures in their original languages. To offer the same argument of, "think adultery is a sin? WELL THEN YOU BETTER NOT BE EATING SHELLFISH! OR WEARING A POLYESTER SWEATER!" shows a refusal to listen to any developed arguments about the Bible. Dietary restrictions were given in Old Testament times as a part of the ceremonial law and are no longer binding to Christians today because the sacrifice they symbolized and pointed to has been fulfilled. The moral law was given to all of mankind, in all ages. The Bible says that "the law is written on their hearts, and their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or excuse them." We often call this "conscience." But where does it come from? If we are nothing more than developed amoebas, where did this conscience come from? It certainly doesn't help us survive, or make our way to the top of the food chain, or aid in natural selection; so where does it originate? I agree that we absolutely know right vs. wrong as soon as we are old enough to think rationally, but what about those who don't share our "common sense" morality? It wasn't common sense that black people were also human beings 150 years ago, but we all would freely admit that that conclusion was false and downright evil.

"Just be a good person" philosophy certainly does not require religion. But you can't really drill down to the most foundational definition of a "good person" without inherently speaking on theological terms. Without a God, our morality will change at the whim of man's opinion. My definition of a good person might be a 180 degree difference from yours; so you telling me to "just be a good dude" means nothing if you can't give me a convincing reason why you get to define "good."

You say that you can tell the difference between right and wrong. I still would suggest that you are presupposing a definition of right and wrong that can only come from an entity external to yourself. Otherwise, you have no foundational basis upon which to say that something is right or wrong, other than what society tells you, or how you feel about something on any given day. Without absolute truth, why do slavery, or rape, or torture, or dietary restrictions even matter, anyways? Because they treat people "badly?" Badly according to who? And why should I care about that person's definition of bad? If God exists, and if He created us all, then do we not have an obligation to define "right" and "wrong" in accordance with His definition? This is where a lot of the hang up exists; we want to define love/hate, good/bad according to our own 2018 definitions of the word.

Example: people love to read the 2018 societal view of slavery in an African-American context into Old Testament readings. In B.C. times, people would often sell themselves into "slavery" (as "bondservants") to pay off an individual or family debt. Oftentimes, these people CHOSE to stay with their "masters" (employers) who provided shelter and food in exchange for their work. It translates as "slavery," but it looked almost entirely different than our current view of slavery; yet we still read our modern-day presuppositions into texts that are thousands of years old. It's a misreading of the text and it leads to faulty conclusions.

(I don't say this to convince you that Christianity is true, but simply to say that offering these irrational arguments against the Bible based on a surface level reading of the text with disregard for context and authorship is certainly an unfair misrepresentation of the actual Christian faith)

Bottom line: if morality is "within us," we really have no moral authority over anybody else. I can tell a person of fellow rank that he needs to salute me because I feel that I am deserving of his respect, yet a higher order clearly says otherwise. That means for all intents and purposes, regardless of how I feel, I am WRONG. That guy doesn't owe me anything. The same goes for morality. If right and wrong are simply feelings or opinions, the only principle that matters in the world is who has POWER and can enact their will and definitions of morality. Yet I think we can all agree that might does not necessarily make right.

P.S. Kudos to you all for some very well thought out posts. As a Christian, I think open and civilized dialogue about disagreements regarding religion, morality, ethics, etc., are all too absent from the public sphere.

 

[amlove21]

Faith is funny that way. But that is the definition: belief in something unseen and unprovable. I am sure you have it too: I am sure YOU have faith that the theories of astronomy work, you have faith that the driver next to you isn't going to ram you changing lanes. But I am not asking you to have faith in any religion or religious faith; that's not my bag.



For the follow-on question. Do I believe that Christianity is the one true religion? Of course I do. Why would I be a Christian if I didn't? As we've established it does not negate that anyone else cannot be moral (or ethical or just). But here's the thing: I would hope that anyone following their faith would believe the same thing. The way I figure it, we're all gonna find out one way or the other at some time. Do I tell people to "turn or burn," or "you're going to hell?" Of course not. Again, not my bag. I am a live-and-let-live, figuring life is hard enough to be a religious asshole.

So, the italicized above is a misrepresentation of "faith"; I feel like you're confusing "faith" with "hope" or a "wishing for the best" sort of feeling, at least for me.

I have zero "faith" that the other driver isn't going to run in to me. I expect it, actually, and prepare for it. I am super happy when it doesn't happen. I have zero "faith" that stuff like quantum theory or astrophysics work and are true; I am able to see the work myself. Gravity is a "theory", meaning the smartest people in the world have been trying for decades to prove the best "theories" we have wrong, and it hasn't worked. We have actually learned more about what we were WRONG about initially with gravity.

To stick to your traffic example- "faith" isn't hoping someone doesn't run into me, "faith" would be taking off your seatbelt, closing your eyes, and letting Jesus take the wheel. That would also be ridiculous; you have no reason to believe that the only thing that would come of that would be negative, so you have no reason to believe that acting in that way is logical. So, that's why you don't get in your car every day and go, "You know... maybe today is eyes closed no seatbelt day." You just dismiss it. That's not a lack of faith at all, is it?

To the second part- that's a pretty tough line to take isn't it? Christianity is the one true religion, ok, does that mean there is only 1 god? And that all those that don't believe in that god will be punished? I am not sure your feelings on hell or how that works for you, so I won't assume. I will say though, "Agree that you love me or I am going to torture you" is not a moral stance. I don't want to follow someone/something that has that as a base tenet.

 

[amlove21]

EDIT: It seems I've gotten a bit into apologetics, which was never my intention, I simply aim to lay the foundation of why I think religion (and God) is absolutely necessary if we are going to expect that other people act in accordance with a certain framework of morality. I know this is not a religion thread, so bear with me.


Bottom line: if morality is "within us," we really have no moral authority over anybody else. I can tell a person of fellow rank that he needs to salute me because I feel that I am deserving of his respect, yet a higher order clearly says otherwise. That means for all intents and purposes, regardless of how I feel, I am WRONG. That guy doesn't owe me anything. The same goes for morality. If right and wrong are simply feelings or opinions, the only principle that matters in the world is who has POWER and can enact their will and definitions of morality. Yet I think we can all agree that might does not necessarily make right.

Well, apologia is really one's only response when trying to square a circle, my friend.

Just some notes- I like the conversation too, but just be wary about misrepresenting what someone says (for instance, I didn't say "..that all religions and belief systems are equally valid and rational..." as a matter of fact, I have continued to say the opposite. I think none of them are valid, or rational. I do feel that equally, though. I have no presupposition that one religion is equal to, better than or less than any other.). I get that you have some talking points you want to get across, but you did it a couple times.

I was hoping someone would bring up moral authority, though. Because it keeps in line with the overall theme of the thread.

Let's do this. Let's say all these things are true- there is one god, you found it, it orders your life, the holy text of choice is accurate and provable, and that god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent. That last one is important.

I'll even be willing to ignore tons of other things- the Epicurean question of evil, the first cause/special pleading argument, all of it. It's all good.

Why do you feel god holds moral authority? How do you think things would go without a singular point of moral authority? If you're right (and its obvious you're passionate about the subject), why isn't this moral authority already clear? How could there be any dissenting moral positions if the above is all true?

 

[DozerB]

So, the italicized above is a misrepresentation of "faith"; I feel like you're confusing "faith" with "hope" or a "wishing for the best" sort of feeling, at least for me.

I have zero "faith" that the other driver isn't going to run in to me. I expect it, actually, and prepare for it. I am super happy when it doesn't happen. I have zero "faith" that stuff like quantum theory or astrophysics work and are true; I am able to see the work myself. Gravity is a "theory", meaning the smartest people in the world have been trying for decades to prove the best "theories" we have wrong, and it hasn't worked. We have actually learned more about what we were WRONG about initially with gravity.

To stick to your traffic example- "faith" isn't hoping someone doesn't run into me, "faith" would be taking off your seatbelt, closing your eyes, and letting Jesus take the wheel. That would also be ridiculous; you have no reason to believe that the only thing that would come of that would be negative, so you have no reason to believe that acting in that way is logical. So, that's why you don't get in your car every day and go, "You know... maybe today is eyes closed no seatbelt day." You just dismiss it. That's not a lack of faith at all, is it?

To the second part- that's a pretty tough line to take isn't it? Christianity is the one true religion, ok, does that mean there is only 1 god? And that all those that don't believe in that god will be punished? I am not sure your feelings on hell or how that works for you, so I won't assume. I will say though, "Agree that you love me or I am going to torture you" is not a moral stance. I don't want to follow someone/something that has that as a base tenet.

I think this is a misrepresentation of “justice.” If God created the world, including you, and is perfectly holy and just, and has given His moral law, requiring perfect obedience; then any want of conformity to that law is by definition “sin.” By this logic, all of humankind are sinners and deserve God’s justice. God would have still been just if he had left all of humankind to face his deserved justice; we (proudly) violate his law every second of every day.

But He didn’t, and that’s the underlying basis of the Christian faith. The second person of the trinity (Jesus) lived the perfect life that we couldn’t and suffered the penalty for sin that we deserve. By believing in this, we receive His righteousness as our own and stand before God as if we had never sinned. He doesn’t say “obey me or be tortured.” He knows we can never fully obey him for we are born in sin. He offers a scapegoat to take the blame for our sin; Christ, his own sin. Thousands of people saw him and followed him while he was on Earth, witnessed his death, and his resurrection. He fulfilled everything He ever said He would and people have been martyred for telling others the truth of what they witnessed.

In His grace, He didn’t only offer a way out from his justice, he SATISFIED his justice on another. That is the good news. Christianity says: you’re a sinner and have no hope of life on your own but have hope in the sacrifice of Jesus. That’s why we believe God is merciful.

A judge who simply allowed a murderer to be pardoned from his crime certainly wouldn’t be just. Why do we expect a wink and a nod from God, then?

 

[Devildoc]

So, the italicized above is a misrepresentation of "faith"; I feel like you're confusing "faith" with "hope" or a "wishing for the best" sort of feeling, at least for me.

I have zero "faith" that the other driver isn't going to run in to me. I expect it, actually, and prepare for it. I am super happy when it doesn't happen. I have zero "faith" that stuff like quantum theory or astrophysics work and are true; I am able to see the work myself. Gravity is a "theory", meaning the smartest people in the world have been trying for decades to prove the best "theories" we have wrong, and it hasn't worked. We have actually learned more about what we were WRONG about initially with gravity.

To stick to your traffic example- "faith" isn't hoping someone doesn't run into me, "faith" would be taking off your seatbelt, closing your eyes, and letting Jesus take the wheel. That would also be ridiculous; you have no reason to believe that the only thing that would come of that would be negative, so you have no reason to believe that acting in that way is logical. So, that's why you don't get in your car every day and go, "You know... maybe today is eyes closed no seatbelt day." You just dismiss it. That's not a lack of faith at all, is it?

To the second part- that's a pretty tough line to take isn't it? Christianity is the one true religion, ok, does that mean there is only 1 god? And that all those that don't believe in that god will be punished? I am not sure your feelings on hell or how that works for you, so I won't assume. I will say though, "Agree that you love me or I am going to torture you" is not a moral stance. I don't want to follow someone/something that has that as a base tenet.

I am not misrepresenting faith. Nor will I trade it for luck, or hoping for the best. They are not synonymous; at least not to me. Driving blind, that's just stupid. I don't know a single Christian--or any other follower of any religion--who would do such a thing. That's not faith, at all. But if someone does do it, claiming to do it having faith, then they have a very misplaced understanding of faith.

 

[DozerB]

Well, apologia is really one's only response when trying to square a circle, my friend.

Just some notes- I like the conversation too, but just be wary about misrepresenting what someone says (for instance, I didn't say "..that all religions and belief systems are equally valid and rational..." as a matter of fact, I have continued to say the opposite. I think none of them are valid, or rational. I do feel that equally, though. I have no presupposition that one religion is equal to, better than or less than any other.). I get that you have some talking points you want to get across, but you did it a couple times.

I was hoping someone would bring up moral authority, though. Because it keeps in line with the overall theme of the thread.

Let's do this. Let's say all these things are true- there is one god, you found it, it orders your life, the holy text of choice is accurate and provable, and that god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent. That last one is important.

I'll even be willing to ignore tons of other things- the Epicurean question of evil, the first cause/special pleading argument, all of it. It's all good.

Why do you feel god holds moral authority? How do you think things would go without a singular point of moral authority? If you're right (and its obvious you're passionate about the subject), why isn't this moral authority already clear? How could there be any dissenting moral positions if the above is all true?

Great questions and great discussion. God holds moral authority because He is, by definition, God. The Bible says He is perfect, holy, blameless, and IS justice. Therefore his law represents perfect morality. The moral authority seems clear to me; our conscience convicts us of what is right and wrong, though we often ignore it (for we are sinners). The answer is that we are born in sin and our flesh rebels against the one true God, and it has done so ever since Adam first sinned in Genesis. Since then we have waged a cosmic war against God and have rebelled and defied Him in every way possible. We know adultery is wrong, yet we still look lustfully at other women. Why? Because we are sinners. Sin will be a part of us until we reach heaven. But a Christian believes that when you are born again (“converted”), God enables you to keep his law more and more obediently (never perfectly, but in increasing sanctification).

The Bible is clear that fallen, natural, sinful man will ignore, defy, and revel against God until he is converted and his eyes are opened.

Again, great discussion. I am only passionate about this because I’ve been on both sides of the spectrum. Once I started to deeply study the Bible, I began to see that the Scriptures spoke of a God who lovingly took my sin and mercifully spared His own son for me. My idea of God changed from a power hungry dictator who enjoys torturing atheists to a perfectly, just, merciful Father who extends his grace to all. He is all loving, but He is also completely just; He MUST punish sin. This is easier to accept in cultures where sin often has very tangible effects, I.e. when your family is kidnapped and raped and tortured by warring tribes, you have a hard time believing in a God who DOESN’T punish sinners.

 

[amlove21]

I am not misrepresenting faith. Nor will I trade it for luck, or hoping for the best. They are not synonymous; at least not to me. Driving blind, that's just stupid. I don't know a single Christian--or any other follower of any religion--who would do such a thing. That's not faith, at all. But if someone does do it, claiming to do it having faith, then they have a very misplaced understanding of faith.

Well, yeah, it wasn't literal, man, more like a thought experiment to talk about faith. I'll just say this- I think we apply the definition of "faith" differently. I don't have "faith" in anything, really. I do have hope, I do have a sense that things can/are/will be ok in the future.

...If God created the world, including you, and is perfectly holy and just, and has given His moral law, requiring perfect obedience; then any want of conformity to that law is by definition “sin.” By this logic, all of humankind are sinners and deserve God’s justice. God would have still been just if he had left all of humankind to face his deserved justice; we (proudly) violate his law every second of every day.

...The second person of the trinity (Jesus) lived the perfect life that we couldn’t and suffered the penalty for sin that we deserve....He knows we can never fully obey him for we are born in sin. He offers a scapegoat to take the blame for our sin; Christ, his own sin.

In His grace, He didn’t only offer a way out from his justice, he SATISFIED his justice on another. That is the good news. Christianity says: you’re a sinner and have no hope of life on your own but have hope in the sacrifice of Jesus. That’s why we believe God is merciful.

A judge who simply allowed a murderer to be pardoned from his crime certainly wouldn’t be just. Why do we expect a wink and a nod from God, then?

I kept some parts (not all) of your quote. As always, someone has already said it better than me, so I won't pretend.


“Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years.

Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,' and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person.

Why am I glad this is the case? To get to the point of the wrongness of Christianity, because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral. The central one is the most immoral of all, and that is the one of vicarious redemption. You can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating. In fact, originating as scapegoating in the same area, the same desert. I can pay your debt if I love you. I can serve your term in prison if I love you very much. I can volunteer to do that. I can't take your sins away, because I can't abolish your responsibility, and I shouldn't offer to do so. Your responsibility has to stay with you. There's no vicarious redemption. There very probably, in fact, is no redemption at all. It's just a part of wish-thinking, and I don't think wish-thinking is good for people either.

It even manages to pollute the central question, the word I just employed, the most important word of all: the word love, by making love compulsory, by saying you MUST love. You must love your neighbour as yourself, something you can't actually do. You'll always fall short, so you can always be found guilty. By saying you must love someone who you also must fear. That's to say a supreme being, an eternal father, someone of whom you must be afraid, but you must love him, too. If you fail in this duty, you're again a wretched sinner. This is not mentally or morally or intellectually healthy.

And that brings me to the final objection - I'll condense it, Dr. Orlafsky - which is, this is a totalitarian system. If there was a God who could do these things and demand these things of us, and he was eternal and unchanging, we'd be living under a dictatorship from which there is no appeal, and one that can never change and one that knows our thoughts and can convict us of thought crime, and condemn us to eternal punishment for actions that we are condemned in advance to be taking. All this in the round, and I could say more, it's an excellent thing that we have absolutely no reason to believe any of it to be true.”

All other religions have the same amount (some more, some far less) of things you need to have "faith" to believe. Talking donkeys, dragons, flying horses, worldwide floods, stone tablets, magic hammers, 8 armed elephant headed cult leaders, alchemy of all types, the list goes on and on. To believe that the person (thing? It? god?) involved in those stories occupies some sort of moral high ground that you have and I don't because you're willing to take it on "faith"? No thanks. I don't recognize that as moral.

 

[DozerB]

Well, yeah, it wasn't literal, man, more like a thought experiment to talk about faith. I'll just say this- I think we apply the definition of "faith" differently. I don't have "faith" in anything, really. I do have hope, I do have a sense that things can/are/will be ok in the future.


I kept some parts (not all) of your quote. As always, someone has already said it better than me, so I won't pretend.


“Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years.

Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,' and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person.

Why am I glad this is the case? To get to the point of the wrongness of Christianity, because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral. The central one is the most immoral of all, and that is the one of vicarious redemption. You can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating. In fact, originating as scapegoating in the same area, the same desert. I can pay your debt if I love you. I can serve your term in prison if I love you very much. I can volunteer to do that. I can't take your sins away, because I can't abolish your responsibility, and I shouldn't offer to do so. Your responsibility has to stay with you. There's no vicarious redemption. There very probably, in fact, is no redemption at all. It's just a part of wish-thinking, and I don't think wish-thinking is good for people either.

It even manages to pollute the central question, the word I just employed, the most important word of all: the word love, by making love compulsory, by saying you MUST love. You must love your neighbour as yourself, something you can't actually do. You'll always fall short, so you can always be found guilty. By saying you must love someone who you also must fear. That's to say a supreme being, an eternal father, someone of whom you must be afraid, but you must love him, too. If you fail in this duty, you're again a wretched sinner. This is not mentally or morally or intellectually healthy.

And that brings me to the final objection - I'll condense it, Dr. Orlafsky - which is, this is a totalitarian system. If there was a God who could do these things and demand these things of us, and he was eternal and unchanging, we'd be living under a dictatorship from which there is no appeal, and one that can never change and one that knows our thoughts and can convict us of thought crime, and condemn us to eternal punishment for actions that we are condemned in advance to be taking. All this in the round, and I could say more, it's an excellent thing that we have absolutely no reason to believe any of it to be true.”

All other religions have the same amount (some more, some far less) of things you need to have "faith" to believe. Talking donkeys, dragons, flying horses, worldwide floods, stone tablets, magic hammers, 8 armed elephant headed cult leaders, alchemy of all types, the list goes on and on. To believe that the person (thing? It? god?) involved in those stories occupies some sort of moral high ground that you have and I don't because you're willing to take it on "faith"? No thanks. I don't recognize that as moral.

I would still argue that you are subjecting an external, eternal, unchanging, objective being to your notion of what is moral. You are essentially putting an uncontainable, perfect being on trial for not conforming to your fallen, sinful, finite conception of what He should and should not do/be.

Maybe God’s purposes for creation don’t necessarily fall in the lines of what his created beings demand? Scripture says no mind can conceive what God has done from beginning to end. I can’t even grasp the totality of outer space; how will I truly comprehend the One who spoke it into being?

If the God of the Bible is real, we will never fully grasp His essence in our current fallen state. But he has given us a choice in the way that He has revealed Himself; accept his offer of salvation in Christ or perish in our sin. We often use God’s standard of morality by which to say that God is in fact wrong. What seem like “contradictions” in the human mind (man’s responsibility vs. God’s sovereignty) are never spoken of as mutually exclusive of one another in the Bible. Isn’t it possible that we don’t see all that God sees?

 

[Devildoc]

To believe that the person (thing? It? god?) involved in those stories occupies some sort of moral high ground that you have and I don't because you're willing to take it on "faith"? No thanks. I don't recognize that as moral.

I occupy no moral high ground. I have what I have because of God; I recognize that if I follow Biblical instructions I will have, and lead, a moral (but far from perfect) life. I cannot recognize that morality is some sort of innate, bio-neuro mechanism; if science can show otherwise, I will allow myself to change my mind.

I don't know whom you quoted in the italicized previously, but whomever it was had no understanding of Christianity or the Bible.

 

[amlove21]

Isn’t it possible that we don’t see all that God sees?

Sure, but isn't it also possible that there isn't a god?

I occupy no moral high ground. I have what I have because of God; I recognize that if I follow Biblical instructions I will have, and lead, a moral (but far from perfect) life. I cannot recognize that morality is some sort of innate, bio-neuro mechanism; if science can show otherwise, I will allow myself to change my mind.

I don't know whom you quoted in the italicized previously, but whomever it was had no understanding of Christianity or the Bible.

Ok, I get what you're saying. Why do you think that person had no understanding of either?

 

[Box]

I don't know whom you quoted in the italicized previously, but whomever it was had no understanding of Christianity or the Bible.

...I believe it is Christopher Hitchens - One of Forbes 'Top-25' influential liberals. A social critic that was a stauch supporters of the religion of 'Modern Contrarianism' - he would probably argue over the use of happy VS glad or small dog VS puppy - NOT because they are different words but because some people just like to tell you that you are wrong.

I could be wrong

 

[amlove21]

...I believe it is Christopher Hitchens - One of Forbes 'Top-25' influential liberals. A social critic that was a stauch supporters of the religion of 'Modern Contrarianism' - he would probably argue over the use of happy VS glad or small dog VS puppy - NOT because they are different words but because some people just like to tell you that you are wrong.

I could be wrong

You're not wrong- at least not about who it was.

 

[Gunz]

Goddam I need a drink.

 

[DozerB]

Sure, but isn't it also possible that there isn't a god?


Ok, I get what you're saying. Why do you think that person had no understanding of either?

I don't believe the human mind really gives us that option. I can't logically believe that the Universe was caused by an uncaused, inanimate explosion that, billions of years later, has led to you and I neatly discussing the foundation of different frameworks of morality. I don't have nearly enough faith to believe that all of this just ordered itself over billions of years. Amoebas certainly don't discuss morality. Even chimps don't discuss morality, nor do they have a conscious sense of a mysterious internal law that guides their actions that they feel should be morally binding upon others. They simply live and survive with no thought of a higher power. Explosions don't result in an ordered Universe. Year after year I hear that the O-zone layer is going to disappear, and that a giant meteor is headed for Earth, yet here we are. I can't help but believe we are being upheld, sustained, and governed by a Creator far more powerful, wise, and just than us. And I've seen Him work in my own life, bringing me from a skeptic of the Bible to a full-hearted believer that it is in fact the Word of God revealed to man in time and space. And as the Creator of all things, He demands justice; what kind of God would He be if he didn't?

Nature, logic, the laws of motion, mathematical constants, and morality all tell me that things can not be both "a thing" and "not a thing." God is either real, or he's not. This is an absolute truth. And this absolute truth in turn points me back to what HAS to be an absolute truth giver. Otherwise, I can't make sense of anything.

All this being said, as a Christian, I believe it when the Bible says that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and that is not my intention. Christianity says that true belief is a supernatural act of God in the heart of man that changes his entire nature; I definitely don't believe I'm going to affect this same kind of change by presenting you with rock layer diagrams. But I do appreciate your thorough and thoughtful questions.

This has been a fruitful discussion, for sure. It’s never a bad thing to talk through our convictions.

 

[amlove21]

I don't believe the human mind really gives us that option. I can't logically believe that the Universe was caused by an uncaused, inanimate explosion that, billions of years later, has led to you and I neatly discussing the foundation of different frameworks of morality. I don't have nearly enough faith to be an atheist. Amoebas don't discuss morality. Even chimps don't discuss morality, nor do they have a conscious sense of a mysterious internal law that guides their actions that they feel should be morally binding upon others. They simply live and survive with no thought of a higher power. Explosions don't result in order. Year after year I hear that O-zone layer is going to disappear, and that a giant meteor is headed for Earth, yet here we are. I can't help but believe we are being upheld, sustained, and governed by a Creator far more powerful, wise, and just than us. And I've seen Him work in my own life, bringing me from a skeptic of the Bible to a full-hearted believer that it is in fact the Word of God revealed to man in time and space.

Nature, logic, the laws of motion, mathematical constants, and morality all tell me that things can not be both "a thing" and "not a thing." God is either real, or he's not. This is an absolute truth. And this absolute truth in turn points me back to what HAS to be an absolute truth giver. Otherwise, I can't make sense of anything.

All this being said, as a Christian, I believe it when the Bible says that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and that is not my intention. Christianity says that true belief is a supernatural act of God in the heart of man that changes his entire nature; I definitely don't believe I'm going to affect this same kind of change by presenting you with rock layer diagrams.

I've always said that conversations like these aren't usually for the benefit of the two people having them, they're usually for the people reading or hearing them and trying to think outside of their own "lane" or scope. I don't intend to question anyone's faith at all- truth be told, I am happy that you found something in your life that gives you peace or joy or a sense of "okayness". As long as you're not harming anyone else, have at it. I would say that for practitioners of all faiths. Well, except scientology. That shit's made up.

I understand your intent with what you said; I won't hit you on semantics or fallacies (lots, and lots in the bolded) or the like cause that's rarely productive...

... except for this one thing.

I am an atheist- I have zero faith. It's the lack of faith in any sort of higher power. I don't hate any deities, I'm not mad at anyone, I just don't believe in any of that. Ghosts? Nope. Elvis alive? Nope. Actual "miracles"? Never happened. All I am saying is, "I don't believe you"; so there's really no faith to be had.

Put simply; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And after 20 years of being strict Roman Catholic and now the last 18 of being an atheist but still searching for that truth with eyes wide open, I have no reason to believe in any of that. I don't need faith to take that position.